I’m OP and I’ve spent like the whole evening reading those text walls.. Have to admit I failed to follow up most previous discussions (especially those non factual discussions)…

I’m just confused af: Is this post about 1) the illegality of unauthorized mapping in China, or 2) how to properly tag a disputed area, or 3) the evils that CCP has ever made, or 4) how Chinese mappers should be treated and how OSM should act, or 5) something else ?

F-Droid is not blocked in China. The OSM data is somehow used outside China boundries in the official online map, and OSM is not given credit unless you zoom in a place outside China to the maximum. Notice the credits info:

自然资源部 & NavInfo & OpenStreetMap contributors 审图号：GS(2021)3715号

“自然资源部” means Chinese Ministry of Natural Resources, NavInfo is a Chinese map service provider, and “审图号” refers to a serial number which enables the map to be publicized. (meanwhile openstreetmap.org doesn’t have such serial number so it is illegal in China. Not blocked though probably because seldom have heard of it and it’s not a big threat(?) )

However I do not know how they are using OSM because the official map is not open sourced.

@westnordost,

Not involving with those political stuff is a wise move :)

What is the reason why you contribute to OpenStreetMap? Do you think this law is outdated and/or not really applicable? Is it something like trivial offense that is not enforced anyway?

OpenStreetMap is not so popular in China because the data quality of OSM is not as good as those local map service providers (e.g. Amap, Baidu Map), i mean, super bad esp. in rural areas. Most people who use and contribute in my opinion are researchers, geo-/carto-geeks or outdoor enthutiasts.

I do not know how many OSM contributors are aware of the illegality of mapping, but it seems that Chinese govn’t choose to turn a blind eye on those offenses - as long as the mapper doesn’t map sensitive stuff on OSM (e.g. military installations).

But still, one risk being accused of illegal mapping/surveying because theoretically speaking it is indeed an offence. The OSMWiki page of China explains it well.

Also, is OpenStreetMap blocked in China? And if not, why not - if it is illegal to create/use maps not issued by the government, it would seem logical to block access to it. Finally, are there any map apps in China people can use and have access to that use OpenStreetMap data? What is your personal experience with the quality of that data?

No, OSM isn’t blocked in China (while Google Maps is blocked). And ironically even the official online map released by Chinese Gov’t uses Openstreetmap data - it is a wild fusion of gov’t data (within China boundaries) and OSM data (outside China boundaries). And that might explain why China gov’t choose to connive at the exsistence of OpenStreetMap.

And a side note: Google Map is blocked because all google products are blocked in China :(

@ndrw6

Again, please refrain from politics and ideology discussions, that is beyond OSM’s scope. Only on-the-ground facts.

If you are not convinced by the proofs (or the what-you-called propagandas) from the Chinses side, just take a look at this Twitter post (from India) to have some basic knowledge about what’s happening there.

https://twitter.com/HiddenRoots6/status/1355984494713597954

Apparently China has military presence at the disputed region, which results in a de facto control of the area (no matter it is legal or evil or whatever you describes it as). The OSM mapping at such area is consistent with the on the ground FACTs in the physical world, not Chinese propaganda.

@SomeoneElse, thanks for the info. I’m gonna take a look at previous discussion that you’ve just posted.

One big caveat is that all of these links are all to English language OSM discussions, and in OSM that’s just one language among many.

Speaking of working languages, although theoretically English should not take precedence, IMHO it is frustrating that some OSM China users do not use English in a discussion (or do not know how to properly discuss in English). Hopefully translation software wouldn’t have introduced additional misunderstanding in the previous discussions.

@渤海西岸, Please refrain from political discussions and ad hominem attack.

*one excerpt from the mailing archive, sorry for the typo.

@SomeoneElse

Thank you for pushing forward the disputed mapping problem. Since you’re from the Data Working Group, I wonder if DWG is still working on the China-Bhutan disputed area case opened >20 days ago? It would be nice if all OSM users can know how things are going.

@ztzthu/diary/397732#comment50823

History repeats itself, and from my observation the current situation makes no difference from what was happening in Crimea, 2018 (except that here the disputed area between China-Bhutan was disputed from the beginning while Crimea wasn’t.) Lots of discussion here are basically identical with those discussion in the following OSM archive:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-November/081683.html

I’d like to make one except from the mailing list:

The Data Working Group takes no stance on if Russia’s control is legal or not, as that is not within our scope.

IMHO that should really be what is so-called neutral.

@ndrw6

There are accepted exceptions from on the ground truth rule and deliberately working it around to create fiction should void it in this case.

Could you explain more about those exceptions of the ground truth rule? Please post the link from OSMWiki or other OSM repositories because I cannot find any examples.

In this and previous thread all voices from China were strongly supportive to the Chinese government narrative and IMHO should not be taken into account when making a decision.

I repeat again, the moltivation of mapping is not China propaganda, but rather the on the ground rule. On-the-ground truth, on-the-ground bullying, on-the-ground invasion, you name it. As long as something is on the ground, then I see no problem mapping it into the OSM map.

Please, refrain from talking about politics if you really want to discuss the ground truth. Open a changeset, do a case-by-case analysis and discuss.

@ndrw6

That’s true, I believe that the hidden moltivation of China relocating residents and builidng architectures is actually trying to claiming control of the area. But it kinda works like this:

• Building sctructures, relocating residents -> Controling the area -> Claiming control of the area,

rather than

• Building sctructures, relocating residents -> Changing Openstreetmap -> Claiming control of the area.

Controling is controling, no matter how mappers map will not change the status quo right? And mappers are only honestly mapping what is on the ground. That’s not politics-driven but rather OSM-on-the-ground-rule driven. And it is not any kind of propaganda.

Well said, @Hike&Map. Thank you for bringing up the interesting topic of bullying and legality, I haven’t thought of that way before.

So here comes a couple of interesting questions:

1. How is the term bullying and legality defined? There should be more context, including jurisdiction and/or values in both sides.

2. Should any bullying in the real physical world be honestly rendered in OSM according to OSM on-the-ground rules, and does such rendering constitute any bullying in Openstreetmap? That being said, should OSM bear any responsibility for such bullying?

3. Is the discrimination and non-neutrality from OSM/OSMF a projection of discrimination and non-neutrality in the real physical world? Should OSM be aware of such discrimination and take action towards it?

Imho, OSM should be, and should only be an honest mouthpiece of the physical real world, no matter what is happening in the real world. Any potential fault is not at OSM, it is at what’s happening in the real world, and OSM/OSMF shouldn’t bear any responsibility or take actions, as long as they keep neutral (by neutral I mean honestly reflecting the world). That is why I call for eliminating discrimination and non-neutrality in OSM/OSMF, and it is also consistent with what the real physical world is trying to do (eliminating discrimination).

And I agree with you and @FreedSky that OSM should have a proper way for tagging the ditributed area, e.g. rendering the disputed area, establishing a webpage or database to show the on-the-ground truth related to the disputed areas. (but again, how do we promise such webpage will not be vandalized?)

*case-wisely, sorry for the typo.

And this is unacceptable in may ways:

1. OpenStreetMap is not Open and neutral (or even trying to be neutral!) anymore;

2. OpenStreetMap is used as a weapon for hatred and discrimination;

3. OpenStreetMap disobeys its own rule of sticking to the ground truth, because no one is willing to talk about the ground truth.

@NM$L

Unfortunately no one is willing to discuss the truth, I mean caae-wisely.

That is the most pathetic and problematic part: no one cares the fact, and it seems that attacking China and Chinese users has already become a political correctness in the OSM Community.

@redstrakraw

What you’ve said a couple of hours ago:

I don’t care about all these political BS just ground truth.

I don’t want to talk about political bullsh*t either, but apprently you are the guy who can’t stop talking about politics.

If you want to talk about ground truth with me, then you should refrain from all your previous comments and look at one particular changeset in the OpenStreetMap.

@redsteakraw

Sure let’s talk about ground truth, I’m no less sick of those endless political BS than you.

Speaking of ground truth, have you deliberately overlooked my comments just above your comment? Try scrolling your mouse wheel upwards.

