Actually, we need to give our (Israeli) answer to the DWG. So please indicate whether you accept this solution or not.
I accept.
I don’t have a good answer to this… Only that OSM is not the place.
Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel. External references to this fact don’t matter. Jerusalem is a city in the state of Israel, and was decided to be the Capital by the state of Israel. This is enough. The attempt to conceal it concerns me very much as an Israeli citizen.
I was referring to all participants reading this thread.
The decision to ban is in the ruleset of the people responsible for OSM. I concur with it, as there are situations where you can’t let the “first domino” fall. I agree to this rule since it is used symmetrically to prevent deterioration, while a solution is sought after.
I am very glad that talkat and you were there to take the stand. It surfaces a subject of high importance, and allows people to steer this towards resolution.
I think I answered this in this post.
I am satisfied with the solution as it was agreed on during the meeting - two nodes. Just want to see it implemented.
It does not matter what purpose is served for the people whom we suspect of having political motives. What matters is what this means to us.
Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel, and it should be reflected that way in OSM. This is what matters to me.
I accept.
Personally I prefer only one node for Jerusalem in Hebrew - English - Arabic.
It will cover all needs, show that this city is very special to everybody and has a clear definition where it belongs, too.
It would be rendered ok for everybody and the discussion will end till there is a political change in this area.
Two point why I’m not soo happy with the two nodes decigion:
-
Nobody knows how mapnik will render it. Could be that we will only see Alquds as both nodes are very nearby.
-
I expect that people will like to define East Jersualem as capital of the Palestine state. This would be somehow understandable because Alquds is now known for the most people in the western world, so they would expect it to be another capital that Israels.
What is your oppinion?
@Mikel: I would like to keep the Mapnik Right To Left issues separated from this one. But would be great if you can help a little bit.
I still do not understand why nodes are just deleted in this issue without having the discussion BEFORE.
@Mr_Israel,
the question is, can you live with two nodes? No matter the rendering? If so, we just tell the DWG that we agree to this solution and they return Jerusalem. Or are you absolutely against it?
I think the problem with one node tagged with both Hebrew and Arabic is that it doesn’t represent Jerusalem as capital of Israel.
I also think the rendering is never perfect. Suppose that Ramallah was tagged as capital, on low zoom levels it will surely overlap with Jerusalem. We are mature enough to take it with understanding, but so should the other side.
dimka
I can live with two nodes only if the second east jerusalem node (al quds) will also be defined as capital of israel. If it would be defined as is_in=palestine or in the relation of palestine i would not agree. This is not showing the current facts.
If this is not acceptable we would have to remove the definition of captital of alquds. This is also acceptable for me.
@Mikel, I care about the data not being changed due to political preferences, that’s all. Tomorrow somebody will think that Yaffo should also be tagged in Arabic, because some two Arab speakers will declare that they will not map their parking lot as they don’t feel belonging. Will you justify this? Where does that stop?
I would really like to have some direct answers. We don’t hide information from you…
- Who raised the issue to you in the first place? Not some unnamed “East Jerusalem mappers”, but real ones (their OSM usernames)? Were they present at the meeting?
- Did you know about Micah being a political activist when you invited him to the meeting?
2a) Is it OK for persons with clear political agenda to influence OSM, when they didn’t contribute any data? - Why didn’t we hear the other side openly before you arrived in Israel?
- Did you try to offer the other side some creative solutions such as setting up their own renderer? You were quick to suggest this to us when we raised some unrelated issues. I’m sure Grassroots can afford to spend some of their money on this.
- Did you try to explain to the other side the meaning of data vs. rendering? And the importance of accuracy? Sticking to facts instead of wishful thinking?
- Did you ask them WHY they think AlQuds should have equal prominence?
- Doesn’t the “On the ground rule” for settling disputes apply here?
- Can this dispute be considered a local issue, and so a chance for direct discussion should be given?
