Districts in Crimea

Communities Україна (Ukraine)
1

Participant Glassman, who is also a DWG member, has unarguably reverted two (#1, #2) changesets of edits.
According to his comment to changeset

reverted changeset for edits during a conflict.

the reverting is due to a «conflict», but there is no conflict — no other edits, no comments.

As we know, on 05/06/2014 DWG passed a resolution with paragraph 1 authorizing the creation of multiple administrative boundaries in both countries:

1. Edits to the administrative boundary for the region.

In the short-term Crimea shall remain in both the Ukraine and Russia administrative relations, and be indicated as disputed. We recognize that being in two administrative relations is not a good long-term solution, although the region is likely to be indicated as disputed for some time.

The DWG is aware that data consumers may have problems with the database indicating the region is part of two countries.

In the changesets #1 and #2 was:

  1. Created the relation for Feodosia district, which was created on 07.09.2023 according to the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 17.07.2020 #807-IX “About establishment and liquidation of districts”.
  1. Changed the relation of the Kurman district: added the tag of the previous name old_name=Красногвардійський район according to the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 12.05.2016 #1352-VIII “About the renaming of individual settlements and districts of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol”.
  1. Changed the relation of the Yedyquyu district: added the tag of the previous name old_name=Ленінський район according to the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 12.05.2016 #1352-VIII “About the renaming of individual settlements and districts of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol”.
  1. Changed the relation of the Sudak municipality:

This object was left as historical in contradiction with the recommendation Don’t map historic events and historic features due to the fact that after the DWG resolution in 05/06/2014 and up to now, there have been corrections of administrative boundaries in Crimea and Sevastopol. The accuracy of the markings and correctness of the changes to the administrative boundaries in Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol needs to be rechecked, but at the moment, the Ukrainian cadastre is offline due to the war — it is for further rechecking of the correctness of the boundaries that this object was left in place.

  1. Changed the relation of the Feodosiya municipality:

This object was left as historical in contradiction with the recommendation Don’t map historic events and historic features due to the fact that after the DWG resolution in 05/06/2014 and up to now, there have been corrections of administrative boundaries in Crimea and Sevastopol. The accuracy of the markings and correctness of the changes to the administrative boundaries in Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol needs to be rechecked, but at the moment, the Ukrainian cadastre is offline due to the war — it is for further rechecking of the correctness of the boundaries that this object was left in place.

  1. Changed the relation of the Perekop district: changed the tag of the previous name old_name=Красноперекопский район to old_name=Красноперекопський район according to the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 17.07.2020 #807-IX “About establishment and liquidation of districts”, DWG resolution, recommendations Good practice (Keep the history & Keep the history - OpenStreetMap Wiki) — as you can see in the history of this object, it was created on 16/09/2011 by _sev, who is also currently a DWG member, and was used to mark the area within the internationally recognized boundaries, which is confirmed by the name of the object when it was created, as well as the addition of the Ukrainian classifier tag. Illegal objects of such a classifier code do not have.
  1. Changed the node of the Islam-Terek/Kirovskoe town:
  1. Changed the relation of the Islamterek district:

This object was left as historical in contradiction with the recommendation Don’t map historic events and historic features due to the fact that after the DWG resolution in 05/06/2014 and up to now, there have been corrections of administrative boundaries in Crimea and Sevastopol. The accuracy of the markings and correctness of the changes to the administrative boundaries in Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol needs to be rechecked, but at the moment, the Ukrainian cadastre is offline due to the war — it is for further rechecking of the correctness of the boundaries that this object was left in place.

  1. Changed the relation of the Ichki district:

This object was left as historical in contradiction with the recommendation Don’t map historic events and historic features due to the fact that after the DWG resolution in 05/06/2014 and up to now, there have been corrections of administrative boundaries in Crimea and Sevastopol. The accuracy of the markings and correctness of the changes to the administrative boundaries in Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol needs to be rechecked, but at the moment, the Ukrainian cadastre is offline due to the war — it is for further rechecking of the correctness of the boundaries that this object was left in place.

  1. Historical administrative units (Relation: ‪Sudak municipality‬ (‪1754563‬) | OpenStreetMap, Relation: ‪Feodosiya City Council‬ (‪1754565‬) | OpenStreetMap, Relation: ‪Alushta City Council‬ (‪1754551‬) | OpenStreetMap, Relation: ‪Yalta city municipality‬ (‪1574578‬) | OpenStreetMap, Relation: ‪Sovetskiy District‬ (‪1754562‬) | OpenStreetMap, Relation: ‪Kirovske Raion‬ (‪1754556‬) | OpenStreetMap) are excluded from the relation Autonomous Republic of Crimea as subarea role, added new district Relation: 19162115 | OpenStreetMap, according to the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 17.07.2020 #807-IX “About establishment and liquidation of districts”.