@ndrw6

Regarding Chinese excursions into unoccupied areas of Bhutan and islands in the South China Sea - these are artificial constructs that were deliberately built to add them to the maps and further Chinese government’s propaganda (call it “on the ground lie”).

I don’t get it. What do you mean by “artificial constructs that were deliberately built to add them to the maps”?

It is the existence of the “artificial construct” in the REAL PHYSICAL WORLD that comes first, and why do you deny such existence? Mappers are only honestly mapping whatever exists in the real physical world. What are their faults?

If the physical existence is not a proof, then what in your opinion consititues a valid proof of China controlling the area according to the “on the ground rule”? Can you give me any examples?

The situation of honest Chinese mappers is indeed a concern, but the threat comes from inside of the country, and I am afraid you are on the threat side.

Ad Hominem. And talking BS without any concrete proof is not welcomed.

Regarding the discrimination argument. Disagreeing with a political party is not racism or xenophobia.

Sure you can disagree with a political party, but please do not use this derogative word to refer any specific person. That is racism.

And just a side note, referring a random OSM China user as “Commie” is absolutely not acceptable.

It’s as offensive as the word “n*gga” - what else can be categorized as discrimination if this doesn’t count? And whoever comments in that post should realize that the OP was deliberately provoking and stigamizing Chinese users (which is totally NOT acceptable).

Hi @ndrw6,

Thank you for the comment.

As FreedSky and I have repeated many times before (in OSM diary as well as in changeset comments), there is concrete proof showing China controling the China-Bhutan distributed area.

The proof include:

• Satellite imagery showing roads towards the distributed region; although there might be issues with the licenses (?) but I think it should be good if we do not use it for mapping purposes - *and China gov’t obviously cannot make up map satellites;

• Chinese documentaries (or “propaganda”, you name it) that films the distributed region - well, videos cannot be faked either, even though it might contain propaganda stuffs

• Wikipedia pages that states that China is controlling the area.

I wonder why would you insist on that this place cannot be independently surveyed ? We are not nationalists, we are just angry and disappointed that our voice are not being heard and OSM seems to dealing this issue with biased attitude agains Chinese mappers, instead of sticking to the so-called “on the ground rule”.

The question is, how do we tell apart honest and politically motivated contributors (the latter are some of the most prolific OSM contributors) and how do we help the first staying safe and maintain the quality of the map.

On the contrary, what I have observed is that those who do vandalism are often the newbies who are not familliar with OSM rules, and they are not moltivated by Chinese gov’t. (See the “Vandalism is per-user action, not a per-country / per-community action” part)

Please, do a case-by-case analyze with on-the-ground facts and show whoever you think is vandalizing the openstreetmap, just like what I’ve written about the China-Bhutan case in this comment.

Again, please do not assume that OSM China users are brain-washed by evil CCP and hence not reliable, that is nothing but discrimination.

Best regards, ztzthu.

@ndrw6

Note that artificial islands in South China Sea, Chinese outposts in unpopulated areas of Bhutan, “re-education” camps in Xinjiang cannot be independently surveyed (even by Chinese citizens, if they are not affiliated with the government), so any features not present in the satellite imagery (name, usage tags) originate from the Chinese Government only.

But we do have satellite map showing China controlling the China-Bhutan distributed area right? Did you overlooked the comments and links posted by Freedsky and me ?

Any such edits should be reviewed and flagged for a revert or disciplinary actions.

I agree that further discussion is necessesary if there is no consensus. However, there should be a chance that we could sit down and discuss together, instead of ignoring all comments from China users.

As these areas are relatively small geographic locks (after some clean up) may be a good solution. It would be better to not have any data in there than simply carry over Chinese propaganda.

China-Bhutan disputed area is not small right ? And won’t this proposal disobey multiple OSM rules, e.g. mapping for renderer ?

Also, what really is Chinese propaganda in your opinion? Can you please explain more on that?

给楼里的中国编辑者提个醒：参照上面的辩论金字塔，讨论的时候请避免人身攻击或立场上的攻击（Ad Hominem / Tone Response）。请就事论事，指出错误。