I am not being elitist (if anybody is elitist here it is you and DWG), but I do think that our community can be considered more advanced in terms of contribution to OSM, knowledge, skills and maturity than the other one. I believe your job is to bring that other community which is in its infancy to at least our level. You could start by telling them that OSM is about collaboration and mutual benefit, and so when they see something they don’t like on the map, they should try to resolve it by talking to the other side. That is, first they have to understand there is the other side. But instead they rushed to you directly as their guardian, and you accepted this role. You claim that we should be thoughtful, understanding and patient. Do you hold East Jerusalemites of so low esteem as to assume they are not capable of such things? If so, then indeed you are elitist.
Why should they be granted the prominent label of Al-Quds right from the start? Let them first map it, let them show that they care about this map, and then they will be on equal ground with us to enter into discussion about naming/rendering/whatever. Let them show they can make compromises.
Finally, it’s easy to ask us to calm down and take it easy after the damage has been done. You should have thought seven times before instructing/asking/suggesting to the DWG to remove the name:.
dimka
dimka
@Mikel, I care about the data not being changed due to political preferences, that’s all. Tomorrow somebody will think that Yaffo should also be tagged in Arabic, because some two Arab speakers will
declare that they will not map their parking lot as they don’t feel belonging. Will you justify this? Where does that stop?
It’s not a fair comparison. Jerusalem is a special case and a special place.
I would really like to have some direct answers. We don’t hide information from you…
Neither do I.
Though I have to disagree. I still haven’t been told clearly why you and talkat refused to even cross the Green Line for this meeting 
- Who raised the issue to you in the first place? Not some unnamed “East Jerusalem mappers”, but real ones (their OSM usernames)? Were they present at the meeting?
It was raised immediately by the Grassroots Jerusalem organization, which is based in and works in East Jerusaelm AND West Jerusalem.
Mappers to start…
khalefa, mahmodgrassroots, micha kurz
- Did you know about Micah being a political activist when you invited him to the meeting?
I know a little of Micha’s background, but mostly know him for Grassroots Jerusalem, which I understand is really a long term project about mapping.
2a) Is it OK for persons with clear political agenda to influence OSM, when they didn’t contribute any data?
I don’t think it’s political honestly. They are contributing and plan to contribute a lot more. They aren’t actually advocating for two nodes, just Jerusalem in Arabic (as it’s called in Arabic) on the map, in equal prominance, because the majority of the Eastern part of the city calls it this way.
- Why didn’t we hear the other side openly before you arrived in Israel?
Because they are new to OSM and aren’t familiar with all the communication channels.
- Did you try to offer the other side some creative solutions such as setting up their own renderer? You were quick to suggest this to us when we raised some unrelated issues. I’m sure Grassroots
can afford to spend some of their money on this.
I think this will come, but from what I understand, not immediately.
It’s actually the right solution to a lot of issues in OSM. For instance, right now the default map is mostly useless to visitors to Jerusalem, who often speak neither Hebrew or Arabic (like me). I would love to see only English. Or Russian.
- Did you try to explain to the other side the meaning of data vs. rendering? And the importance of accuracy? Sticking to facts instead of wishful thinking?
Yes, they are understanding more and more.
Wishful thinking hasn’t come into it. It was talkat that suggested two nodes. Their interest is in the rendering.
And aside, I don’t think accuracy really applies for name. In this case, there is ambiguity, as far as I understand, and it happens often. The localized name tags are really where accuracy applies.
- Did you ask them WHY they think AlQuds should have equal prominence?
Yes. Because the majority of residents in the east of Jerusalem speak Arabic, and have called the city by this name for a long time.
- Doesn’t the “On the ground rule” for settling disputes apply here?
It’s unfortunately not that clear here, as there are multiple views right on the ground in Jerusalem.
- Can this dispute be considered a local issue, and so a chance for direct discussion should be given?
How has that not been happening?
