That is a good reason for me. In a previous thread, a view compatible with total restriction, although apparently less restrictive, was discussed:
Just a suggestion in case you wish to consider it and include it in the wiki:
I have no problem with the total restriction, it’s OK for me, but if you find any possibility to relax the total restriction to allow non-conflicting and well-documented edits (i.e. with good changeset comments), it could be a solution for people who wish to map Ukraine in good faith.
I don’t usually map in Ukraine, but these last months I have had the opportunity to get to know better the geography of the country and sometimes I have been tempted to correct some data on the map. Only in one case I edited a memorial. In other cases I have refrained from doing so because I knew the restriction and I was not sure what is critical infrastructure and what is not.
Do you seriously think that someone will transmit classified super-secret information through OSM? As if there were no other way to send information about the location of the military.
This proposal will only make mapping more difficult.
The systematic removal of valid Russian names is a serious enough issue to be discussed independently in an own thread. I suggest keeping that discussion elsewhere so that it does not interfere with the main topic of this thread and communicate it to DWG if the systematic removal continues.
What I think isn’t relevant. I follow the local community, which is also the point of view that the DWG takes.
Also, have a look at Changeset: 130385541 | OpenStreetMap. Some people actually map trenches. There’s also vandalism of the borders going on, and that also needs to be checked continuously.
In conclusion, the Ukrainian community has plenty of reasons for their decision and consensus on halting all mapping activities in their country for the duration of the war. As I told Adamant1 before, you’re talking to a brick wall by questioning this.
You seem to be the main or only brick though. Apparently your even doing the review of edits there and reverting them. Yet your clearly not the local community. Personally, I’m fine to follow what they say, but that’s hard at least for me to do when the main person who seems to be involved in this is from The Netherlands
I agree with that to a degree. The reason I think it’s relevant to discussing here though is because it shows a clear bias in how the “no mapping in Ukraine” thing is being applied, what edits aren’t acceptable, and who’s edits are being reverted or not. Since from what at least what I’ve seen no one seems to care if Russian names are being systematically deleted. No one is going to take the "guideline’’ seriously if it’s not being applied across the board no matter what edits are being done.
More so if it is being sidelined for edits that are clearly anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian. Obviously there’s a huge difference between a guideline that disallows edits that might aid Russia in the war versus one that has the result (if not the intent) of favoring or allowing for anti-Russian edits.
“Now, first of all, I want to develop clear rules for mapping the territories that Ukraine still controls.” - This is abusive behaviour of the ru-moderator towards all Ukrainian Community is unappropriated! Ukrainian Community do not ask him and do not require any assistance from the russian folks in the situation of Russian colonial aggression against Ukraine.
Seriously, why not take the same stance when it comes to Friendly Ghost speaking for the Ukrainian community? It’s completely ridiculous to censor someone for asking that the rules be clarified just because they are Russian while allowing a user from the The Netherlands to essentially act like your mouth piece. Surely you don’t “require” Friendly Ghost’s assistance or for him to speak for you either.
Your comment is clearly a straw man. That said, in the case of the DWG we as a global community give them the de-facto right to represent us in disputes when they might not be locals. The last time I checked no one has given you that right. The fact that you’d even compare yourself and what your doing to DWG members or the work they do is laughable at best.
At least by enforcing the guidelines and good practices that the general OSM community, the DWG and the Ukrainian community have set I am being productive and helpful. You on the other hand are being very counterproductive.
Really? All I see is multiple people agreeing with me that the guidelines need clarification and the systemic removal of Russian names needs to stop. Whereas, no one is taking anything you say seriously. From what I can tell, there isn’t even anyone from the Ukrainian community backing you as their de-facto spokesperson or whatever either.
Even SomeoneElse responded to you by saying “The balance of what is and is not OK is best judged by people actually there.” What he didn’t do is say it was fine for you to speak and act on behalf of the Ukrainian community Really, at this point you should take your own advice from the last discussion and remove yourself from this.
