On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > This leads to a situation where a mapper is expected to, as he or she walks > the streets, update every object in the database with "yep, this is still > there, I walked past it right now". Because just as a toilet could fall into > disrepair, a shop could close or a house vanish, and what we currently do is > we map this when we see it but we don't map "yep the house was still there > last Sunday". Attempting to do this would change the typical mapper workflow > and the structure of our data drastically. > > I know it's a slippery slope argument, and you're only proposing to do this > for a narrow subset of things - I just wanted to point out that > "verification mapping" is not something we do currently.
I don't think the situation you describe arises at all. There is never any onus on any mapper to add extra redundant details - and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. An example is "surface=asphalt". It's indeed the default. And in most parts of the world, there's no need to map it - and the fact that this tag exists doesn't make any of the implications you suggest come true. But in other parts of the world, it's *not* the default, so it's useful to map it. And in some places (eg, the countryside in my region), there really isn't a default, so it's best to explicitly tag the surface of all roads. Similarly, in a part of the world where it's unusual for, say, public telephones to actually be functional, it would make sense to tag that fact. And maybe, possibly, a mapper who sees that a public telephone has just been fixed might feel compelled to update the database to report that fact. Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
