On 2020-02-08 18:03, stevea wrote:
> See, "the on the ground rule," to the best of my ability to determine it (an
> exception is your opinion as you explicitly express here, and that's part of
> the problem with it), isn't clearly defined and it needs the elasticity of
> such ad hoc exceptions. It doesn't say (explicitly, anywhere, except in your
> exception) "we ask people there and look at books, other maps, Wikipedia,
> travel books, organizations...if the name is used in reality." You do (here,
> as an "exception," by way of clarifying your understanding of OTG) but if all
> of that is true, OSM should say so: formally and as fully as possible.
The most important aspect of the "on the ground" rule is that things are
independently verifiable, i.e. given the evidence, anybody would come to
the same conclusion. Physical evidence is obviously very useful - for
example, either a highway is present, or it is not. But other sources,
provided they are freely accessible, can also provide facts that are
sufficiently verifiable. In the case of the US-CA border, I guess the
treaty or whatever is publicly accessible, so there can be no arguments
about where the border is in a legal sense. Of course not all boundaries
are fully specified in treaties, but I suspect this one is.
So I suggest the "On The Ground" rule should be replaced by a
requirement for independent verifiability; our traditional definition of
OTG is sufficient but not necessary for compliance.
Independent viability means (to me) a random member of the public, with
no special privileges, and without payment, and at any time, should be
able to "consult the source".
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
