On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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. > Agreed. Using the exact same tagging would be inappropriate. You might as well be taking that from the private message I sent you earlier today, where I said as much (I said we should map unsigned routes and add a tag of signed=yes/no). But you're looking at only half of the picture. Yes, if you know where you want to go on the map and you want to find it in the real world, you want to have access to the signs that are on the ground. Of course, for that purpose we're better off mapping most of the signs as nodes, not as ways. But what if you're looking for A1889? If it's not on the map, and it's not on the ground, you're not going to find it. I guess the suggestion to "map what's on the ground" is good advice as long as it's not exclusionary. But my beef is with people who tell us to "map what's on the ground" to the exclusion of everything that isn't on the ground.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk