Jan 24, 2020, 15:34 by [email protected]: > That's often entirely verifiable by the existence of human artefacts > damaged by a previous eruption.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:23 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[email protected]> wrote: > But it is not verifiable in practice by amateur surveyors. > > Similarly frequency of a road in cars/hour is not a practically verifiable > quantity, > since determining it would require long-term observations > which are not realistic for mappers to do. I think if we go very far down that road, we need explicitly to codify what we expect the capabilities and limitations of amateur surveyors to be. I can't quite bring myself to accept the argument that correct information, independently verifiable by some means (even if specialized), and known to a mapper, cannot be mapped because some other mapper is less capable. I could live with it if we were to fomalize what we expect a mapper's limitations to be - but I see very little hope of achieving consensus on that, and very little reason to try. I feel strongly that tagging should respect both capabilities and limitations. I shouldn't have to do research to sketch out the basics of what I can see with my own eyes in the field, but similarly, I shouldn't have to keep my local knowledge to myself. For example, I don't think I could reliably tell an estravelle from a ponor, but that doesn't keep me from mapping 'natural=sinkhole'. I have no objection to someone with the necessary knowledge adding 'sinkhole=*' to the tagging. I would object to a tagging scheme that would require me to discriminate the two, but that's not what we're talking about with tagging that a volcano is active. A mapper who doesn't have the information, or cannot provide a means to verify it, need not tag it. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
