Changeset: 123897767
This edit removes claimed border lines from subdivisions of UAE boundary. Also note that currently there are 3 relations for showing the claims here and they have some overlappings.
Closed by iriman
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (18513 en) |
---|
Discussion
-
Comment from LockOnGuy
Hello again iriman, please don't fiddle with any of the islands in the Arabian Gulf region. The island was added to the relation of the UAE states 2 years ago. DWG did not have a complaint about this previously.
if you disagree, you can discuss it where it was first added: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69606798
And: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118277832
Discuss before changing anything. -
Comment from LockOnGuy
This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 123906920 where the changeset comment is: revert undiscussed edit
-
Comment from iriman
Hello LockOnGuy,
As far as I understand, the "border lines" of these islands in Persian Gulf, added to UAE states starting https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120185536 , 3 months ago by yourself. Even if it was 2 years ago, we can correct things when we see them.
Both changesets you linked, only added boundary=claim and have not touched the UAE states.
Just relations for claims are mapped without touching real boundaries.
Relations in the second changeset are anyway deleted by its editor, Aleksandar. Later he has merged those two relations into one relation by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118774915. Again, no state of UAE is touched with this changeset.About my changeset here, what I changed actually is discussed on before at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123563171, where you said:
> I guess it’s fine now to change the boundaries from administrative to disputed and remove them from the relation of the UAE so it won't overlap between 2 countries
What I did is the thing you agreed on before. I removed _claimed_ border lines from _real_ and _current_ boundary of UAE states.
Hope it helps to know what I did.
-
Comment from LockOnGuy
>we can correct things when we see them.
True, but on border levels, you need to discuss the matter with the community, you can't change anything without discussing for such edits. In this changeset you edited Sharjah Emirate and Ras al-Khaimah boundaries, I didn't see you discussing this with of Sharjah, and Ras al-Khaimah communities.
>Both changesets you linked, only added boundary=claim and have not touched the UAE states.
Wrong, see again.
>About my changeset here, what I changed actually is discussed
No, you said you have points or notes, which I already knew before. You didn't say issues or you disagree with them. Even if we consider this as a "discussion" 1 day is not enough for you to change boundaries when there is no reply.
At the end, please discuss this matter first with the Sharjah, and Ras al-Khaimah communities before you edit their boundaries again.
Regards.
-
Comment from iriman
> on border levels, you need to discuss the matter with the community[...]
Even you confessed previously that on the ground Iran has the full control over 3 Iranian islands but yet you try to put the claims as reality on the map.
When you tried "to map claims as real" borders or part of real boundaries did you make any discussion with the community, specially Iranians?
What actually deserve a discussion, are claims.> Wrong, see again.
I checked them again. In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69606798 if you scroll down the page, you see only relation/9520136 which is a "boundary=claim". No other relations are modified with this changeset.Also in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118277832 if you scroll down the page, you'll find two newly created ways, two newly created relations and some nodes.
No relations of UAE boundaries are modified.> No, you said you have points or notes[...]
I didn't referred to those points of myself when I said this:
"About my changeset here, what I changed actually is discussed[...]"
but I referred to your words that you accepted to leave claims of real world (UAE claims) as claims on the map (boundary=claim) and don't map them as real (boundary=administrative) to avoid overlapping between countries (Iran and UAE). -
Comment from LockOnGuy
>did you make any discussion with the community, specially Iranians
- The locals are Arabs and they stated that they are part of the UAE, so when we map, we map based on the locals. Also, I did not remove anything from iran just added disputed borders.
>What actually deserve a discussion, are claims.
-No, imagine discussing Crimea with the Russians, they will deny the disputed borders and say it's part of Russia only, just like you when you deleted the disputed borders from OSM in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123506738 and the Wiki in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Disputed_territories&type=revision&diff=2355906&oldid=2355373
>I didn't referred to those points of myself when I .... but I referred to your words
-I did not say to do what you did here. They only mention the overlapping from the DWG was between r307763 and r304938 only, so I fixed that overlapping for now.
Regards. -
Comment from iriman
> The locals are Arabs
> they stated that they are part of the UAE,Don't assume things simple. Iran has many Arabs that are Iranian and love their country. If you ask people in Abumusa they say their population is 85M. You know what it mean.
> just added disputed borders.
You did more by adding claimed borders to UAE-related boundaries. UAE has no control over land and borders there.
Your edits here are really useless:
- duplicating boundary=claim/disputed that existed already.