I am not being elitist (if anybody is elitist here it is you and DWG), but I do think that our community can be considered more advanced in terms of contribution to OSM, knowledge, skills and maturity
than the other one. I believe your job is to bring that other community which is in its infancy to at least our level. You could start by telling them that OSM is about collaboration and mutual benefit,
and so when they see something they don’t like on the map, they should try to resolve it by talking to the other side. That is, first they have to understand there is the other side. But instead they
rushed to you directly as their guardian, and you accepted this role. You claim that we should be thoughtful, understanding and patient. Do you hold East Jerusalemites of so low esteem as to assume
they are not capable of such things? If so, then indeed you are elitist.
“so when they see something they don’t like on the map, they should try to resolve it by talking to the other side”
That’s exactly what happened. Why are you attacking me for being there and helping them to understand more about OSM? I am not their guardian, or hold them in low esteem. Why are you saying such crazy things now? Please try to maintain the maturity you talk about above.
Why should they be granted the prominent label of Al-Quds right from the start? Let them first map it, let them show that they care about this map, and then they will be on equal ground with us to
enter into discussion about naming/rendering/whatever. Let them show they can make compromises.
I wouldn’t have encouraged them to get involved if they didn’t care. My understanding is that they are working on this long term. They care.
Finally, it’s easy to ask us to calm down and take it easy after the damage has been done. You should have thought seven times before instructing/asking/suggesting to the DWG to remove the name:.
There’s no damage, it’s a wiki. And stop accusing me of this. I only brought up the subject of the dispute with DWG, and they suggested the current solution. I understand they have also agreed to add back the names, as both you and talkat agreed to, immediately, and work out the rendering later.
-Mikel
In that case, I propose them to use OSM “as it should be”…
Mikel, the more I read your comments here, I feel less good about this particular situation, and OSM in general.
AFAIK, there’s no dispute about the data as it was before the deletion.
As things are now, I expect the following:
If anyone (that is, DWG) is happy with the existing data (prior to deletion), then I expect to revert things to the way they used to be. As dimka quoted the DWG, they have no problem with the data.
The deletion of the Jerusalem name tag is VERY disputable, and seems like a worse situation than it was before.
If you (or the DWG) wants to change things and alter the renderer - they’re free to do so, but there’s no reason to change the data or hold all mappers hostage with threats of ban.
The data before the deletion was accurate, and it should be reinstated asap.
If anyone needs time to “fix” the renderer - let them do it on their own timeline.
The data was there for more than 7 months, and I guess it can stay for a few more weeks.
P.S.
I still expect the DWG to come forward here and explain their actions.
talkat.
talkat,
Jerusalem on the map in both Arabic and Hebrew. You accept that. Everyone accepts that. Why is the discussion continuing, going in circles? Because you all can’t now agree?
Name tag with both names is preferable to some, maybe more preferable as “accurate”. Two nodes with either name is preferable to others, as a compromise. Both are “accurate” to some degree. East Jerusalem mappers are ready to accept either.
They definitely do not see the prior tagging as accurate. There was a dispute, there is a dispute. It’s really clear.
You guys even got the DWG to say “fine, we’ll just implement the change and fix the renderer later”. Why back out of that now?
The DWG made a decision. They’re not happy with the way things were before … that is, in dispute. To revert back would not satisfy anyone but you guys. DWG is waiting for agreement. They’re ready to move. Please let’s move forward.
-Mikel
talkat, perhaps you don’t understand that the DWG will add back the names to both nodes immediately, once dimka tells them it’s ok to do so. that is before anything is done to the rendering.
so really, they’re ready to do what you want, what you agreed to clearly last week.
I think it is very simple:
DWG should revert to what the data used to be before the deletions (Jerusalem in Hebrew and capital, Al Quds in Arabic and suburb)
I’m sure the DWG doesn’t need any approval to revert things to the way they used to be.
Now. After the revert, if someone doesn’t like the way things are mapped - Let them open a discussion.
The way things were done until now - I feel that OSM is being hijacked.
There was no discussion, and no agreement about removing the name tag.
When we had our meeting I was not aware of all the information that you wrote above in your earlier posts.
