You seem to put a lot of energy here into arguing with something you
seem to have understood Frederik to have said ("that sounded as if..."
etc.) This is of relatively little use in the broader discussion from
my perspective.
I can try to maybe clear up the situation a bit for you by explaining
what i mean with "local knowledge". As said elsewhere local knowledge
does not require someone to have personally touched every centimeter of
every feature they map. Local knowledge means familiarity with and
understanding of the local geography of the area mapped by the person
mapping. This is not a black and white classification obviously, it is
a gradual thing.
What might help understanding for some - local knowledge is roughly the
same as what Wikipedians know and despise as "original research".
The test if mapping is based on local knowledge - and i have explained
this on multiple occasions in the past - is if the mapper is willing
and able to take full responsibility for what they have mapped. If you
for example map a road, cliff, waterway or similar and i challenge you
regarding a bend to the right you have mapped which is not there in
reality based on my local knowledge and you are willing and able to
defend your mapping in discussion without referring to a third party
(like "this is the information Jon/Jean-Claude/Judith provided and i
took it on faith") then you are mapping based on local knowledge.
This is a relatively broad and loose understanding of "local knowledge".
Others might see this more tightly and connect it to having personally
witnessed the feature in question on the ground. That is a matter of
opinion. On-the-ground experience is quite definitely the most
important and most valuable source of local knowledge.
--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/
_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
Imports@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
