Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones
Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones by March 27, 2016 at 2am. Today (Feb. 17, 2016) Russian State Duma passed the bill in the first reading for 3 more regions to change their time zones (http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/): - Ulyanovsk Oblast / Ulyanovsk from MSK to MSK+1 (UTC+3 to UTC+4) same as Astrakhan Oblast - Altai republic / Gorno-Altaysk MSK+3 to MSK+4 (UTC+6 to UTC+7) to Krasnoyarsk time zone - Altai Krai / Barnaul MSK+3 to MSK+4 (UTC+6 to UTC+7) to Krasnoyarsk time zone 920582-6 On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Calculation of Time" (on reference of the Ulyanovsk Oblast / Ulyanovsk to the 3rd time zone, MSK+1, UTC+4) 02/17/2016- The State Duma passed the bill in the first reading; 935532-6 On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Calculation of Time" (on reference of the Altai republic / Gorno-Altaysk to the 6th time zone, MSK+4, UTC+7) 02/17/2016- The State Duma passed the bill in the first reading; 944348-6 On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Calculation of Time" (on reference of the Altai Krai / Barnaul to the 6th time zone, MSK+4, UTC+7) 02/17/2016- The State Duma passed the bill in the first reading; With 95% certainty these 3 more regions will change their time zones by March 27, 2016 at 2am. Alexander Krivenyshev http://www.worldtimezone.com
Ulyanovsk is currently in Europe/Moscow, moving to align with Samara. It is the same move as Astrakhan, but it is physically adjacent to Samara where Astrakhan is further south and detached. Should we use Europe/Astrakhan for both Astrakhan and Ulyanovsk since the transitions match? Or should there be a separate Europe/Ulyanovsk zone? I don't think Europe/Samara will work, since the previous entries won't align. Altai Republic and Altai Krai are both currently in Asia/Omsk. As far as I can tell, Omsk is not changing, so again this would split. Neither Altai region has a city named Altai. The largest by population appears to be Barnaul. Gorno-Altaysk is much smaller. So - Asia/Barnaul seems appropriate for a new zone name? We've already applied the Zabaykalsky Krai (Asia/Chita) change in 2016a. We've also already been discussing the creation of Europe/Astrakhan. There are two others still to discuss: - Asia/Magadan is moving (in entirety) from UTC+10 to UTC+11 - Asia/Sakhalin is moving (in entirety) from UTC+10 to UTC+11 All of these changes are to take effect on March 27, 2016, at 2:00 AM local time (in each zone). We've been discussing this here at Microsoft as well, and as best as we can tell, it appears that all of these bills are supported and likely to pass. We have received the following email from a representative of the Russian government (in Russian): https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=20A38A536DDBE27D!907459&authkey=!ACxAE... Thanks, Matt Johnson Microsoft -----Original Message----- From: tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Krivenyshev Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:37 AM To: tz@iana.org Subject: [tz] Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones by March 27, 2016 at 2am. Today (Feb. 17, 2016) Russian State Duma passed the bill in the first reading for 3 more regions to change their time zones (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fasozd2.duma....): - Ulyanovsk Oblast / Ulyanovsk from MSK to MSK+1 (UTC+3 to UTC+4) same as Astrakhan Oblast - Altai republic / Gorno-Altaysk MSK+3 to MSK+4 (UTC+6 to UTC+7) to Krasnoyarsk time zone - Altai Krai / Barnaul MSK+3 to MSK+4 (UTC+6 to UTC+7) to Krasnoyarsk time zone 920582-6 On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Calculation of Time" (on reference of the Ulyanovsk Oblast / Ulyanovsk to the 3rd time zone, MSK+1, UTC+4) 02/17/2016- The State Duma passed the bill in the first reading; 935532-6 On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Calculation of Time" (on reference of the Altai republic / Gorno-Altaysk to the 6th time zone, MSK+4, UTC+7) 02/17/2016- The State Duma passed the bill in the first reading; 944348-6 On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Calculation of Time" (on reference of the Altai Krai / Barnaul to the 6th time zone, MSK+4, UTC+7) 02/17/2016- The State Duma passed the bill in the first reading; With 95% certainty these 3 more regions will change their time zones by March 27, 2016 at 2am. Alexander Krivenyshev https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.worldtim...