This objects was left as historical in contradiction with the recommendation Don’t map historic events and historic features due to the fact that after the DWG resolution in 05/06/2014 and up to now, there have been corrections of administrative boundaries in Crimea and Sevastopol. The accuracy of the markings and correctness of the changes to the administrative boundaries in Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol needs to be rechecked, but at the moment, the Ukrainian cadastre is offline due to the war — it is for further rechecking of the correctness of the boundaries that this object was left in place.

  1. Historical administrative units of Ukraine (Relation: ‪Sovetskiy District‬ (‪1754562‬) | OpenStreetMap, Relation: ‪Kirovske Raion‬ (‪1754556‬) | OpenStreetMap) are excluded from the illegal relation, including in accordance with Russian Federation legislation, like those who are not related to this object: they were created and edited before the DWG resolution as areas of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which is confirmed: acording recommendations Good practice (Keep the history & Keep the history - OpenStreetMap Wiki) — as you can see in the Relation History: ‪Sovetskiy District‬ (‪1754562‬) | OpenStreetMap & Relation History: ‪Kirovske Raion‬ (‪1754556‬) | OpenStreetMap), it was created on 16/09/2011 by _sev, who is also currently a DWG member, and was used to mark the area within the internationally recognized boundaries, which is confirmed by the name of the object when it was created, as well as the addition of the Ukrainian classifier tag. Illegal objects of such a classifier code do not have.

Recently, I received a prelimination from Glassman, without the details of blocking the prelimination, to which I requested detailed information from it and explained what I understood based on his unknotized warning:

Spoiler #1

Glassman 30 May 2025 at 12:32

Hello.

About objects in Crimea: I am extremely careful to make edits within Crimea and solely within the framework of the resolution Working Group Minutes/DWG 2014-06-05 Special Crimea - OpenStreetMap Foundation, to avoid proceedings, but this does not exclude the fact that some participants who support the terrorist Russian regime (such as osm.org/user/Grass-snake) are trying to get me blocked in every possible way.

Thus, according to paragraph 1 of the DWG resolution, the administrative boundaries in Crimea are marked in the two administrative boundaries of the countries. The objects under discussion:

are administrative boundaries osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative. All of them were created in 2011 to designate administrative districts of Ukraine. That said, almost all of them were created by _sev osm.org/user/_sev, who is now a member of DWG, so you can ask him directly which objects these relationships were created for. According to the recommendation of osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history, it is recommended to keep the history of editing the object. The editing history of all these objects shows that the objects were created to be displayed primarily within the internationally recognized administrative boundaries of Ukraine. The fact that some participants, supporting the terrorist Russian regime, included these objects in their illegal attitude too, could have been admissible before the enactment of the resolutions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on renaming of districts https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1352-19, as well as on liquidation of districts and creation of new ones https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/807-20, which took place on 07.09.2023. After the DWG resolution on Crimea, there were edits to the boundaries of these objects. At the moment the cadastre of Ukraine is unavailable due to the war. The districts that were renamed and eliminated were marked as boundary=historic osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dhistoric, as the new objects-districts were created on the basis of the previous ones and it will be necessary to recheck these boundaries when the cadastre of Ukraine is available. To avoid repeating incorrect edits, the tags addr:country=UA + is_in:country Ukraine + is_in:country_code=UA were added to these objects.

The object osm.org/relation/1574582 has not changed its boundaries, but there is a significant difference between this district and what exists illegally, as added note for the property that refers to the property boundaries. Therefore, the object was also marked as addr:country=UA + is_in:country Ukraine + is_in:country_code=UA.

About the underground reservoir: I didn’t modify the underwater tank into a military bunker, I created this object — osm.org/way/1103976234/history. That’s where you went wrong. This complaint is simply an attempt to increase the number of baseless complaints by the above mentioned participants, as evidenced by their even public posts on the forum Vandalism report - #73 by Stalker61. There’s a war going on between the states. Yes, there are those who support terrorists and send complaints. The mere existence of one or more complaints should not be a reason to block users.

About:

Additionally, I am requesting that you refrain from editing in Russia. Past edits in this area have contributed to prolonged edit conflicts, and we want to avoid further disruption.

What exactly are the objects and what is the rationale behind such a report of yours? Again, creating complaints and stakeholder edits is not the reason for blocking. I and some other participants can also create numerous complaints against participants osm.org/user/Grass-snake and osm.org/user/Stalker61 and get them blocked, but why? I don’t have the time or inclination to deal with blocking them, especially since there are no mechanisms to stop their edits from other accounts.

I haven’t seen any specific complaints from you about my edits. One or more complaints from participants, as well as the fact that I sometimes edit objects that other participants may not like, especially those who support the terrorist Russian regime, is not a violation of the rules osm.wiki/How_We_Map and recommendations of the community osm.wiki/Good_practice, and cannot be the basis for blocking me.

