I am in favor of this or similar language. I think for a more vote-like discussion it might be better to use the wiki talk page (easier to add +1s and short comments).
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 2:59 PM stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > I don't know if here or https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Good_practice is a > better place to discuss and eventually insert these suggested improvements > into https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability (and its first > section, "Map what's on the ground"). > > I suggest adding these essences of this thread there: > > "'Independent verifiability' is a crucial component of the Good Practice > of mapping what is on the ground, as sometimes there IS no evidence > on-the-ground that a map feature should be appropriately tagged anything in > particular. For example, some boundaries are effectively invisible, but > OSM maps them (and should). Also, there are no or few signs which say > "Pacific Ocean" or "Rocky Mountains," yet OSM authoritatively maps these > natural=* features with an agreed-correct name=* tag. Similarly, there are > routes (road, bicycle, hiking, equestrian...) which might exist on a > government-published map (and hence are ODbL-compatible) yet remain > unsigned (or poorly signed) in the real world. From what authority must we > determine the source "verifiability" of these "invisible" or "unsigned" map > features? As long as these are "independently verifiable" (by a government > map, legal / statutory decree, data authoritatively published on a website, > by unanimous agreement among locals and a wider public or at least with > very wide consensus), the map feature with its verifiable tags may be > entered into OSM following Good Practice. 'Independent verifiability' > means any member of the public, freely, anytime and with no special > privileges can 'consult the source' and verify the data." > > I'm simply tossing that out here, if it shouldn't stick, please fix it. I > think it important that the phrasing is first vetted (here or on the Talk > page) and I do think something like this should be entered into our > Good_practice wiki to clarify OTG as we have discussed it here. > > Thanks in advance for any brief review and comments / suggestions you > might offer, > SteveA > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