The very fact that someone has drawn military installations on the map means most likely that he copied this information from another source (for example, news). It is highly unlikely that he himself saw these trenches. I say again, it is unlikely that anyone will spread truly secret objects on OSM. Spies who deliberately want to pass secret information to Russia will be able to use other technologies. Cases when truly secret data are drawn on the map are rare. And most likely our Russian military intelligence will use other technologies. Your proposal will bring nothing but problems for cartographers.
By the way, these trenches were drawn in Russia, in the Crimea.
It’s possible they drew them based on satellite images. Whatever the source or if they really would cause a problem though (which I agree is pretty unlikely) someone could at least argue that they shouldn’t be mapped due to being temporary objects. Although that depends on if they get filled in after the war or not, but still, at this point at least they are clearly temporary. That said, the one example of someone drawing a “trench” that I saw it was actually a pre-exiting canal that had been re-tagged. Which really doesn’t help the argument I’m making
While the discussion continues…
I just didn’t fully understand what you want. I re-read the old forum, this community and telegram chat (I don’t have access to slack), I did not find a consensus on a complete block on mapping any objects. This decision of a few people who find it difficult to moderate changes is clearly not grounds for a ban on changes.
Tell me, what criteria do you see “this person belongs to the Ukrainian community, and the other does not”? In the event that there is an official community vote, you need to think about this issue in advance.
I hate to break it to you, but there isn’t going to be any vote, let alone an “official” one. OSM works with consensus and, if necessary, with DWG intervention. These things have already happened. OSMF board intervention would be the final escalation, but my magical, flawless foresight tells me that the OSMF board will in most cases point at things that the DWG has already said.
I thought the purpose of this thread was to get information from the Ukrainian community about what kind of mapping should or or shouldn’t be done in their territory and how and where a consensus was reached. Instead, an American, a Dutchman, a Spaniard and a Russian argue here.
Considering people’s nationality/ethnicity to undervalue their interest in a subject is not a good way to go. Whether you are American, a Dutchman, a Spaniard or a Russian (you left out the Ukrainians here for some reason) is completely indifferent. We are not cats.
On the other hand, I am not arguing anything. I want to know more about the point of view of the Ukrainian community. I am also concerned about the removal of Russian names mentioned in this thread and I have proposed to discuss that elsewhere. I have made a suggestion for improvement for the wiki page assuming it is up to the local community to decide.
I am a Spaniard and I am interested in this subject. Please avoid this kind of pointing fingers because of people’s nationality/ethnicity. If you are interested in improving the wiki documentation on the mapping restriction in Ukraine, this is the right place to discuss it. You don’t need to show a passport for that, just interest and willingness to collaborate.
I don’t like the tone of this conversation. There is a feeling that the Ukrainian community has been brought to court as an accused in a crime. Also, I don’t like equating the victim with the aggressor
Some question the decisions of our moderators. Let me remind you that we selected the moderators ourselves:
Regarding the “removal” of russian names:
This example seemed doubtful to me. The name has changed. Do we have to add translations into all the laguages that were there before? I think not, because most of the participants make the change without any reward. Adding a new translation is a separate task that takes time.
You should understand that from the point of view of OSM, acceptable data is if:
They are correct
They are added correctly (licenses, discussions, etc)
Someone really likes to talk about point 1. and forget about point 2.
At the same time, many explanations have already been given above, and you pretend not to notice it
Above you referred that someone from the Ukrainian community wrote something aggressive. I cannot tell you anything about that particular case, I can only tell you an example from my own life. I spoke with a woman who lives in the suburbs of Kyiv, as a result of russian aggression her arm was torn off, thank God surgeons stitched her up. She spoke very poorly about the russians. Can anyone call her a bad person because of that?
I don’t have enough time for this discussion right now. By the way, many Ukrainian participants are also not very active now, some of them have no electricity for part of the day, and they still have to do the main work, so don’t count on quick answers
I had read that minute before. It seemed very reasonable to me then and still does.
The DWG already made reference to using good changeset comments. They call them “meaningful changeset comments” in their minute. It is the same idea I was trying to suggest for the wiki page with my previous comment in this thread.
