it is one of our basic principles and it's here to stay. Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be solved immediately.
"Verifiable on the ground" is easier said than done. I have just been mapping a small stream which has been piped under a residential area. Verifiable on the ground is the fact that it enters the pipe at one location, and exits the pipe at another location. What is not verifiable on the ground is the route the pipe takes between the two. I have assumed that it is not a straight line, because that would take it directly under some of the houses, but that it follows the road layout for maintenance access if needed.
But I can't verify that fact. Should I not map it at all? What is verifiable on the ground is the fact that the stream does not stop dead at one location and restart at another.
Martin. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
