The OSMF board has reviewed the complaint about #Crimea in #OpenStreetMap and decided to overrule the DWG. I am curious to read more (only a short announcement now), and curious what policy #OSM should use now for disputed areas/names.
#OpenStreetMap's long standing rule that "country borders in OSM match de facto physical control" means Crimea is shown as part of Russia, not Ukraine. This has upset people. I am totally open to a new rule. I just haven't really heard any suggestions.
But maybe there is some rule that #OSM can use, maybe I've missed something. Ideally you want a rule that will give one answer. Otherwise you have an edit war between mappers.
A rule that gives one unambiguous answer might not be possible, I suspect.
Effective control of the territory is the best I can think of, really, if you want one answer.
Or you can remove the single-answer requirement and split the definition of boundaries into multiple definitions: effective, according to UN res. X, Y or Z, as claimed by A, as claimed by B, …
I haven't looked into boundary mapping, I think this may be the current practice already.
As for map rendering, everyone can choose their flavour, as in Israel (or their neighbours, e.g., Saudi maps often just left a blank between Gaza/Egypt and the West Bank/Jordan. 🙂).
The OSM.org tiles are not the map: they are one of many possible, all imperfect, representations of the map. We can always vote on which one to use. The losers can either accept it or sod off and run their own project.
@61 In OSM, borders, and countries, are mapped with the border being where de facto physical control is.
I have a proposal to add the ability to map "according to X, Y, Z"
Which one of the resolutions?
In Israel we had three or four lines on the "normal" maps: the "green" line, the "blue" line, the "67" line, … I don't recall if any of them were called a "border", I think not.
Of course, different people also used different maps as it suited their political leanings.