- mapping claims as reality by adding them to administrative relations.Please leave it in peace as it was with my last edit on it, and don't impose claims into the map.
However you can suggest cartographers to make a rendering style for claims to show them on the map and you don't have to add them to administrative ones.
> imagine discussing Crimea
General rule in OSM is on the ground rule or physical control as you read the PDF from OSMF before and it follows realities on the ground too.> just like you when you deleted the disputed borders
It seems that you missed some part of the discussion. I admitted the mistake right there in my reply to Aleksandar. If you read the discussion, you wouldn't have to complain on deleting it once there and this time here.My problem isn't existence of claims, but turning claims into realities on the map.
And for your last statement:
Overlapping between relations of Iran and UAE, have the same meaning as overlapping between Iran and some UAE states. And you accepted to avoid it *and then* if you want start a discussion in public mailing list so others give their opinions. -
Comment from LockOnGuy
Hi
> Don't assume things simple. Iran has many Arabs that are Iranian and love their country...
- So they love Iran so much that they say we are not part of Iran and fly the UAE flag? https://www.albayan.ae/across-the-uae/news-and-reports/2017-11-03-1.3088371
> Please leave it in peace as it was with my last edit on it, and don't impose claims into the map.
- OSM is open data not your own, and the DWG previously stated that
"it's actually quite useful to have a way of representing different border disputes in an area (there are many places where two countries claim the same territory, Having a disputed boundaries won't affect how existing "boundary=administrative" relations are processed."
> General rule in OSM is on the ground rule or physical control...
- And still, Crimea is part of the administrative boundaries of Ukraine, how can you explain this?
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199
I will discuss this in the mailing list later because there is zero difference between Russian annexing Crimea with military power and Iran annexing the 3 islands also with military power, same invasion, different year.
> My problem isn't existence of claims, but turning claims into realities on the map.
- These "claims" as you described them, exist in the reality, see the first link and the previous sources I sent you.
Currently, the countries do not overlap with each other, the only complaint from the DWG was about r307763 and r304938 overlaps and that was fixed.
Lastly, if you want to edit the boundaries of Sharjah, and Ras al-Khaimah, please discuss this with the local community and tell them that you're about to edit their boundaries and remove the islands.
Regards. -
Comment from iriman
again repeating same claims...
Iran only has let a few non-Iranian people to live there in peace along majority of Iranians. It doesn't mean by any means sovereignty over the land and Iran won't allow it in future, too.
> Having a disputed boundaries won't affect how existing "boundary=administrative" relations are processed."
You added the claimed border lines to administrative boundaries of UAE states and this affects boundary=administrative relations. It's simple to understand.
> These "claims" as you described them, exist in the reality
That is why we have boundary=claim.
boundary=administrative isn't same as boundary=claim.> Lastly, if you want to edit the boundaries of Sharjah...
Why you forget yourself but advice others? You've initially drawn non real admin borders inside Iran without any discussion. -
Comment from LockOnGuy
Read my comments again.
Regards. -
Comment from SomeoneElse
@LockOnGuy You're being somewhat disingenuous here when you say "At the end, please discuss this matter first with the Sharjah, and Ras al-Khaimah communities before you edit their boundaries again. "
I suspect that no-one in Sharjah or Ras al-Khaimah claims that these 3 islands are de-facto part of their emirates (they may well be de-jure part of them, but that is a different issue).
See also comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123563171 . -
Comment from Abdullah Abdulrhman
These islands are part of the UAE and their inhabitants are Arabs. It is possible to check social networks and know that the locals consider them an integral part of the United Arab Emirates, also the residents of Sharjah and Ras Al-Khaimah consider these islands are part of their states too.
see:
Residents of Abu Musa Island congratulate the leadership and people (on the occasion of the UAE National Day):
https://twitter.com/Sharjahnews/status/1466475830117289989
Residents and institutions of Abu Musa Island celebrate the 48th National Day:
https://twitter.com/Forsan_UAE/status/1201885936138760192
see also here the His Highness the Ruler of Sharjah responds and assists the residents of Abu Musa and buying them boats to travel easily from and to mainland Sharjah:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvFYQuVIfEo -
Comment from LockOnGuy
@SomeoneElse, They do, I've been in the UAE for business trips many times, and I've met locals from Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah alongside locals from Abu Musa in Dubai and they all do say "it is an invaded island" and they are part of their homeland.
Anyway, I removed the disputed relations from the administrative boundaries. Will discuss this later in mailing list when I have time.
Relations (2)
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 |