> Anders Torger <and...@torger.se> hat am 14.12.2020 14:01 geschrieben: > > > To make a specific answer to "what additional verifiable local > knowledge" this relation is intended to cover, is that the wetland is a > single named entity, not multiple entities named the same.
But i already explained that the fact that in OSM we add name tags to parts of roads, waterways, wetlands, forests or woods does not mean these are somehow separate from other features with the same name tags. Names of physical geography features in OSM are - as explained - local names. A polygon tagged natural=wood + name=foo means that this is an stretch of land covered with trees that locally is referred to with the name 'foo'. If you took a walk on a route that crosses such polygon you can correctly say that today's hike took you through 'foo'. However if your walk crossed five natural=wood polygons with name=foo you *cannot* say based on this that your walk took you through five 'foo' or through five parts of 'foo'. The splitting of the wood into five polygons is part of the data model we use, it does not represent any 'five-ness' is the verifiable reality. > "Verifiable" is tricky in terms of names of natural features as we all > know, as many of those haven't defined borders. [...] I think you have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding here. Name tagging of physical features like wetlands in OSM have practically no issue with verifiability because the name tag specifies the name locally used for a feature that exists independent of the name. You however seem to be talking about abstract concepts that constitute themselves through the name and that exist only through the fact that it is referred to with some name in communication and that are neither tied to physical geography features that exist independent of humans (like a forest, lake, wetland etc.) or cultural geography features that constitute themselves from independently observable human activities (like shops, addresses or bus stops for example) beyond mere communication. Such concepts are not mappable in OSM due to the lack of independent verifiability. The world of such features does not represent a consistent independently observable reality. Human communication as the foundation of this world is inherently inconsistent and self-contradicting. You would end up with a Wikipedia-like paradigm of "reliable sources" and a constant struggle for cultural dominance and opinion leadership w.r.t. such features in the OSM database. -- Christoph Hormann https://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
