On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 2:30 PM Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> wrote: > No, the concept of verifiability defines a clear path for resolving > disagreement - you verify the information on the ground and if there is > still disagreement it is by definition something that is not verifiable > (because several mappers evaluating the situation independently do not > consistently come to the same results).
In the specific case of names, we've invented name:language and alt_name and old_name and name_1, name_2, etc. to deal with the cases of, 'everyone agrees that there's a pond/mountain/building/whatever here, but not all the locals call it by the same name.' The name may be verifiable in that if you have a sufficiently large sample of locals, you'll hear it, or if you ask, you may get the answer, "yes, that's what some people call it." I do recognize that you tend toward the 'strict verifiability' camp, and that I've somewhat caricatured it by saying 'if a stranger dropped into a location can verify everything about it by direct observation without consulting the locals or outside sources.' That strict a definition excludes a good many names, at least in the rural US, which isn't big on hanging a sign on every named feature. The idea that every object, even among those that can be easily mapped in a day, has a single True Name, is simply an incorrect assumption around here. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