Also, if Ulyanovsk and Astrakhan are both to share the same zone entry, then should the zone name actually be Europe/Ulyanovsk, since it has a larger population (according to Wikipedia)? -----Original Message----- From: Matt Johnson (PNP) Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:47 PM To: tz@iana.org Cc: 'Alexander Krivenyshev' <wtz@worldtimezone.com> Subject: RE: [tz] Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones Ulyanovsk is currently in Europe/Moscow, moving to align with Samara. It is the same move as Astrakhan, but it is physically adjacent to Samara where Astrakhan is further south and detached. Should we use Europe/Astrakhan for both Astrakhan and Ulyanovsk since the transitions match? Or should there be a separate Europe/Ulyanovsk zone? I don't think Europe/Samara will work, since the previous entries won't align. Altai Republic and Altai Krai are both currently in Asia/Omsk. As far as I can tell, Omsk is not changing, so again this would split. Neither Altai region has a city named Altai. The largest by population appears to be Barnaul. Gorno-Altaysk is much smaller. So - Asia/Barnaul seems appropriate for a new zone name? We've already applied the Zabaykalsky Krai (Asia/Chita) change in 2016a. We've also already been discussing the creation of Europe/Astrakhan. There are two others still to discuss: - Asia/Magadan is moving (in entirety) from UTC+10 to UTC+11 - Asia/Sakhalin is moving (in entirety) from UTC+10 to UTC+11 All of these changes are to take effect on March 27, 2016, at 2:00 AM local time (in each zone). We've been discussing this here at Microsoft as well, and as best as we can tell, it appears that all of these bills are supported and likely to pass. We have received the following email from a representative of the Russian government (in Russian): https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=20A38A536DDBE27D!907459&authkey=!ACxAE... Thanks, Matt Johnson Microsoft -----Original Message----- From: tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Krivenyshev Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:37 AM To: tz@iana.org Subject: [tz] Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones by March 27, 2016 at 2am. Today (Feb. 17, 2016) Russian State Duma passed the bill in the first reading for 3 more regions to change their time zones (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fasozd2.duma....): - Ulyanovsk Oblast / Ulyanovsk from MSK to MSK+1 (UTC+3 to UTC+4) same as Astrakhan Oblast - Altai republic / Gorno-Altaysk MSK+3 to MSK+4 (UTC+6 to UTC+7) to Krasnoyarsk time zone - Altai Krai / Barnaul MSK+3 to MSK+4 (UTC+6 to UTC+7) to Krasnoyarsk time zone 920582-6 On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Calculation of Time" (on reference of the Ulyanovsk Oblast / Ulyanovsk to the 3rd time zone, MSK+1, UTC+4) 02/17/2016- The State Duma passed the bill in the first reading; 935532-6 On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Calculation of Time" (on reference of the Altai republic / Gorno-Altaysk to the 6th time zone, MSK+4, UTC+7) 02/17/2016- The State Duma passed the bill in the first reading; 944348-6 On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Calculation of Time" (on reference of the Altai Krai / Barnaul to the 6th time zone, MSK+4, UTC+7) 02/17/2016- The State Duma passed the bill in the first reading; With 95% certainty these 3 more regions will change their time zones by March 27, 2016 at 2am. Alexander Krivenyshev https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.worldtim...