All I cared was to have the data back. For OSM’s sake.
Maybe for you it’s just a trivial thing. But for me, touching the data like this - It’s a VERY big no no!
There was no discussion about it, and when you informed me in the beginning of the meeting that the name was deleted - I was in shock!
All I wanted was to have OSM whole again.
You knew that we were going to have a meeting in the evening. Why was the name deleted in morning before it, without notifying anyone?
Even though it wasn’t you who did the actual deletion - It was you who approached the DWG, and you presented your opinion, without any discussion, and without letting anyone represent any side.
The DWG protocols are confidential, and one can only guess what happened there…
You could have said “Let’s wait with any action until after the meeting”, but you didn’t.
You broke the data, and I request you to fix it.
talkat.
Currently I’m seeing it the same way as Dimka. So It’s not that everybody accepts that two nodes! Thats why we continue to discuss.
Please don’t push Dimka on this situation. He has defined his standpoint very clearly and was most probably not aware what will wait on him in the meeting in Jerusalem.
Looking on the whole thing after some days makes the whole conflict stinky.
The whole situation is very strange and the discussion that started here is the result of an unacceptable step of OSM to just remove a sensitive capital from OSM without any editing war just because one side had good contacts.
##################################
Beside that, I would like to understand the technical terms you have agreed on in the meeting as it is still not clear to me:
- There will be two nodes. One Hebrew one in Arabic.
- The Hebrew one will be defined in the west of Jerusalem as a capital in relation to Israel.
- The Arabic one will be defined in the east of Jerusalem and also as a capital. => It will be also declared as in Israel, correct ?
I’m asking that the 2nd time as I want to be sure that we are not creating wrong fact and starting to declare East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestine state.
THIS NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED.
##################################
- Did you try to offer the other side some creative solutions such as setting up their own renderer? You were quick to suggest this to us when we raised some unrelated issues. I’m sure Grassroots
can afford to spend some of their money on this.
I think this will come, but from what I understand, not immediately.
It’s actually the right solution to a lot of issues in OSM. For instance, right now the default map is mostly useless to visitors to Jerusalem, who often speak neither Hebrew or Arabic (like me). I would love to see only English. Or Russian.
@Mikel:
This is actually the problem of OSM, that is not solved yet. We have a big discussion about something that OSM should have taken care in their supported rendering engine: Mapnik. The data is multilingual but not shown this way in Mapnik.
We are facing all over Israel the problem of people are not able to read the streetnames in their native language because they don’t know Hebrew. But we are not starting to create three nodes for Haifa in English / Hebrew and Arabic to make everybody understand what city is talked about. Mapnik should be able to switch the languages in the interface. This way we would not have this discussion any more. It seems like the east Jerusalem mappers are mapping the street for the tourist only, because the most of them are not reading English (@East Jerusalem mappers: don’t understand me wrong I don’t want to say nobody of you can read English).
Do you understand my thoughts ?
Change the renderer to be real multilingual and we can keep just one node for the whole city and even the tourist are happy!
The first step in this direction can be seen in the rendering of openstreetbrowser.
http://dev.openstreetbrowser.org/#?zoom=12&lat=31.815132951436&lon=35.172824873615&categories=&layers=&basemap=osb&overlays=
##################################
To the best of my understanding, the DWG will not just “add back the names to both nodes”, but also tag Al-Quds as place=city and capital=yes. Without specifying exactly capital of what it is, this would mean an ambiguity which can be interpreted such that it is the capital of a Palestinian state (nonexistent). This would be just plain wrong. @Mr_Israel, is it what you meant?
Or is DWG going to put back the names and not change anything in addition?
@Mikel,
Al-Quds is not just a different name for the same entity as Jerusalem capital of Israel, it’s another entity. You heard the Arab mappers saying they regard it as THEIR capital, surely not capital of Israel… The problem is that as a capital of “something” there is no such entity right now. So it should not be given equal prominence. That’s what I call wishful thinking. I believe they consider themselves belonging to the unexistent Palestinian state, and they try to promote this agenda by bringing Al-Quds and Jerusalem to equal ground. I think they should try to do so outside of OSM, and for the time being accept the fact that they are still in Israel.
