> Note i have explained to Tomas in length the meaning of the concept of > verifiability for not directly physically manifested statements in > > http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/#comments > > Using the example of a bus stop without signs or shelter i wrote: > > > A bus stop, even one without a sign or shelter, can be verified by > > observing that a bus regularly stops at the location. There is > > nothing in the concept of independent verifiability that limits its > > application to physical objects.
This is a very good example of possibly misleading reflection. What if a driver is stopping in unofficial position somewhere outside of large city to let local people he knows out/in even when there is no official stop? What if a national park had a small sign in the forest track and the sign was not moved when national park boundaries have moved? I had an actual situation 5 or so years ago when an address was mapped in Vilnius. Address does not exist in official records. The user sent me a picture of this house number. I contacted municipality ant they explained that the sign is not an official one, it means nothing, there is no such address. You can think of a gazillion of such examples and analysing them (in my personal opinion) would lead to pointless endless discussions. The simpler the rules - the better? And in general. While it could be interesting to become some kind of detectives and follow the leads, use deduction to calculate the properties of non-physical object. Does it have to be mandatory/primary way when there is a simpler and more correct way? Isn't there enough of physical objects (or non-physical without open/accessible/official documents) to observe, verify and map? -- Tomas _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
