The question has been asked if the content of this page reflects a consensus within the community of Ukrainian OSM mappers. It would be very helpful if someone could link to a relevant discussion or if a consensus could be created here. If the page does not reflect current consensus, I am asking if it can be updated.
Hello, I am one of the members of the Ukrainian community. I read all communication channels of Ukrainian mappers: old forum, new forum, telegram, slack. Now our appeal is a consensus. At least so far there is no discussion to change or cancel this appeal. Personally, I support this appeal, although I made a few changes (de-Russified street names in my municipality)
I think everyone involved in the discussion is aware of the Wiki article and was just expecting more then that or at least a clearer consensus by the local community in Ukraine if there’s going to be mass reverts of edits made there and warnings not to map there by iD Editor/JOSM. Since it really doesn’t read as super clear or authoritative and it should be both if those things are going to be done based purely on the article.
Just to give one example and maybe this can be answered, certain people think the Wiki article says not to map in Ukraine what-so-ever. If I’m reading it right though, what it actually says is “any found cases of mapping related to military or critical social infrastructure facilities.” So am I correct assume the whole “no-mapping thing” only relates to military or critical social infrastructure facilities, or does it cover any kind of mapping, even things not directly related to the war?
I ask because as @SomeoneElse pointed out in the other discussion, lots of places in the Ukraine aren’t currently a part of the conflict and life is going on relatively normally in them. So I think it needs to be clarified if the rule applies to those areas as much as it seems to with active military zones.
Obviously, it wouldn’t be helpful to completely block mapping in the Ukraine if only 20% of the country is where the problems might occur and it’s fine to map everywhere else in the meantime. I might be wrong, but I assume iD Editor/JOSM could just warn people not to map in the active conflict zones if they wanted to and the direction people wanted to take with it.
I don’t see why a random Ukrainian user in a non-conflict zone can’t adjust the position of a bench at their local park if they want to just because there’s a war 100 miles away from them either. Especially since it looks like there are certain areas in Ukraine that Russia just isn’t going to be occupying or even trying to.
The Ukrainian community has decided not to differentiate between a bench in western Ukraine and a trench in easern Ukraine. They have stated already back in April that they are urging everyone not to edit the map of Ukraine (at all) during the war. The official DWG position as stated by SomeoneElse is to follow the local community, so you’re talking to a brick wall here by questioning this consensus.
All I’m doing is asking for clarification about it since the Wiki article isn’t completely clear on what is or isn’t allowed or where exactly people can map. The last time I checked your not local to the area. Nor does “Follow the local community” mean random outsiders telling other each other how to map things in Ukraine. So they can’t speak for themselves and say if they don’t differentiate between a bench in western Ukraine and a trench in eastern Ukraine. I’m sure they don’t need you as a non-Ukrainian doing it for them. Thanks though
Hello, I don’t care about mapping military facilities, but I want to say that the “derussification” of names (in particular, the removal of the name:ru tag and similar ones *:ru) is an obvious vandalism and will not help the ukrainian army in any way.
Sure, people can generally do that, but it’s not a super great way to act on a forum discussion that was specifically created just for this purpose. Otherwise, it just comes off as paternalism and like your trying to derail the discussion for some weird reason. It’s not a super big deal if they clarify things. Really, it’s to the benefit of everyone, including them, if they do. So why not just let them answer for themselves instead of playing defense as a non-local?
Probably better to let someone from the Ukraine do it if that’s what they want the article to say. Otherwise your edit is likely to be reverted. Honestly, it’s kind of weird that your this involved in the whole thing to begin with. Why not let them have their own autonomy over how things related to Ukraine are done in Openstreetmap instead of being paternalistic about it by involving yourself in everything?
I know a lot of changes when the name:ru tag was removed from objects. Example:
There are a lot of such examples, so it is important to write separately that the using of name:ru tags (and other *:ru) on civilian objects should be fully allowed (settlements, roads, rivers, POI, names of public transport stops, etc.). In general, if the name tag is specified, then you can add name:ru on any object.
I guess what @Grass-snake is referring to is that Russian names in use should not be removed.
To an object that had an old Russian name that is no longer in use, you can add old_name:ru. But if it has both a Russian and a Ukrainian name, the Russian name should be kept in name:ru. It would not be correct to move a name in use to the old_name tag because it is not an old name, but a current name.
I wonder how you reconcile that with Anti1982’s comment in changeset #126623212 “every Saturday and Wednesday I will regularly delete name ru in Western Ukraine. The streets of western Ukraine do not have Russian names at all.”
Surely that comment indicates people are removing name:ru from objects in the Ukraine beyond just reverting undiscussed mechanical edits. At least Anti1982 clearly is. From this changeset it looks like they are doing through un-discussed mass edits to. Which, oddly, hasn’t been reverted 3 months later even though there seems to be a lot of concern about people doing them and the whole “no mapping in Ukraine” thing