If you have a complaint regarding my edits, please describe specifically what and where I violated it. Mistakes can indeed be made, we are all human.

Regards, Mazda05

To which I received a second response again without a warning detail:

Spoiler #2

Glassman 31 May 2025 at 02:57

Mazda05,
Let me point out changeset 166613309 where you created the relation/19162115 which added an admin level 6 boundary in Crimea with the tag is_in:country=Ukraine. The relation wasn’t an historic boundary either which may be acceptable. That edit appears to conflict with the agreement on edits in Crimea.

And you do admit adding a military bunker in Russia. I am happy to take back my complaint on the bunker if you can provide me with ground proof it exist. Otherwise it is wrong.

I’m going to ask you one last time to please refrain from edits in Russia and to make edits in Crimea that comply with the DWG guidelines.

I understand that Russian mappers can be a problem. I’m happy to work on a ticket if you see them making wrong edits.

Best,
Clifford Snow
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group

After which I again requested the details of his comments and not to edit objects:

Spoiler #3

Glassman 31 May 2025 at 08:40

On 2025-05-31 02:57:53 UTC Glassman wrote:

Let me point out changeset 166613309 where you created the relation/19162115 which added an admin level 6 boundary in Crimea with the tag is_in:country=Ukraine. The relation wasn’t an historic boundary either which may be acceptable. That edit appears to conflict with the agreement on edits in Crimea.

What exactly does this conflict? The object, osm.org/relation/19162115, was added per the changes effective 07.09.2023 per resolution https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/807-20 and is type=boundary + boundary=administrative — it is an administrative boundary. According to paragraph 1 of the DWG resolution https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2014-06-05_Special_Crimea: “1. Edits to the administrative boundary for the region. In the short-term Crimea shall remain in both the Ukraine and Russia administrative relations, and be indicated as disputed. We recognize that being in two administrative relations is not a good long-term solution, although the region is likely to be indicated as disputed for some time.”. I do not see any contradictions and prohibitions, moreover, this paragraph directly prescribes the presence of administrative borders of both countries in Crimea. There are also no restrictions on historic or non-historic boundaries.

And you do admit adding a military bunker in Russia. I am happy to take back my complaint on the bunker if you can provide me with ground proof it exist. Otherwise it is wrong.

You accused me of altering an underground reservoir into a military bunker osm.org/user_blocks/18303: “including changing an underground reservoir to a military bunker and Russia”. I didn’t do that. It’s evident in the history of the object osm.org/way/1103976234/history. You’re wrong. I have not created any appeals or complaints about the object and I see no problem with marking this facility as an underground reservoir. Changed the military bunker into an underground reservoir by participant osm.org/user/Stalker61. I don’t see a problem with that. If it were a problem — I would change the object as described in the OSM wiki, providing arguments for doing so. As I reported earlier: his complaint about this facility is simply an artificial increase in the number of unargumented complaints.

I’m going to ask you one last time to please refrain from edits in Russia

For what reason?

and to make edits in Crimea that comply with the DWG guidelines.

For what reason? My changes in Crimea are consistent with DWG’s resolution on Crimea Working Group Minutes/DWG 2014-06-05 Special Crimea - OpenStreetMap Foundation. If you have any remarks— please provide details

I understand that Russian mappers can be a problem. I’m happy to work on a ticket if you see them making wrong edits.

Thank you, but I don’t have time for this useless endeavor, unlike them.

There was no answer from him. What are we observing? DWG member gives recommendations not to edit objects without giving repeated requests for the causes of such recommendations.
After which there is a rollback of changes.
Such actions (recommendations do not edit objects for this, the lack of a response to a request for detailing such a recommendation, the rollback of changes despite the fact that in general they are explained to it directly) from Glassman, I consider it unacceptable from the DWG member, as well as biased.

In reality, there is a war between states and people. The region of the right is extremely scrupulous, which is confirmed by the presence of a DWG resolution for this region. All complaints in this region should be considered very carefully and essentially, especially from participants who support the aggressor and its terrorist actions.

I ask you to cancel this rollback as soon as possible, as well as henceforth carefully deal with complaints sent to DWG.

Best Regards, Mazda05.

