On 4/28/19, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> wrote: > I don't really like the extension Joseph wrote on the Verifiability page > but not because i disagree with the general idea but because for my > taste it is too much *definition by example* which is a poor way of > communicating the concept in general. Examples are useful and needed > to clarify the meaning (and they have been used as such on that page > for a long time) but they are no replacement for formulating the > general abstract idea behind verifiability in a compact form that is > not tied to specific examples. Andy's idea of creating subpages > explaining how to practically apply verifiability to tags and > geometries is probably the right approach.
Is this first line a clear definition, or can it be improved? "Linear ways and areas can be non-verifiable if the geometry cannot be demonstrated to be true or false by another mapper." I've removed one of the examples to get it a little more compact after Andy Townsend's criticism above, and I've tried to tighten up the phrasing some. But it would be great is someone can improve the style further and figure out how to break it up. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
