On the Middle-East map, we can see that the Syrian Golan Heights, illegally occupied by Israel, are included in the boundaries of Israel, in infraction with the international law.
Also, the area around Jerusalem is fully included into Israel and the arabic name of Jerusalem is not visible.
All this needs to be corrected URGENTLY.
Are you aware of Disputed territories - OpenStreetMap Wiki ?
Yes, Iâm aware of it, but Golan Heights are not disputed territories, at least not for the United Nations. What is your reference, International law or occupier claims?
Yet, if you want to highlight âdisputed territoriesâ in a different way, it must not be included into Israel, but colored and circled differently.
Please actually read the wiki page. If you had done so you would have found https://osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf, which pretty explicitly states:
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 mapÂmakers to easily ignore this set and
substitute another more appropriate to your needs.
OpenStreetMap is a database first. The maps on osm.org are just a few of the possible ways to represent our data. This also includes boundaries. See for example this India focussed OSM map: OpenStreetMap India
If you are in need of a way to show map data while showing a different set of preferred or mandated borders, then Iâm sure there are people here that are willing to help you out with that and point you towards resources that could be of use.
When you read âmost widely internationally recognizedâ and you know that ONLY the United States of America recognize, under Trump, Israelâs sovereignty over the Syrian Golan, how do you come to the conclusion to include it into Israel?
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 map makers to easily ignore this set and substitute another more appropriate to your needs. In the future, we may look at supporting alternative sets directly.
this is what was questioned, âmost widely internationally recognisedâ and âbest meets realities on the groundâ, see Select a language for S/RES/497(1981) which was adopted unanimously by the security council.
Exactly, thank you for the reference, so why OpenStreetMap is not complying?
TLDR: OSM records the de-facto status of control, not whatâs legally/morally ârightâ.
The issues in OSM that you are describing are representations of the (problematic) real world conduct of the state of Israel, and thatâs not something OSM can change unfortunately.
Then you will color the Dombass and Crimea with the colors of Russia? or you grant this privilege only to Israel?
Youâll find that Crimea is in fact recorded as part of the russian border boundary.
exactly, this is my point, then similarly, Golan must not be recorded inside the Israeli border.
I think you might have misread what I wrote. Crimea is included in the russian border similar to how Golan is included in the israeli border because of de-facto control.
Actually, this is shocking and still not coherent, as you included Crimea but not Dombass. There might be another way, another color, another boundary line style to represent this âDe Factoâ or âdisputed territoriesâ, in some way like in Google Map, or even in Apple map.
Also, in the case of Palestine, could you explain how you come to the conclusion that Israel is the âmost widely internationally recognizedâ and âbest meets realities on the groundâ? For example, since few months new, Israel has occupied new Syrian and Lebanese territories. Are you going to include them to Israel?
If they keep these territories for long enough for the conflict to enter a stalemate or settle down, then the likely answer is yes. As stated in the opening words of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputed_territories:
There are multiple cases where there is dispute over exact boundary. Sometimes it escalates into outright wars (in which case border mapping is typically suspended, OSM is not making daily updates to borders as armies move), but there are many cases where conflict is frozen and stable. In other times, territory is occupied/controlled/administered for longer or shorter term by one country while another claims that area as its territory.
As stated previously. OSM is a database first and foremost. The way data is displayed is up to the software rendering it. It is very important to understand that this is completely separate issue from actually mapping borders. If you wish to make such a map, then you are free to do so with our data.
You provide not only the database, but the website to display it, so the responsibility to show reality and abide to law is also on your shoulders.
Thatâs not how that works. I donât believe the UK has any laws telling us how we should display our borders.
But lets entertain that for a minute. Which ârealityâ and which âlawâ? Surely if there are two countries claiming a certain area, then there are two sets of laws stating different things? And what is reality? Is reality what a piece of paper says? Who the people on the ground pay their taxes to? What another organisation says? What even are borders? Are borders real things? Drawing borders is easy when people agree, but the very moment people start disagreeing about where a border should be, there has to be someone or some group that you are going to disappoint.
OpenStreetMap simply took the âon the groundâ âde-facto controlâ position. Our borders donât make any statement about who should or should not control an area, all they show is who controls a certain area. Regardless of whether we like it or not.
No. All this needs to be corrected CAREFULLY, in a way that best matches the messy reality on the ground with the various keys and tags available within OSM.
There may be things that need changing - if you look at somewhere near Gaza you can see that that is part of 8 different relations, each of which will have different keys and tags associated with it. Some of those reflect the current on the ground situation, some reflect claims. If you look at this Palestinian Territories relation, you can see numerous changes to tags even in the last month.
Entirely separately from the data is the question of what you would like to see on a map. As the document that people have linked to above says, OSM tries to have enough data in it to allow people to draw the maps that they want to see that arenât reflected in the on-the-ground reality. Israel has been in the Golan Heights since 1967; any map that actually wants to show the on-the-ground situation should show that. However, it is entirely possible to show other boundaries; dozens of different ones have been proposed for this area in the last 100 years or so.
You can help:
You can help with the data by spending time looking at the data and seeing what is stored there (most of which you will never see on any one map) and saying whether you think each piece reflects the on-the-ground reality or not. It would help people to understand your problems if you could explain what you see and where you see it. Youâve said â⊠we can see that the Syrian Golan Heights âŠare included in the boundaries of Israel âŠâ, but we donât know precisely where you were looking, or what map you were looking at (8 on osm.org, thousands more elsewhere), and what led you to say âare included in the boundaries of Israelâ.
You can help with maps, by learning how to create a map that shows the situation that you want to see (lots of which will probably be in OSM, or possibly sister projects like OHM). If youâd like to do this, please ask.
One thing that will categorically not help is just arguing in web forums and saying that some other person needs to do something âurgentlyâ.
Have you read Disputed territories - OpenStreetMap Wiki ?
There are multiple cases where there is dispute over exact boundary. Sometimes it escalates into outright wars (in which case border mapping is typically suspended, OSM is not making daily updates to borders as armies move), but there are many cases where conflict is frozen and stable. In other times, territory is occupied/controlled/administered for longer or shorter term by one country while another claims that area as its territory.
note that Google Maps will show different variants, attempting to guess what map viewer wants to see