I think the discussion is continuing because we don’t seem to agree. We are not one person. That’s why we started it, to hear all the opinions. And also maybe change our own opinions as we progress.
talkat and Mr_Israel, thank you for your recent posts. I completely agree with them. (My last post was sent before I saw yours
Actually it wasn’t said clearly in the meeting what the EXACT tagging for the Arabic node should be. In particular, I didn’t agree on neither is_in=Palestine nor is_in=Israel nor on not specifying the country at all. This issue wasn’t elaborated.
My opinion is that the only factual way Al-Quds can be tagged as capital is also to have it is_in=Israel. But that’s subject for future discussion. Right now I would expect the DWG to just re-add the names to the nodes and leave the other tagging as it was before.
If Jerusalem is to remain a single node, then I still claim that “On the ground” rule applies.
Let me quote from OSM wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule):
It is a fact that the gov’t of Israel has an effective and sustained control in whole of Jerusalem (at least it is the only government around). And the official name is in Hebrew. What else is needed?
dimka
@Dimka: seems like we all have overlapping postings here 
I couldn’t explain it in a better way. This is the only problem I have with the two nodes solution.
I want to make sure that OSM is not getting abused for political reasons.
I understand the need to help the east Jerusalem mappers to identifiert themself for the area.
So whats bad about the following Rendering?
http://toolserver.org/~osm/locale/ar.html?zoom=11&lat=31.76729&lon=35.19607&layers=BT
Specially the Palestine mappers had their own server before for the JUMP mapping project and also had the money to buy sat images.
So if they want the rendering to be more arabic => Please conside a owned OSM rendering server. Currently the most of East Jerusalem it is English anyhow (useless for the most people in this area)!
I agree that this topic need more discussion as it is very political. And actually I would like to discuss with our palestine neighbors about this topic and hear their opinion directly.
I fully agree that this step should be taken in first place, then we can continue with the discusion.
Please revert the changes done by the OSM Data group.
Oh well, sounds we’re stuck.
Here’s what you have to do. Find a solution right now that satisfies mappers in Jerusalem, propose it to DWG, they implement, and we’ll move on. Until then, we have what we have. To me, it seems like you guys don’t want to have Arabic name of Jerusalem, final.
But I hope not, because that’s a dispute. And if not, I suggest you meet again with the other mappers asap.
That’s all.
Where have your patience disappeared, Mikel?
Excuse me being blunt, but why do WE have to “find a solution RIGHT NOW that satisfies mappers in Jerusalem”? You started it, please be so kind as to see it through. Or have DWG appoint an independent investigator, as its rules state. Until then, since there was no edit war, the data should be reverted because the previous state of affairs represented a consensus in the map for more than 7 months.
You still haven’t answered why “On the Ground” rule doesn’t apply.
These so-called mappers are sponsored by an organization which undermines the sovereignty of Israel in Jerusalem. Personally I am not going to meet with them anymore, because they have already displayed they are not interested in sincere dialogue. Were it so, Micah would have presented himself as he is. I don’t feel obliged to get out of my skin in order to satisfy three mappers each of whom made two-three edits.
dimka
I suggest we go back to basics, and follow the Disputes guidelines
AFAIK, this did not happen.
No East Jerusalem mapper contacted any other mapper to try and work out a solution.
They did, however, contacted you. But instead of “mediate the dispute” - You carried out an action.
There was no mediation whatsoever!
The change was made in the morning of the meeting that has taken place in the evening.
That is so wrong in so many levels!
Mikel, you became too involved in this situation, and I ask you to take back your actions with the DWG, ask the DWG to revert the data to the way things were before last week, and ask either user:Blackadder or user:Rw to mediate.
talkat.
I can ask Blackadder to mediate. And the DWG makes decisions independent of me.