OpenStreetMap
I will stop editing here after more than year of contribution because of various reasons, mainly political reasons.
I feel like continuing to support the project which is politically involved in mapping scope is not my moral thing to do anymore.
OSM’s ridiculous policy about who controls the ground, those determine the border is far more ridiculous than occupation itself. I am not surprised that these people do not understand what is international recognition means. The policy of “who controls the ground” is simply supporting any “invasion / annexation / or whatever term here” and running away from the reality of internationally recognized borders. If OSM is run by Europeans or Americans or Russians (who support their invasions and military presence in Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia) I am not remotely shocked. Because if they understood, world would not have been this trash since WW2.
I have seen it first time when I was removing fake Armenian names from the Karabakh area (was under occupation in between 1992 and 2024), DWG contacted me about not removing them because they have talked to Armenians who felt nostalgically bad about those. I was in utter shock for an American in DWG who did not think about occupation a second, but being fully biased on occupiers side asking how they would feel.
The same goes to Russo-Ukrainian war, for some reason they show Donbas as Ukraine area while it is under occupation, but showing Crimea not as a part of Ukraine while it is under annexation and occupation.
Same situation is with Georgian occupied areas.
I am familiar with double standards of Europeans, so no surprise here at all. You guys can enjoy mapping with disputed areas and changing borders every day.
Good luck to you all!
Discussion
Comment from G1asshouse on 18 May 2025 at 12:26
I am trying to understand your complaint. Are you referring to the previously autonomous area known as the Republic of Artsakh, until Azerbaijan ethnically cleansed the area of the >90% majority indigenous Artsakhi Armenians population? The area that the USSR handed to Azerbaijan despite the protest of the native Armenian population who had inhabited that area for centuries? If this is truly where your problem lay, I understand your issue. It is tough to be the occupier and yet feel like the occupied. It must really sting knowing that the United Nations International Court of Justice has ordered that the indigenous Armenian population has a right of return. I understand your frustration in this situation.
I don’t have any helpful advice for you yet I will remind you that since OSM is a global project, the data is not mine nor is it yours. Unfortunately, the data is the OSM community’s. I must admit that this fact often frustrates me, as well. I have seen that it frustrates other mappers, too. If this is frustrating you, I just want you to know that you are not alone. I do believe that your frustration (and mine) is a great sign. It shows that you care and have passion for accurate data and folks like us are what makes the OSM project such a great project.
I can only leave you with what I do in situations such as this. When OSM stops being enjoyable, because of bad edits, ethnic cleansing apologists, or even sitting OSMF board members promoting ignoring the wider OSM community I take a break from OSM editing. When OSM mapping has become a source of frustration, I step away. Eventually, like others, I will return and when I do I change what I edit. I change both the geographic area and the types of tags I edit. This helps me avoid the same situations that cause my frustrations, in the first place. I also attempt to stick to mapping surveyable locations, at least for a while. Doing this makes any disagreements with other mappers much easier to settle as I can leave my armchair and take a picture of the disputed POI.
I hope all goes well with you, I hope some of this helps open your eyes and I would love to see you mapping again in the future.
Comment from cybermapper on 18 May 2025 at 12:41
You speaking Artsakh, is exactly the same thing to call DNR, LNR, or whatever Russians call occupied Ukrainian territories. Your empty arguments won’t be anything here my friend.
Whole world saw how Armenians left region peacefully, unlike how Azerbaijanis left in 1992,1993 with ethnical cleansing and bloodshell.
If you don’t know history or you don’t understand what is a double standard, check yourself with some historic evidences
https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/13508.htm
You know, I have heard all those claims, doesn’t matter, stays your opinion, but making mistakes on what is an occupation or what’s an ethnical cleansing, shows whether you’re very closely tied with Armenians or you are perhaps. Or you are just blind and never seem to know the truth.
The whole world knows the reality, your comment won’t change the truth, I advise you to learn history well and bear with it. Because history always punishes you for historical denialism.
In any case, I’m glad for liberated regions such as Karabakh from occupiers, I hope the same for Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.
Learn the history well Best of luck!
Comment from darkonus on 19 May 2025 at 10:35
As a member of the Ukrainian OSM community, I want to say that your feelings deeply resonate with me. I understand the frustration when political realities are treated as neutral facts on a map — especially when those “facts” stem from military occupations or violations of international law.
I honestly don’t know what the best solution is when it comes to handling disputed territories within a global volunteer project like OSM, or if a truly fair solution is even possible. But I do believe that the so-called neutrality of the “on-the-ground control” principle is deeply flawed. A map of borders is inherently political — it reflects choices, values, and interpretations of legitimacy. Pretending that “physical control” alone is apolitical oversimplifies very real and painful histories for many communities.
We are all contributors from different countries, backgrounds, and political contexts. It’s unrealistic to expect that a single mapping policy can feel fair or neutral to everyone, especially when it echoes the logic of the aggressor.