@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。

@ndrw6 and whoever comments in this post:

Just wanted to give you guys some basic idea of how discussion should work: Try at least counter-argument instead of pure tone-response.

@ndrw6 could you please confine the discussion to osm changeset itself, rather than simply labeling OSM China editors as nationalist? As per the China-Bhutan border case, I don’t see anything wrong from our side.

We are not weaponizing openstreetmap, it is the openstreetmap that is discriminizing China Editors.

And in case DWG overlooked my comment, I copy paste my comments here

Dear DWG,

While we admit that the China-Bhutan border, as a disputed border, needs further investigation by DWG, there are still a couple of questions that we want to address.

THE PROPER WAY TO START AN INVESTIGATION.

What is the proper way to show if a place is under investigation by DWG? If tagging “fixme=what’s this” alone is sufficient, why have you ADDITIONALLY changed the China-Bhutan border before the investigation starts (as shown in changeset #110858577) ?

THE RELIABILLITY OF THE CURRENT IMPORTED COUNTRY BORDER.

It seems that the current borders (and the choice between two ditributed borders) are imported from the LSIB dataset. How would you guarantee that this dataset is consistent with the OSM “on the ground” rule, especially considering the fact that this dataset is released by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, and is of US interest?

THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS.

Do we have a rough schedule about such investigation performed by DWG? It has been 15 days since the first changeset (#110858577) and there has been NO result. We have already shown lots of proofs [1,2] about China controlling the distributed area, and we think it shouldn’t take a lot of time to perform such investigation.

Please fix this as soon as possible, otherwise leaving the case unsolved with a wrongly-mapped border would be a vandalism itself to the OSM community imho.

Thank you for the investigation and apologies to any caused confusions.

Best regards

(Replying to SomeoneElse)

One more point about verifiability and sources, alas it seems that the terms of https://www.sentinel-hub.com/explore/sentinelplayground/ (see here) at any licence level below Enterprise are “Non-commercial use”or a CC licence that isn’t compatible with OSM.

Here it says Sentinal dataset are compatitable with OSM. And whatever the liscense is would NOT change the status quo.

Howver, in OSM we have a concept of verifiability, meaning not just “I think this is X” but “if other people looked at it, they’d think it was X too”

So let’s talk about the China-Bhutan region disputed area, shall we? Yes, “I think the disputed area belongs to China”, and we have provided all the proofs to convince DWG, such that “if other people looked at it, they’d think it belongs to China too.”

This is our concept of verifiability. Where is the concept of verifiability from the DWG side?

Unfortunately, without any proof, DWG pesumes that 1) the disputed area belongs to Bhutan, NOT China; 2) China users are vandalizing OSM. Otherwise why would DWG change the China-Bhutan border BEFORE the investigation starts?

According to your concept-of-verifiability theory (as well as OSM guidelines), DWG is vandalizing the most in this China-Bhutan disputed area case, because DWG cannot verify the its own presumption.

And DWG has replied NONE of our comments at the comments area. Please take a look at it.