@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.