“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 ?”

I think you yourself in your OP and following comments touched or at least bordered already some of these aspects and thus widened the topic beyond what you originally might have intended.

The reason for this is that quite often a topic you wish to address, doesn’t stand singled out on verbal/reasoning island disconnected from other topics one could discuss or wish to address.

As such the intended message indeed often gets lost and as more topics are being referred to it becomes less organized or as we say in my country: “can’t see the forest through the trees.”

So I say again my opinion:”the topic of mapping disputed areas”

That’s the origin of these issues and why emotions boil leading to non-desirable conflicts and comments within the OSM community.

Evidently it can not be solved by the self-regulations of the community because it’s too loaded with emotions and intertwined with other topics/concepts where there is no legal body above our heads to which we could refer in our arguments.

In the Netherlands I had a long discussion once with a lawyer for international law. I never forget his comment:”international law you have to consider like this - if in this bar everyone is peaceful and 1 person is starting a fight, then that’s illegal and he’s in the wrong - if everyone responds to that by everyone fighting everyone as you sometimes see in movies - then now it’s okay to fight since everyone is fighting everyone and if you refuse to fight the others might consider that now illegal and wrong.”

So the concept of mapping virtual lines of borders/claims/disputes/occupation relies on this concept of international law - one can clearly recon how easily it becomes disorganized, chaotic and emotional and then insults and other non-desired behavior will result.

What OSMF claims - physical reality on the ground - I agree that’s true for physical objects on the ground. But a border/claim/dispute isn’t physical, it’s not part of physical reality, it’s a virtual man-made reality!

It’s the same when I tell my kids:”Kid1 stay on that side of the bedroom and Kid2 stay on the other side of the bedroom and the line is in the middle!”

There’s no physical reality! That’s a virtual reality where both can argue what the middle is. The moment they build a wall/fence/etc that’s physical reality!

And thus since we’re talking about virtual reality here, man-made virtual lines/borders/claims , I fail to see how the mapping community can be self-regulating here given the fact even international law can escalate between 200 countries [Entities] now imagine you have millions of people [Entities]!

Conflict is predetermined.

Therefore, this is a very exceptional case where OSMF has to step in and lay out the framework how to behave/map/attribute - as long as they refuse - issues, emotions, insults will come back again and again.

As for the concept of being insulted. We might also consider a bit more constraint on our part before complaining about it. At some points in life, ignorance can be a bliss! For all you know it’s a 12 year old making a comment you feel insulted about. Kids do tend to say things they’ll regret ever to have said a few years from now. So I wouldn’t make a big fuss about it.

Stick to facts is my recommendation.

And the fact is: there’s a mapping issue where there’s no guideline, recommendation or mapping-scheme we can rely on - set by the self-regulation of the community. Because the community can’t agree on one, due to the emotional loaded conflicts and the fact there’s no higher authority we can rely on in a fact-based discussion.

As such I conclude, IMHO, OSMF has to step in here in an exceptional 1-time move on how to proceed as mapper as neutral as possible on conflicted areas between nations.

What Adamant1 is saying is very troublesome indeed. The allegation is here that the USA just like the CCP is censoring data that belongs to the public.

yet I wish to refrain from politics altogether. I am just and only concerned about OSM really. And most importantly the question that rises here is the legality of information! I have to admit I don’t agree with all laws and rules and regulations worldwide - but as mapper I have no choice:”I must follow the law!”

So I want to turn this comment into a perspective from a legal point of view without my personal opinion if I like certain laws, or not.

I think it is very important here to understand what is data that belongs to the public and what is data that does NOT belong to the public.

It is very clear that when you’re walking on a public road and can see my house - that’s public data! However, when I build a wall 2m high and you then climb a ladder or whatever to peak over it that’s a clear violation of my rights and the data you couldn’t see otherwise is not public data. It is my land and my right to pull up a wall so you can’t look into my garden. It’s now not publicly available anymore. And just as much as you shouldn’t climb a ladder to look over the wall, it also means any shed or whatever behind that wall you wouldn’t see it from public space and thus shouldn’t map it.

if I don’t pull up a wall - then it’s data available to public space and thus you can map it. You don’t have to get on my private land to see it.. the photons - whether I like it or not - leave my territory from my private land and go into public space where everyone can detect these photos and thus see my shed and thus that’s then public.

