On 1 June 2010 23:30, Andy Allan <gravityst...@gmail.com> wrote: > The "on the ground rule" is only appropriate for disputes, and > shouldn't be used as an instruction of what should or should not be > mapped (for that, see the guidelines on "verifiability"). > > The "on the ground rule" is that when two sources (or mappers) > disagree, then priority should be given to what actually goes on in > real life. As Mikel has said, this was originally created to resolve a > dispute in an occupied territory, but can be applied more widely. So > if we have a mapper who is adamant a street has been called foo > street, and another who says it is now bar street, then priority would > be given to whichever name is used by the people who live there / run > the local council / etc. Obviously this still needs common sense, > since a mis-spelled street-sign is still mis-spelled and shouldn't be > entered incorrectly into OSM. > > The "on the ground rule" can be thought of as resolving de jure vs de > facto disputes. If you are discussing whether or not something exists, > then you are wanting to discuss verifiability.
this reminds me of a situation i've come across in auckland, which i don't know the solution to. there's a major road, which apparently has three names: The Strand (on signposts) Shipwright Lane (on different signposts) another name which I can't remember off the top of my head, not on any signs or maps i can find, but which some (older) locals refer to it as what to do? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
