Andy, On 05/03/2015 12:18 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > Even had I not, I don't think your attempt to analyse my "background" > has any place on this list.
I didn't mean to "analyse your background" (not did I intend my Wikidata reference to be derogatory in an way), and I'm sorry if I sounded condescending. Your line of reasoning expressed in the post I replied to was: "If we are more interested in mapping the actual sign on a shop than the generic name that the shop should have because of its affiliation, then we are surely also interested in mapping a bunch of derelict shops." You said that in a way that implied you weren't thinking very highly of someone mapping derelict shops (because you had collected information about them and decided not to add it yourself), or (by logical consequence) someone who maps the actual name on the sign. I would like to say that 1. Just because it is more OSM-like to map the actual sign than some internal/contractual name-that-should-be-on-the-sign-but isn't, doesn't mean we have to be interested in derelict shops. 2. If someone were interested in mapping derelict shops that are still recognizable as such (as opposed to a shop long replaced by something else), then that would be totally fine; the information that a building houses a derelict shop could for example be used as a landmark or by someone scouting for a location where to open a new shop. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
