what preposterous and absurd claim, not to mention baseless. Let's be impartial in OSM and NOT apply our own political biases in this website for neutrality's sake :))

多么荒唐可笑的说法，而且毫无根据。我们在 OSM 上还是要保持中立，不要带入自己的政治偏见。:))

Yeah you are most certainly not following de facto status as Sabina Shoal. Dont deflect any question regarding its status and bringing up my own statements and instead give invaluable data regarding its status

Regardless, your changes in the ownership of Sabina Shoal does not follow the rules of OSM. I just gave justification of why this feature must remain not owned by any party due to the lack of legitimate continuous administrative control of China over that feature. Any de jure legal claim of any nation is not sufficient to be considered to be administrative control.

Good Day fellow editor,

As we are both aiming to ensure that mapping follows de facto principle of control, could you please share any 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀 you are using to establish 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 over that area.

OSM policy requires mapping to be based on verifiable reality. Since access to Sabina shoal is not only contested but also physically accessible to multiple parties, establishing a boundary requires high-quality evidence that can be independently verified.

To ensure data accuracy and neutrality over this topic, we must prioritize in 𝗱𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼 (that is on the ground situation) than de jure (legal claims). We as editors of OpenStreetMap should strive for a neutral, independent, and truthful source of geographic information for everyone. Providing such sources would be crucial for the community to understand how this feature currently meets the criteria for stable, uncontested administration. Without any evidence, mapping this as a definitive territory of any party 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 the rules of OSM itself.