This of course especially concerns anything inside a building! Whether that’s a private home, an office, a city hall, or even a restaurant. Even if it’s open for public as in publicly accessible - it’s still private land/building and the data inside is not public. It belongs to the private space where I ALLOW anyone to enter, yet that doesn’t mean I allow the data to be taken outside by someone else. Before you start measuring tables, arrangements, seats, etc. you should first ask the owner if that’s okay with him. Before you make photos in a museum you should ask permission, etc etc.. the logic here is obvious. The photons don’t go into public area, they remain in the private area. And the OWNER decides if that data, the photons can leave the private territory or not.

These 2 short examples surely don’t even cover 0.1% of all possible cases but I want to point out here simply there’s a difference between data that’s meant to be publicly available and data that is not. I agree this is a thin line - but generally if there’s no barrier between private land/territory preventing photons (data) from leaking into public space - then it’s intended or at least consent that the public can see it, thus public data. If there’s any form of obstruction, wall, trees, fence, anything you can think of hindering photos (data) from leaking into public space then obviously that data is NOT intended for public nor consent!

So generally there’s a consensus whatever you can look at from public space (as from public accessible territory, roads, paths, fields,) is public data and whatever you can’t see - at least not without technical aid or going somewhere inside leaving public space is then not public data.

Again - there are slight variations to the general rule and these amount in thousands of cases which are always a bit different but I think the majority of people switching on their brains get what I’m saying here.

And at this point then we have to distinguish between the countries and how they define public vs private. CCP criminalizes mapping completely as I understand. Which means basically there is no public data in CCP occupied territories. If that’s how they define the law - the whole of CCP occupied territories are never public but everything even the slightest square-nanometer is private property of the CCP - then all mappers have to accept that the whole of CCP occupied territories doesn’t know public space and it’s the right of the private owner, in this case then the CCP is the private owner, to say that he as owner does not want anyone to map anything.

basically they then legally define their whole occupied territories like a huge government office, or a museum, or whatever you wanna call it. But if they declare:”nothing in CCP occupied territories is public space” - then obviously nothing in CCP you could see from public space and thus they can legally claim from anyone NOT to map anything.

The parts of my garden I’m good with everyone to see I have the photos leaking into public space and I’m okay with others to map it. What areas of my land I don’t want you to map, I make sure no photons are leaking into public space and thus you shouldn’t map these - most notably thus my bathroom, bedroom and toilet ROFLMAO.

You can map whatever you can see from public road/land/terrain. That’s totally fine with me. But if you have to come on my private owned land/territory to be able to see something - then obviously I have no intention for it to be mapped.

And this is my right on my own land!

What I can’t do however, at least I’d consider it wrong - if I let photons of these areas leak into public space, for everyone to see, and then tell everyone:’but you are not allowed to look at it!’

I mean that’s censorship and dictatorship when I’m letting the data leak into public space and then dictate people in public space what they’re supposed to look at or not. You should be able to turn around your head in public space!

So the question concerning the CCP occupied territories is basically this: 1) are roads, freely accessible territories, etc defined as public space? then if they forbid looking at data which is publicly available to be shown to publicly available data - that’s then dictatorship and censorship. 2) if nothing in CCP occupied territories is actually private space but 100% of the occupied territories are privately owned by the CCP, juridically their culture doesn’t know “public space” then all of the data is private owned by the CCP and it’s their right like a Museum, School, government office, private company or in my own, to declare that they do now want this data to be leaked into public space (which would then exist outside of their occupied territories)

So when we look then now at the USA, does the US government forbid Americans to map data available in the public space? That’s the big question here.

Public roads, parks, etc does the USA forbid people to map here?

So as I understand from Adamant1, the USA does not forbid this.

But he claims the USA does only forbid mapping in “national parks” Then just as with the CCP the question is what is the status of the national parks? is a US national park status public space or privately owned by a government agency?

If it belongs to a government agency or any other juridical non-public entity then the question is - what can I see from the area that is public space?