Sorry, I just realized my mistake. Ulyanovsk derives from Europe/Moscow, but Astrakhan derives from Europe/Volgograd. So then, I assume we will indeed need two separate entries in order to maintain the history. Europe/Ulyanovsk and Europe/Astrakhan? -----Original Message----- From: Matt Johnson (PNP) Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 2:16 PM To: tz@iana.org Cc: Alexander Krivenyshev <wtz@worldtimezone.com> Subject: RE: [tz] Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones Also, if Ulyanovsk and Astrakhan are both to share the same zone entry, then should the zone name actually be Europe/Ulyanovsk, since it has a larger population (according to Wikipedia)? -----Original Message----- From: Matt Johnson (PNP) Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:47 PM To: tz@iana.org Cc: 'Alexander Krivenyshev' <wtz@worldtimezone.com> Subject: RE: [tz] Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones Ulyanovsk is currently in Europe/Moscow, moving to align with Samara. It is the same move as Astrakhan, but it is physically adjacent to Samara where Astrakhan is further south and detached. Should we use Europe/Astrakhan for both Astrakhan and Ulyanovsk since the transitions match? Or should there be a separate Europe/Ulyanovsk zone? I don't think Europe/Samara will work, since the previous entries won't align. Altai Republic and Altai Krai are both currently in Asia/Omsk. As far as I can tell, Omsk is not changing, so again this would split. Neither Altai region has a city named Altai. The largest by population appears to be Barnaul. Gorno-Altaysk is much smaller. So - Asia/Barnaul seems appropriate for a new zone name? We've already applied the Zabaykalsky Krai (Asia/Chita) change in 2016a. We've also already been discussing the creation of Europe/Astrakhan. There are two others still to discuss: - Asia/Magadan is moving (in entirety) from UTC+10 to UTC+11 - Asia/Sakhalin is moving (in entirety) from UTC+10 to UTC+11 All of these changes are to take effect on March 27, 2016, at 2:00 AM local time (in each zone). We've been discussing this here at Microsoft as well, and as best as we can tell, it appears that all of these bills are supported and likely to pass. We have received the following email from a representative of the Russian government (in Russian): https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=20A38A536DDBE27D!907459&authkey=!ACxAE... Thanks, Matt Johnson Microsoft -----Original Message----- From: tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Krivenyshev Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:37 AM To: tz@iana.org Subject: [tz] Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones by March 27, 2016 at 2am. Today (Feb. 17, 2016) Russian State Duma passed the bill in the first reading for 3 more regions to change their time zones (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fasozd2.duma....): - Ulyanovsk Oblast / Ulyanovsk from MSK to MSK+1 (UTC+3 to UTC+4) same as Astrakhan Oblast - Altai republic / Gorno-Altaysk MSK+3 to MSK+4 (UTC+6 to UTC+7) to Krasnoyarsk time zone - Altai Krai / Barnaul MSK+3 to MSK+4 (UTC+6 to UTC+7) to Krasnoyarsk time zone 920582-6 On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Calculation of Time" (on reference of the Ulyanovsk Oblast / Ulyanovsk to the 3rd time zone, MSK+1, UTC+4) 02/17/2016- The State Duma passed the bill in the first reading; 935532-6 On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Calculation of Time" (on reference of the Altai republic / Gorno-Altaysk to the 6th time zone, MSK+4, UTC+7) 02/17/2016- The State Duma passed the bill in the first reading; 944348-6 On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Calculation of Time" (on reference of the Altai Krai / Barnaul to the 6th time zone, MSK+4, UTC+7) 02/17/2016- The State Duma passed the bill in the first reading; With 95% certainty these 3 more regions will change their time zones by March 27, 2016 at 2am. Alexander Krivenyshev https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.worldtim...
Matt Johnson (PNP) wrote:
I assume we will indeed need two separate entries in order to maintain the history. Europe/Ulyanovsk and Europe/Astrakhan?
Yes, that's right.
Asia/Barnaul seems appropriate for a new zone name?
Yes.