2

Член DWG на жаль все зробив правильно
Згідно головного правилу проекту on the ground адміністративно територіальні одиниці Криму картографуються по російськи
Справа в тому шо у разі якшо територія є спірною між двома країною то адміністративно територіальні одиниці тобто райони картографуються так як вони є на даний час фактично Зараз райони мають фактично тобто якшо приїхати в Крим російсько радянські назви
за правилом проекту on the ground їх картографування російською мовою уname є правильним
Те шо DWG визнає Крим українським вже є добрим бо я пам ятаю як колись DWG скасувало своє рішення шо Крим український Добре шо на DWG у Лондоні нажали і вони передумали і повернули multypoligon зв’язок Україна до Криму
Рекомендація поки Крим окупований лізти українцям туди немає сенсу
Коли звільнимо простіше буде просто поробити реверти наслідків дій московитів ніж розгрібатись у наслідках війн редагування між українцями та московитами

3

Це не так. Ретельно ознайомтесь з резолюцією DWG щодо цього:
https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2014-06-05_Special_Crimea

  1. Edits to the administrative boundary for the region.

In the short-term Crimea shall remain in both the Ukraine and Russia administrative relations, and be indicated as disputed. We recognize that being in two administrative relations is not a good long-term solution, although the region is likely to be indicated as disputed for some time.

The DWG is aware that data consumers may have problems with the database indicating the region is part of two countries.

  1. Edits adding tags indicating that objects are in one country or another, such as addr:country on objects which would not normally have any addr tags.

These edits should be avoided. They do not generally have the impact the user intended in the cases we have seen, as the tags added are not generally used by data consumers. addr:country should not be added to individual objects, or added from existing ones; instead the admin boundaries provide adequate indications of country status.

4

Адміністративні кордони boundary=administrative не є об’єктами, які наявні на землі (on the ground).

5

Воювать з йобнутим на голову дегенеративним сбродом кацапів то тратити час впустую

У цій ситуації ти нікому нічого не докажеш
Забий болт і роби корисне те шо ти зараз робиш на Донбасі
Потерпи за моїми оцінками у першій половині 2026 року Крим буде звільннено від московитського сброда

6

is_in seems to be questionable due to As of March 2019, JOSM recommends deleting this tag and all its variations[1] as no longer needed.

7

OpenStreetMap is not a forum for politics. […] The Data Working Group (DWG) can be asked to act in case of serious disputes.

Since this involves political territorial entities, contacting DWG seems to be the only way to resolve it.

8

Привіт, я вже писав у російській темі (і Mazda05 це бачив). Повторю в цьому розділі.

Раніше в Криму було 2 види об’єктів:

  • “Загальні” об’єкти (які входили в обидві “структури”), в цьому випадку адресних тегів (addr:country=*, is_in:country=*, is_in:country_code=*) не було, при цьому основна Назва name=* було російською мовою.
  • Окремі об’єкти для російської і для української мов (там, де відрізняється назва, теги або склад відносин). У цьому випадку кожен використовував той об’єкт, який йому потрібен.

Правки були вандальні, тому що:

  1. Межі були перероблені так, як написано на папері, але не відповідають правді на землі. Ви прекрасно знаєте, що цей закон “віртуальний” і де-факто не діє (в Криму використовується російське законодавство). Що заважало вам відкрити JOSM і витратити 5 хвилин на те, щоб створити дублікати відносин, і включити в ставлення російського Криму? Якщо не знаєте як це зробити, напишіть, я докладно напишу, зробити дублікат можна в 3 кліка мишею. Тоді б питань не було б. А якби ви додали (addr:country=RU, is_in:country=Russia, is_in:country_code=RU) На ці відносини, було б взагалі чудово. Ну, або ісполоьзовать нові відносини для нових адміністративних одиниць, а старі залишити російськими, тут вже не важливо, головне щоб не видаляти Російський поділ.
    Мало того, що ви переробили існуючі кордони, в відношення Республіка Крим (r3795586) не додані нові учасники, хоча старі виключені. Зрозуміло, це було зроблено навмисно і ці правки не відповідає дійсності (так як подібних змін не було).

  2. Всі" загальні " об’єкти (які раніше входили в обидва відносини), виключені з Російської Республіки Крим, ставить адресні теги (addr:country=UA, is_in:country=Ukraine, is_in:country_code=UA), що є порушенням протоколу засідання робочої групи/DWG 2014-06-05 спеціальний випуск по Криму, пункт 2. Якби були створені російські відносини з адресними тегами Росії, то це було б логічно, а інакше явне порушення.

  3. Змінює назви на українські (порушення пункту 3). Тут вандальними є як зміна тега name=* на українське, так і
    Relation: ‪Sovetskiy District‬ (‪1754562‬) | OpenStreetMap -Совєтський район → Ічкінський район
    Relation: ‪Kirovske Raion‬ (‪1754556‬) | OpenStreetMap -Кіровський район → Іслямтерецький район
    Relation: ‪Єдикуйський район‬ (‪1754557‬) | OpenStreetMap -Ленінський район → Єдикуйський район
    Relation: ‪Курманський район‬ (‪1754554‬) | OpenStreetMap -Красногвардійський район → Курманський район

  4. Коментарі до наборів правок також однотипні, що є порушенням пункту 4.

    image
    image1622×918 108 KB