Well, some people in the traffic-jam discussion seem to be taking the viewpoint that if something is not verifiable by people in other geographical locations, without actually visiting the location under discussion, then it should not be classified as being verifiable at all.
-- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria -----Original Message----- From: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 18:29:34 To: <j...@jfeldredge.com> Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list<talk@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki 2010/5/31 John F. Eldredge <j...@jfeldredge.com>: > This brings up another question. On the tagging list, there is currently a > discussion of whether or not to tag areas that have frequent traffic jams. > If something is only verifiable part of the time, such as having traffic jams > or being the site of a market on the weekends, does it count as "verifiable > on the ground"? Is there currently any reason to talk about this? IMHO OSM is a project that should be also fun to contribute and to use. If it becomes a bureaucratic hazzle like the German Wikipedia people will leave - at least I will probably. I guess you don't know this, but in the German Wikipedia there are actually groups of people enjoying deleting articles of others which cover topics that are either "not relevant" or "not elaborate enough". All this is of course done in a strictly "democratic" way, there are "Kill lists", votings and so on. I would be really sad to see OSM end in endless discussions about "relevance", leading to many mappers leave the ship. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
