On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > In any case, more important than the etymology of the phrase "map what's on > the ground" is what it means and whether or not it's good advice. In terms > of its use in excluding verifiable information I think it is quite > problematic. When a route isn't written "on the ground" that's exactly when > it's most useful to have it identified in a map.
Not really; maps are primarily used for navigation, whether computer-routed or human-read. If the map shows that Long Street is the A1889, someone using the map will be looking for the A1889. But if Long Street is not marked "on the ground" as the A1889, that designation is about as relevant as the fact that it was once the route of the A1. In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street is officially the A1889, it might make sense as a separate ref_unmarked=A1889 tag, like old_ref=A1, but using the same tagging for signed and unsigned routes helps nobody. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
