That policy is not uniformly applied. In some conflicts "realities on the ground" are mapped and visible, but not in others. The actual effective policy is whatever biases and prejudices OSMs contributors have.
I think this is what happens when you crowdsource things. Parts become a bit fragmented, because many different people work on them - so in effect, the product reflects the organization's structure that builds the product. Wikipedia also has this issue, on the English Wikipedia itself, and also when you look at the relations of the different language Wikipedias. I personally love these projects despite these issues.
Exactly. Which is why internationally recognized borders is the way to go. It's way better than having sensitive issues settled by what the members with the most clout in the community think because it, more or less, just codifies Western biases since most members are from Western countries.
What exactly are "internationally recognized borders"? There are countless disputes that half the world's countries see one way and the other half see another way. The UN doesn't help on this matter either, they don't often vote on borders and how they should be reflected in geospatial data.
When the term "internationally recognized borders" is used by a government or institution, it's almost always a buzzword to assist a specific agenda or to actualize a specific geopolitical alignment. It's not a technical term.
