The Data Working Group is reviewing our previous resolution on Crimea, to make certain it still reflects the situation on the ground, and we are looking for input from the communities involved before we make an updated resolution.
The previous resolution had four parts:
- Edits to the administrative boundary for the region
- 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
- Edits changing place names between languages
- Other matters.
We believe parts 2 and 4 both apply, as they are best practices which are important when editors are working together in a disputed region.
For part 3 and place names, the “on the ground” rule remains the method of determining the appropriate value for the name tag. Has the situation on the ground for what names are in use by locals or with signage changed?
Part 1 on the administrative boundary for the region is what we have identified as needing review. Based on information available, it appears
- Ukraine claims the region as theirs
- Russia claims the region as theirs
- Russia has on the ground control of the region
Is this accurate?
We are not seeking information on who’s control would be legitimate, or other opinions. OSM operates with the on the ground rule, and the administrative boundaries in OSM do not indicate if control is legitimate or illegitimate.