Changeset: 123506738
This reverts vandalism and unverifiable edits and fixes some problems on territorial borders of Iran
Closed by iriman
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (18513 en) |
---|
Discussion
-
Comment from Abdullah Abdulrhman
This edit is a sabotage of the UAE borders. The previous state were correct. Please I kindly ask you to check again and revert your actions and don’t do it again.
-
Comment from Aleksandar Matejevic
Hi, iriman, can you explain how was this a "vandalism and unverifiable edits and fixes some problems on territorial borders of Iran"?
I have added relation with boundary=claim, claimed_by, disputed_by, and this can be verified on several sources, but take Wikipedia as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_and_Lesser_TunbsNo change of the Iran border was made.
Can you please revert your edit which removed claimed boundaries? -
Comment from woodpeck
iriman, please explain these edits. I can see in the discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123455005 that LockOnGuy cited a number of sources supporting the claim that far from being "clearly Iranian", these islands are indeed subject to a dispute and tagging the boundaries as disputed sounds like the correct solution to me. You have not given any sources for your claim.
-
Comment from Nawfal85
Iriman, your edit is vandalism, revert please.
-
Comment from iriman
@Aleksandar Matejevic
Hi Aleksandar, the relation you added is not needed. There are two islands that both have Wikidata. That's enough. I don't map claims specially ones that are not verifiable on the ground.
@Abdullah Abdulrhman, @woopeck
Hi, I know we map verifiable things on OSM and those claims are not verifiable on the ground. Those claims always rejected by Iranian officials.
Regards
-
Comment from iriman
* woodpeck
-
Comment from iriman
Dear @Nawfal85,
I guess someone provoked you to comment here. However I may be wrong and of course, there is nothing wrong with commenting. But please ask lockdownguy (if you know him) why he changed the name of the Holy Imam Javad (peace be upon him) to "گواد"
(أعوذ بالله)History of node:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4236952889/history
More detailed:
https://osmcha.org/changesets/92006823/Note that recently after someone changed the name to "جامع الزهراء" a user deleted it completely.
And yet another user added same place at same location again.
There are a lot of vandalism on Iraq from lockdownguy that I'm going to report to DWG. -
Comment from Aleksandar Matejevic
@iriman, I agree that both islands have Wikipedia links and if you visit the page you will find out that these are disputed areas. But you still need tagging in order to render this on the map. Imagine you create a point, add a Wikipedia link of the airport, and is that an airport? Will it render on the map? Will the search engine will find it? No, this is why we have other attributes.
Please revert the change for the Thumb islands, it does not affect Iran or UAE borders, it is just a relation that has all the correct attributes for disputed territories, not the administrative ones.
I understand that this is a sensitive area, but if you look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes you will find that lot of territories are in more or less similar situations. This is why we map them as claims, this does not mean that they belong to a specific country. -
Comment from Nawfal85
No one sent me to comment here. The node you're talking about is non existing in real life. Dont change the subject of this changeset. Revert your vandalism.
-
Comment from iriman
@Nawfal85, the main issue there, is insulting.
Exsistence of a building is not that important.
However, you are right, sorry I had a wrong assumption and went off-topic.
My answer to your comment is the same as my response to others above. -
Comment from iriman
@Aleksandar Matejevic
OK, you want to map a dispute. I agree with mapping such a thing but it shouldn't use same tags the real boundaries use. For example way 1054903303 that was going through Iran should not have admin_leve=2. It could be disputed:admin_level=2. because in real it is a line passing territory of Iran which itself tagged with admin_level=2 and this is a conflict between those two types of admin_level=*. All tags specific to the dispute should have such a tag (as an example with dispute prefix). So renderers handle them completely separate.Also, those disputed areas are part of Iran territory on the ground and it is verifiable on the ground, so those disputed areas should only be added to the relation of Iran, if adding to country relations is needed.
-
Comment from LockOnGuy
This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123563171 where the changeset comment is: Revert vandal edit by a nationalist user, restore disputed boundaries
-
Comment from iriman
@LockOnGuy,
OSM is a map of things that are both real and current. If you think borders are wrong, follow the issue on the ground so it become real and then tell me. I'm here to edit it as reality. Like the issue of "طابو زراعي" that you pointed before.Representation of a dispute on OSM, should not reflect anything more than the dispute itself.
Also you should note that borders in real world are controlled by governments and Iran has full control over 3 islands.
So you can conclude that the dispute here has had no effect on real boundaries.About the comment of your recent changeset I should say that I'm not speaking about the degree of my nationalism and I'm interested in edits that interest me.
-
Comment from LockOnGuy
iriman,
If you disagree with the existence of the disputed tag in OSM, you can start here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Delete_proposal
But if you only disagree with the existence of this disputed area only because of "Those claims always rejected by Iranian officials." that is the whole point of the disputed tag existing. No country will recognize the land they occupied as an occupation land.You said it is controlled by Iran who has full control over the 3 Emirati islands, true, and that is why there is a tag called "controlled_by:country" see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1054903303
Here in OSM, we always assume good intentions but removing only this feature that is relatable to your country, ignoring the fellow mappers who trying to inform you that what you did is wrong, and with you removing parts of the OSM wiki too:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Disputed_territories&type=revision&diff=2355373&oldid=2328779 which was reverted by an OSM Wiki admin telling you that "those claims exist". All of these factors making it hard to continue assuming good intentions.
I have reverted your edit in changeset 123563171. Please read carefully what the others had told you, and what I explained to you and try to understand.
Have a nice day. -
Comment from iriman
To all:
Please let me know your opinions, specially about my last comment to LockOnGuyThanks
-
Comment from iriman
@LockOnGuy
Yes, removing dispute from the wiki was wrong and I thanked Tigerfell publicly by pressing thank button when I noticed about revert of my edit on wiki and time of pressing button should be available.For now I would wait if others have comments.
Thanks
Ways (9)
- 305917632, v5
- 305917633, v5
- 1054903299, v4
- 1054903302, v3
1038746982, v21038746983, v21054903297, v51054903303, v101054903304, v10
Relations (5)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |