mboeringa, Current building simplification uses much more complex algorithm than buffering (well, even typification uses a more complex algorithm). I was just suggesting using ST_Buffer instead of ST_Simplify, because it should give better results, but as ST_Buffer is not intended for that, you have to check if it works in your particular use case.

Hi mboeringa,
For simple way of building generalisation you can try st_buffer with join=mitre. Try different combinations of +-, +-+, -+- and see what works best for your required scale. It will preserve square corners most of the time and will even remove small inner rings. BTW all code used in creating *.openmap.lt is in github.

Any reason not to youse QGIS? It’s purpose is to build professional maps.

Interesting, “UN decision” criteria is OK when deciding which countries to include, but is NOT OK when deciding on boundaries of included countries. Little bit from here, little bit from there, with this and that exception and we get… perfect uncertainty.

You cannot enter territorial waters of Sealand, because they will start shooting at you (with at least one case of actual shooting), so they have “physical control” :-)

@rorym I never disputed “on the ground rule”. It was there for a looong time. But it is about PHYSICAL objects, not boundaries (how would you identify boundaries of national park by physical control? what about physical control for level > 2 boundaries?)

Note that your example wiki page states about necessity to have data for different representations.

2017 is for sure not “long” ago to be “old OSM standard” :-)

@escada no, I haven’t tried that. Discussion is what data should there be in the OSM database and what possibilities should be given to all data users.

There is no “long standing OSM rule” of “de facto control”. This is invented by OSMF in 2013. At the same time OSMF page states it is not here to tell “what and how to map”.

Long standing OSM rule “mapping what is on the ground” from the very beginning had exceptions for non physical objects and the FIRST example of this exception mentioned was always administrative boundaries. Most of admin boundaries have been imported from official sources, without “checking of control on the ground”.

Also note that sentence about physical control in admin border wiki page was added a WEEK ago - after DWG decision and after this fallout has started.

And regarding of showing what you want. This is exactly the problem. It WAS possible to show whatever you want a week ago (because all official opinions were in the database), but it is not longer possible to do that (OSMF has decided to leave only one opinion). DWG decision has REDUCED the number of options to cartographers thus making OSM data less useful.

There is no problem having correct Ukraine’s borders with current tagging scheme.

OpenStreetMap never had physical control clause for borders. Osmf (which is not osm) has invented it even when osmf declares it should not say what and how should be tagged.

Thank you PlaneMad, your comment is VERY important! Current situation with OpenStreetMap and a separate thing - OSMF - look disturbingly similar to Orwell’s stories.

1. I’m pointing out that OSMF has done more than it is allowed to do and did not comply with it’s own rules of existence or raison d’être.
2. I (or anybody else) have never denied the fact that de facto Russia controls Crimea for the time being. I’m saying that this “control” principle is OSMF’s invention, not OpenStreetMap invention.
3. Reality check: Google, Microsoft etc. with endless pockets and armies of lawyers have adapted maps to international/local law. Apparently it was a waste of money, they could have simply written a sentence somewhere on the terms and conditions page: “we depict position on the ground” and that would have been it. Or not…?

OSMF mission is to help mappers, not control and command them. So OSMF should make sure that MORE mappers/users are happy which is not the case in this place as was explained by data users.

OSMF decision is based on OSMF self invented rule of “borders as on the ground” (OSMF should not have had the right to invent such rules by themselves in the first place). This rule is strange because from basic knowledge in Physics and/or Philosophy we know that immaterial things are not observable by physical means, borders as all other immaterial things live in official documents so those should be used to fetch geometry and attributes.

Disputed Territories policy is also NOT clear. It states that decision is made by “wide international support” and “control on the ground”. So in case of Crimea this does not work, it becomes “control of the ground IRRESPECTIVE OF WIDE INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT”. Not that wide international support also represents WIDE INTERNATIONAL NEED AND REQUIREMENT as it dictates international position as well as legal requirements not to knowingly misrepresent the situation (not spread fake information) which in this situation OSMF is doing - misrepresenting Crimea as being part of Russia when in almost all countries it is recognised that de jure situation is different.

Leaving Crimea as part of Ukraine has no technical problems so it could have continued like that. This case has exposed the lack of transparency, lack of accountability, wish for unconditional control on behalf of OSMF which leaves us with some disturbing questions regarding the role and future of OSMF.

I had a discussion with NATO representatives. Apparently this issue is NOT a simple technical issue inside of OSM only. More information will be coming shortly. This looks like a standard Soviet style propaganda campaign to divide representatives of free world - people of free world are fighting among themselves for the bonus of aggressor - Russia.

No point of going to ridiculous examples. Only recognised countries. They all have very concrete officially claimed boundaries. So nothing claimed by any nationalist coocoos. And there is a technical simple solution to that. Problem is that there us no WILL to do anything. Because for those in power to do the decision it does not matter.

Map is a visual way of expressing idea and transferring information. So there is no problem to stay moral and display occupied territories as such. The options are not only A or B. It is also possible to have data representing ALL opinions (as was before DWG decision), then it is possible to create numerous different maps and represent numerous different ideas - that is free expression.

The same is with “truth on the ground” rule. It can mean whatever you want. It could mean whose tanks are on the ground (de facto), it could also mean who legally owns it (de jure). Map can display both. It is your MORAL position.

If a terrorist kidnaps a child, would you then say “ok, truth on the ground - that child is terrorist’s, screw the parents”?

Calling government “terrorist” for threatening legal consequences for helping active aggressor (Ukrainians are still dying DAILY) is strange, because this way you’re calling “terrorist” states all EU countries, USA, Canada, Australia, Japan etc.

And if you go to Crimea without Ukrainian visa not via Ukraine controlled territory then you will not get EU visa and probably get some other legal penalties.

Sorry, but talking about “fighting to get it back” is a nonsense, or chauvinism, or both (or maybe even something worse). Would you tell your kid to go and throw a brick at that boy who took his toy by force?

Data can represent all attitudes without a problem. Then everybody creates a map as they wish.

It is not that simple. In case of Ukraine-Moscow war there is a very clear aggressor and victim. Position of OSMF shows its position is blind following of money without ANY moral rules. And it IS cooperation (probably unintentional) with Russia on Crimea’s occupation with all consequences, it does not matter how they call it. I hope DWG has consulted LWG, because otherwise it could be much more than huge reputation loss.

I doubt calling for additional wars is a sane “solution”.

I wonder how EU/US sanctions about those cooperating with Russia’s annexation of Crimea would work here…

At least some members of OSMF participated in discussion in talk, so they should have announced it there as well, especially after writing, that decision is pending. But probably old problem of communication channels. Well, whatever… New moral low for OSMF/DWG.

Chrm. Sorry, how does these several post threads stand for “request for comments which could influence the decision”? It’s obvious that Ukrainians would stand for their side, Russians - for their side (not surprisingly Russian side was not 100% in favour of this decision). No change in opinions. No surprise statements.

And most importantly: what does it solve and how does it reduce friction?