We've already applied the Zabaykalsky Krai (Asia/Chita) change in 2016a. We've also already been discussing the creation of Europe/Astrakhan. There are two others still to discuss:
- Asia/Magadan is moving (in entirety) from UTC+10 to UTC+11
- Asia/Sakhalin is moving (in entirety) from UTC+10 to UTC+11
As far as I know these two have not gotten through the first reading of the State Duma yet, and so are more dubious. To help move this along, I have written a patch to cover the draft changes to Ulyanovsk Oblast, Altai Krai, and Altai Republic. As these are not yet official (though they have passed the 1st reading in the State Duma), I'm a bit reluctant to cut a new release with them. Still, it's OK to put them into the experimental version on github so I've done that. These changes are over and above the earlier changes I circulated for Astrakhan, which I've now also pushed to the experimental version. As discussed earlier, these draft Russian zones use sign-and-digits names for their time zone abbreviations, to avoid our inventing these placeholders for applications that insist on English-language time zone abbreviations even where there are none. There was a wide variety of opinion about this, ranging from continuing to invent abbreviations, through long-but-not-invented abbreviations like "UTC+05:00", to shorter ones like "+0500" and "+05" that are based on ISO 8601. Inventing abbreviations is really not good; we should be recording civil time, not inventing it. The most popular alternative appeared to be 4-digit versions like "+0500". I tested both 2-digit and 4-digit versions, and in my testing 2-digit versions were a bit better, as they have fewer length changes (e.g., replacing "PET" by "-05" does not change length) and this works better in old-fashioned applications that (mistakenly) care about abbreviation length. Another advantage of 2-digit versions is that they work better with the %z support that is already in zic.c (though we can't use %z in our tables yet, as we need to give the new zic.c time to percolate out to distributions). So this latest set of draft changes (attached) continues to use 2-digit abbreviations in the new zones.
In addition to the 2016 change, it looks like both of the new zones also have differing history (other than LMT) from the zones they were split from. Was this intentional? Europe/Ulyanovsk should be the same as Europe/Moscow before 2016, but looks like they also deviate before 1991. Where do the 1989 and 1930 entry for Ulyanovsk come from? Asia/Barnaul should be the same as Asia/Omsk before 2016, but looks like they also deviate considerably before that. Looks like rule Russia is on the wrong lines, Omsk has an extra 2011 entry that Barnaul doesn't, and the offsets differ as well. Am I mistaken, or are there errors in the proposed changes? Or are there additional sources to be cited? Thanks,-Matt
To: matt.johnson@microsoft.com; tz@iana.org From: eggert@cs.ucla.edu Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:40:09 -0800 Subject: Re: [tz] Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones
Matt Johnson (PNP) wrote:
I assume we will indeed need two separate entries in order to maintain the history. Europe/Ulyanovsk and Europe/Astrakhan?
Yes, that's right.
Asia/Barnaul seems appropriate for a new zone name?
Yes.
We've already applied the Zabaykalsky Krai (Asia/Chita) change in 2016a. We've also already been discussing the creation of Europe/Astrakhan. There are two others still to discuss:
- Asia/Magadan is moving (in entirety) from UTC+10 to UTC+11
- Asia/Sakhalin is moving (in entirety) from UTC+10 to UTC+11
As far as I know these two have not gotten through the first reading of the State Duma yet, and so are more dubious.
To help move this along, I have written a patch to cover the draft changes to Ulyanovsk Oblast, Altai Krai, and Altai Republic. As these are not yet official (though they have passed the 1st reading in the State Duma), I'm a bit reluctant to cut a new release with them. Still, it's OK to put them into the experimental version on github so I've done that. These changes are over and above the earlier changes I circulated for Astrakhan, which I've now also pushed to the experimental version.
As discussed earlier, these draft Russian zones use sign-and-digits names for their time zone abbreviations, to avoid our inventing these placeholders for applications that insist on English-language time zone abbreviations even where there are none. There was a wide variety of opinion about this, ranging from continuing to invent abbreviations, through long-but-not-invented abbreviations like "UTC+05:00", to shorter ones like "+0500" and "+05" that are based on ISO 8601. Inventing abbreviations is really not good; we should be recording civil time, not inventing it. The most popular alternative appeared to be 4-digit versions like "+0500". I tested both 2-digit and 4-digit versions, and in my testing 2-digit versions were a bit better, as they have fewer length changes (e.g., replacing "PET" by "-05" does not change length) and this works better in old-fashioned applications that (mistakenly) care about abbreviation length. Another advantage of 2-digit versions is that they work better with the %z support that is already in zic.c (though we can't use %z in our tables yet, as we need to give the new zic.c time to percolate out to distributions). So this latest set of draft changes (attached) continues to use 2-digit abbreviations in the new zones.
