On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > > Anthony wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Problem is that whatever is not on the ground is not verifiable; I'd have > to take the mapper's word for it. And this opens the door to people > inventing stuff. > That's precisely the reasoning that I'm arguing against. With all due respect, it just doesn't make any sense. You have to either drastically redefine the meaning of "verifiability" (able to be confirmed as true or false by other mappers) or the meaning of "on the ground" (less clear, but roughly encapsulated in relatively non-movable property in a public place). By these definitions, something that is able to be confirmed as true or false in an official online source is actually *more* verifiable than something written on a street sign in a place where Google Street View has not yet visited. It certainly is verifiable, and it is not necessarily "on the ground". So, I don't know if you've got different definition(s), or you just don't follow that logic.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