All the photons (data) that is leaking from the park (which then is not public ) leaking into public space I can map. They can’t forbid that. Because I’m just registering the photons I can detect in public space. If they forbid that, that would be censorship.

but all the data I can’t see, because trees or whatever is hindering the data from leaking outside, that’s then non-public data and they can just like a museum or any other place that’s hindering photons to leak to the public space demand not to record the data and make it available in public space.

Note here:’publicly accessible like restaurant, mall, museum, etc doesn’t mean it’s public property!”

I can open my gate and tell everyone:”you are all free to enter today, or this week, or certain seasons…” it’s still my private property!

So to determine if CCP or USA are censoring data, the question is first and foremost - is that data actually public data in the first place?

again - every data that is on private/corporate/government or otherwise owned land and that is NOT by itself leaking into public space is NOT public data! And it is NOT censorship to ask everyone you allow to enter your owned property - not to leak the private data to the outside world - that’s your right since that is YOUR DATA!

But every data that you let yourself leak to the public space, that then becomes public data of course and that you can not tell people to look away or close their eyes on the road where they are standing/walking/driving as that would be censorship since the moment any data goes into public space, then it’s public and not yours anymore to tell others what to do with it.

this is my opinion and by no means an argument of legality.

it’s just what I think we as mappers should consider…

Ask ourselves:”the data I’m looking at, is that actually private or public data?”

And you should ask that question when you’re in a country (CCP) or a national park (USA) or a road (private public?) or a government office, a corporate office, the bus or train, a museum or even when you’re sitting in the car of your best friend.

You may find it funny to see he has condoms laying there hidden in the center console, it is NOT censorship but HIS RIGHT to tell you:”please don’t talk about what you’ve seen here outside of the car with anyone!”

So how this legality is then being implemented worldwide falls under censorship - well it’s not censorship if you declare privately owned data by any juridical/natural body that’s not voluntarily distributed into the public space should not be exposed into the public space by others.

So I honestly have to explain here:”I do not know how CCP declares their lands, roads, fields,.. if they legally in their constitution have the framework that public space does simply not exist in their country, then forbidding mapping is not censorship. It’s just a different interpretation of what is just or not - which might or might not have its origin in different culture.

And if in the USA national parks are NOT public space but legally owned by the government (which is a juridical person like any company/corporation) that allowed people all year or during specific seasons/times to enter the land then they have the full right like anyone else to declare:”yes you can enter this property but don’t take pictures or leak out other information please”

That’s then not censorship. The government can just as much tell you NOT to make photos or record other data by any means from any other government owned land or property.

it’s their right to allow you, but also their right not to allow you!

For instance I live here on Luzon in the mountains. In the Pine forest here large areas are still US Federal government owned lands. And partially the signs says we’re allowed to walk there and partially we’re not allowed to walk there.

It’s their land, their property! They can allow me or not to enter just as much as they can allow me or not to leak out data.

I think from this legal perspective - it might become more clear the issues we as mappers face and therefore i wish especially with emotionally loaded topics like state-disputes to have an OSMF recommendation.. A recommendation endorsed by OSMF is the very least.

And I agree to everything that OSMF should stay out of everything principally, because principally if you really really really don’t like something, you can always go to court and ultimately there you will get a final verdict that’s binding to everyone!

Yet the issues between states - it isn’t so easy to just go to court and there you and the one you have the dispute with will get a binding verdict everyone has to comply with.

Either way - if exposing data to OSM (freedom) or not (censorship) - isn’t always so clear it really depends from my perspective on the juridical situation and especially the definition of the space where you can record that information?

Is that space where you can record the information public or not - as in that data you wish to record - never leaves private space .. the owner ensures that the data does not leak into public space?

That’s the big question here.

So maybe better not turn this into a political debate about evil CCP or evil US congress or evil French/Germans and everyone else someone might or might not consider evil..

I’m not a fan of any political system to be honest. But when it comes to OSM..

I think all that matter to us is the legality of the data we upload to OSM. After all, none of us wants eventually data being removed from the database upon court order right? Preventing such deletion orders by any court, should be our foremost concern in the first place. Ensuring whatever any of us uploads, is valid and legal.

topics of censorship or not I leave then to the courts..

After drinking some coffee…

Here’s my final conclusion..

OSMF maintains several core concepts. Among these the concept of “self regulation by the community” and “Physical reality”

This is a very good move by the OSMF. And I think everything that in fact is physical this works extremely well. If there’s a tree then there’s a tree. If there’s a field of grass then there’s a field of grass and if there’s a building, hut, bridge, whatever then that’s the case. If there’s a port, airfield, river, so is it.

There will be no argument here by people - the arguments that do arise are pesky and thus easy for people to eventually accept proposals and agree on it. We all accept nothing is perfect and you can’t always get everyone to agree on something but if the issues are pesky - is the river a river or a stream - we all understand the concept sometimes you just gotta go with the flow.

So self-regulation of a community where it really concerns physical entities is doable.

The limitations are shown on topics where the “physical reality” isn’t actually a physical reality but a artificial reality. A reality that is no part of the physical world. A reality created artificially by humans.

10.000 years ago we didn’t have countries, borders, administrative boundaries. 10.000 years ago the world was 100% physical.

Today we have these artificial constructs which are physically not present. They are virtual. One among them moving between 2 countries. Physical is a wall, a fence, a river, that marks such a border - but the border itself is not physical, it’s virtual. It exists only on paper or in the mind of the human observer.

So the extend of dispute here - is significantly higher then when we’re going to argue if something is a main road or a minor road; is it a river or a stream; or is a waterfall intermittent or permanent if at some seasons the waterfall itself is fed by just 1l/minute?

There’s always room for argue but in the physical world we usually all see what we see and thus self-regulation and agreeing on what we see is doable because we’re all looking at the same thing really.

And hence not so with artificial man-made virtual objects like countries or borders.

And thus I feel - here the 2 main concepts of OSMF of “self regulation of the community” and “map physical reality on the ground” both to which I strongly agree - are not alright for virtual artificial objects.

Clearly the community is not capable of self-regulation here.

So dear OSMF - give us a clear mapping scheme as neutral as possible for these very exceptional cases where we - all of us mappers - aren’t actually looking at the same physical thing but at an artificial virtual object.

That’s all I’m asking.

As for people accusing me of ranting: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/ranting

where do I write aggressively? Emotionally charged? Rave?

sorry but I just expressed my opinion that although I usually agree to the “community self-regulation policies” of OSMF in this very specific exceptionally case where mappers are emotionally charged - all I’m asking is OSMF to come up with an endorsed/recommended solution to settle this.

That’s a rant?

I usually never get personal, I usually don’t attack any specific country or take a position who’s right or wrong. But here I’m personally being attacked by someone who claims him/herself being supreme superior to personally assault me?

Nice one!

Well my point I say again - I don’t care much about the politics who controls what.

I want a clear tagging scheme! That’s my major concern really. I can’t change what countries around the world are claiming.

But I do feel there where there is conflict, people on both sides usually feel treated badly.

And I understand the losing side - just wants some sort of recognition that they have legal claims - regardless if this reflects who has the biggest guns in town.

Therefore I’d wish we had a proper tagging scheme that includes: disputed by claimed by international court of the UN ruled ownership to

the term “Physical” is a point of perspective.. is an administrative boundary physical? No - it’s a construct of politics. A wall can be physical, a fence can be physical, ownership of land by definition is NOT physical! It’s a STATUS!

when I look out of my window - the land itself is physical, the ownership is NOT - that’s juridical, political, whatever you wanna call it.

So then someone claims:”if country X controls it - that’s the physical reality”

I’d argue - no that’s juridical and political reality. physical reality is that there’s a piece of land. Physical reality is there’s a tree, a house, a road, mud, grass, concrete, anything I can touch!

I think the whole issue here is hat literally NO ONE recognizes that countries, boundaries, borders it’s not physical ever! You can’t touch a country. How can I touch Norway? How can I touch Italy?

I can touch mother earth and everything on it. But the political entity, the administrative boundary, that’s just on paper when you think about it.

And this is the main issue why at OSM we keep arguing about it.

Some village in Bhutan claimed and controlled by the CCP - then the CCP supporters say:”yeah you can physically touch China - physical reality - and thus ours” and the Bhutanese and others claim:”but it’s stolen - it doesn’t belong to you, it’s illegal”

Not going into it who’s right or wrong here but the main concept that a country is a physical entity or a boundary is, is wrong.

when I walk from the Netherlands to Germany - and I did so many times - there’s never ever a single time I could physically touch anything..