On 02/22/2016 09:07 AM, Matt Johnson wrote:
it looks like both of the new zones also have differing history (other than LMT) from the zones they were split from. Was this intentional?
Yes, the pre-1991 data come from Shanks & Pottenger, which is cited earlier in the 'europe' file as being the default source for old data. Shanks is not a good source but is the best we have for old data, and it says the new zones differ before 1970. My guess is that Shanks tried to find the dates for when these locations changed hands during the Russian Civil War, and used them to guess time transitions. Quite a bit of guesswork there, but it's the best we've got.
Asia/Barnaul should be the same as Asia/Omsk before 2016, but looks like they also deviate considerably before that. Looks like rule Russia is on the wrong lines, Omsk has an extra 2011 entry that Barnaul doesn't, and the offsets differ as well.
Thanks for checking that. I attempted to glue together the Shanks data with our post-1991 information. We have gaps in our information about the 1990s, so I guessed the gaps. Now that you mention it, my guess was probably not the best, as it should have prioritized our post-2000 data (which is more reliable) over our pre-2000 data. Also, I should definitely document that it's a guess, just like our guess about Tomsk in 1993. Further proposed patch attached (I've installed this in the experimental github version).
Looks much better now, and thanks for the explanation. -Matt
Subject: Re: [tz] Ulyanovsk, Altai Krai and Altai republic on their way to change time zones To: mj1856@hotmail.com; tz@iana.org From: eggert@cs.ucla.edu Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:06:07 -0800
On 02/22/2016 09:07 AM, Matt Johnson wrote:
it looks like both of the new zones also have differing history (other than LMT) from the zones they were split from. Was this intentional?
Yes, the pre-1991 data come from Shanks & Pottenger, which is cited earlier in the 'europe' file as being the default source for old data. Shanks is not a good source but is the best we have for old data, and it says the new zones differ before 1970. My guess is that Shanks tried to find the dates for when these locations changed hands during the Russian Civil War, and used them to guess time transitions. Quite a bit of guesswork there, but it's the best we've got.
Asia/Barnaul should be the same as Asia/Omsk before 2016, but looks like they also deviate considerably before that. Looks like rule Russia is on the wrong lines, Omsk has an extra 2011 entry that Barnaul doesn't, and the offsets differ as well.
Thanks for checking that. I attempted to glue together the Shanks data with our post-1991 information. We have gaps in our information about the 1990s, so I guessed the gaps. Now that you mention it, my guess was probably not the best, as it should have prioritized our post-2000 data (which is more reliable) over our pre-2000 data. Also, I should definitely document that it's a guess, just like our guess about Tomsk in 1993. Further proposed patch attached (I've installed this in the experimental github version).
- Asia/Magadan is moving (in entirety) from UTC+10 to UTC+11> > - Asia/Sakhalin is moving (in entirety) from UTC+10 to UTC+11
As far as I know these two have not gotten through the first reading of the State Duma yet, and so are more dubious.
Sakhalin:http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/main.nsf/(SpravkaNew)?OpenAgent&RN=888645-6Appears to have been approved in both first and second readings, in the same status as Ulyanovsk. Magadan:http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/main.nsf/(SpravkaNew)?OpenAgent&RN=948300-6This one is less clear. It appears to have only been proposed. I don't see any approvals.
Matt Johnson wrote:
Sakhalin:http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/main.nsf/(SpravkaNew)?OpenAgent&RN=888645-6Appears to have been approved in both first and second readings, in the same status as Ulyanovsk.
Thanks for checking this. We installed a draft patch for Ulyanovsk, so I suppose we should do the same for Sakhalin. I installed the attached into the experimental repository on Github. Alexander said he was 95% sure about Ulyanovsk and Altai. I don't know about his confidence level for Sakhalin.
Magadan:http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/main.nsf/(SpravkaNew)?OpenAgent&RN=948300-6This one is less clear. It appears to have only been proposed. I don't see any approvals.
Yes, let's wait on this.
participants (4)
-
Alexander Krivenyshev -
Matt Johnson -
Matt Johnson (PNP) -
Paul Eggert