The Current Representation of India’s International Boundaries on OpenStreetMap Is Unacceptable
The current representation of India’s international boundaries on OpenStreetMap is unacceptable.
Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, and Arunachal Pradesh are integral parts of India according to the official position of the Republic of India. Displaying a map that does not reflect India’s official boundaries creates confusion for users and undermines the reliability of your platform.
OpenStreetMap must immediately review and correct the representation of India’s boundaries or provide a clear public explanation, supported by its official mapping policy, explaining why the platform displays a different representation.
If OpenStreetMap is unwilling or unable to display India’s official map, it should clearly disclose that its map does not represent the official map of India in relevant jurisdictions. Continuing to present an alternative representation without clear disclosure is misleading to users.
Required Response
I expect OpenStreetMap to provide:
A formal explanation of the current boundary representation.
The official mapping policy governing the depiction of India’s international boundaries.
The data sources used to determine the current representation.
The corrective action OpenStreetMap intends to take, if any.
A timeline for addressing this issue or a clear justification for maintaining the current representation.
This issue requires immediate attention. I expect a formal response explaining the current representation, the policy behind it, and the action OpenStreetMap intends to take.
to quote it (for people preferring to avoid .pdf files):
Information for officials and diplomats of
countries and entities with disputed territories
(Approved September 2013)
The features displayed on maps often need to be set out in a specific way to meet legal or
cultural requirements in particular jurisdictions. Such requirements may conflict with
requirements in other jurisdictions.
The OpenStreetMap Foundation identifies these features to be the main ones of concern:
●Names
●Borders and boundaries
●Descriptions
If you are representing a jurisdiction, such as by being a member of a government organisation,
this document outlines the position of OpenStreetMap and what you can do to meet your
concerns. You may also be interested as a concerned citizen of your country or as a member of
an ethnic or cultural group.
In this context, we use terms “jurisdiction” and “group” in the de facto sense whether or not you
or others formally recognise them.
In summary:
1.OpenStreetMap is a database. You are free to make maps from our data leaving out or
putting in what you need for harmony with your general usage, culture and legal system.
We encourage you to do this directly or to support one of our many worldwide local
OpenStreetMap communities that share your issue.
2.The existence of a name, boundary location or description in the OpenStreetMap
database does NOT imply that that it is legally correct in any jurisdiction.
3.The OpenStreetMap community operates under the “on the ground” principle, recording
what is actually currently used in a particular area, giving preeminence to data collected
insitu. This is generally what is used on our main example map at http://www.openstreetmap.org.
4.We recognise the importance of names, borders and descriptions to different national,
ethnic, culture or language groups. We have and will continue to build mechanisms
where alternatives can be recorded and easily used in maps more suitable to you. We
encourage you to contribute such data to OpenStreetMap, to help build our technical
Information for officials and diplomats of countries with disputed territories
The OpenStreetMap Foundation September 2013 Page 1 of 3
infrastructure or to support someone who will.
5.However, to remain neutral and to provide a practically useful service to a global
community, we cannot delete base data to suit a particular legal jurisdiction.
Please also note that the OpenStreetMap Foundation maintains but does not actively create any
of the data in OpenStreetMap geodatabase. The OpenStreetMap Foundation publishes the
database and supports but does not control the project. Data is contributed and integrated
exclusively by large numbers of contributors under terms laid out in our contributor terms at
Names
The OpenStreetMap community operates under the “on the ground” principle. If a name appears
on the ground, for example a street sign, then that is the preferred name to use since a
navigation system that does not use the same names as those that are signposted is just clearly
impractical. This is recorded as a “name” in our database and is the one generally used on our
main example map.
However, we recognise that different national, ethnic, culture or language groups may utilise a
different name. We accommodate this by providing the facility for contributors belonging to
different groups to record what they see as the name for a particular feature. For example,
“name:en” records the name used by the Englishspeaking community and “name:es” that
employed by the Spanishspeaking community. The Spanish community can then make a map
using “name:es” in preference to the generic “name” or “name:en”.
We encourage different groups and communities to use our data, collect and contribute data
important to you, and to make your own maps that are harmonious with your general usage,
culture and legal system.
Borders and boundaries
National borders are particularly sensitive. Currently, we record one set that, in OpenStreetMap
contributor opinion, is most widely internationally recognised and best meets realities on the
ground, generally meaning physical control. In areas without clearly defined borders, the line is
approximate. Our database structure enables mapmakers to easily ignore this set and
substitute another more appropriate to your needs.
In the future, we may look at supporting alternative sets directly.
Information for officials and diplomats of countries with disputed territories
The OpenStreetMap Foundation September 2013 Page 2 of 3
Descriptions
The same “on the ground” principle is applied. If a civilian airport in a disputed territory is clearly
functioning as such, then that is how it is described in OpenStreetMap, irrespective of its legal
status amongst groups claiming jurisdiction.
We frown on data deletions, but you may want to add a note to the feature, for example using our
“description” database field.
We encourage mapmakers to use our “on the ground” data and edit what appears on your
maps as appropriate.
Information for officials and diplomats of countries with disputed territories
The OpenStreetMap Foundation September 2013 Page 3 of 3
It’s amazing how once again a “new” account makes a post about India’s borders, and never replies again. I’ve seen such post at least three times the last few years. Either it’s the same person or many people who don’t read the replies or even do the proper research. “AI will solve their problems”