I wouldn’t know where NL ends and Germany starts.. how can I? Since Germany, Netherlands, the border it’s NOT physical reality, there’s nothing physically to touch! Netherlands, Germany, the border are administrative/political/juridical and thus virtual objects!

So at this point I explained enough WHY I think the whole concept of considering a country or a border a “physical reality” is wrong as it’s a virtual reality - and therein lies then the problem in OSM.

The ones with the guns - who are in control - claim it’s a physical reality on the ground.

but the ones opposing it want their wishes to be expressed as well since OSM should be neutral.

And when we leave the assumption that countries/borders are physical realities but accept these are man-Made artificial objects and not actually physical objects you could touch - A country or a border it’s like a virtual layer over a physical presence.

Then we can all agree that to this tagging of virtual entities like countries and borders we can easily have an official endorsed tagging-scheme to deal with this.

owner by controlled by claimed by disputed by etc..

I feel this community is in a deadlock here, because OSMF on such a sensible topic where emotions are involved is silent or plain out rejects any proposal!

I honestly think:”ANY ENDORSED/RECOMMENDED tagging scheme is better than the situation right now - everyone thinks for themselves their claims are legit - so without actually going into the topic if it is or not - we can maintain neutrality in OSM by indeed simply mapping how it is and we can do that with a proper tagging scheme where everyone can enter their claims/disputes while maintaining who’s actually in control”

And the lack of this tagging scheme - is why we keep fighting over this topic - which serves none of us here.

I’m going to skip all the political arguments - let’s stick to OSM.

I feel the real problem is - that OSMF continues to reject any proposal for a proper tagging scheme for disputed areas.

There have been several proposals but every proposal is blatantly rejected by the OSMF.

Basically their argument is - the moment a country occupies a territory of another country - that OSMF will officially recognize this occupying country to be the legal international recognized owner of that territory. I know they’re not saying that literally - but that’s what 100% of the users see represented on the map if they go to openstreetmap.org!

Any proposal to add a tagging scheme like: - disputed by ….. - claimed by …. - international court ruling …. etc..

Every a suggestion is totally smashed by the OSMF.

Not a single proposal ever made it.

So what you get then - is that the losing side - will see on the map only:”OSMF recognizes the occupying country the legal international recognized owner of the territory”

Which is wrong of course.

And the occupational force, the aggressor and invader will argue:”but OSMF doesn’t say that literally!”

true - it doesn’t say that literally - but the fact is 99,9999% of the world population looks on a map and will not think about it if there’s something on the map contested, disputed, etc..

They will think:”oh, so this is the boundary - this belongs to that land”

And in the back of their heads they automatically then assume:”that’s then the legal international recognized border”

And of course the losing side - will respond emotionally to this trying to change the tide - human behavior.

So this whole discussion - the way I see it - is that we as mappers have no proper tagging scheme available to mark 1) factual situation on the ground 2) all contested reasoning

because only 1) is endorsed by OSMF and any suggestion to address point 2) OSMF always says:”no we reject this blatantly!”

By doing so - OSMF is basically not neutral anymore - but always in favor of the side with the biggest guns.

Which usually are the bullies.

So then asking mappers in the countries that are being bullied to be neutral - while OSMF taking the stance to always side with the bully and thus not being neutral - that’s a tough one for those who feel they’re treated badly by OSMF

And that then - mappers respond emotionally to OSMF taking the side of the bullies - favoring the bullies - that mappers then respond non-neutral to the non-neutral stance by OSMF - is to be expected and totally human.

well - I can’t blame the people/mappers of the small countries being bullied to respond emotionally to the fact that OSMF policy is to always favor the bully.

The solution lies in OSMF to stop favoring the bullies - and actually address this and respond to these issues with a true neutral mapping scheme..

Which sadly even in 2021 OSMF officially declares it will NOT accept any tagging scheme to neutrally address this issue but will always promote the tagging scheme to favor the bullies.

So instead of we mappers bitching at each other and claiming from one another that some among us are not neural - we better finally convince OSMF to stop favoring the bullies and give us a proper tagging scheme to reflect the issues I raised like

contested by international recognized to international court in the The Hague ruling and other tags/keys we’d need to resolve this peacefully