On 06/10/09 16:49, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > It's useful *as a guide*, or a tool. What some people seem to be unable > to grasp is that *it's OK for a road to appear in red on NoNames*. You > don't have to eliminate them completely. It's just a guide, not a gospel.
A road appearing in red means that there's a possibility of there being missing information in the map. In one sense, of course that's OK. The map has missing information all over the place. But what do we do with missing information we know is missing? We try and put it in, to make the map better and more complete. Basically, opposing the noname stuff is saying "you need to keep in your head a list of all the roads in your area which genuinely have no name, in order to prevent yourself visiting them again to add the name in". And every mapper in an area has to do that. Isn't that right? Gerv _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
