Hi, On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote: > I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which is > "current or real".
You shouldn't, it is one of our basic principles and it's here to stay. Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be solved immediately. Allowing stuff that is not verifiable on the ground would rob us of this possibility - all of a sudden we'd have to meet in libraries or courthouses or universities to find out who's right. We don't want that, generally. But we are not fundamentalists, and we do allow exceptions. One obvious exception is current administrative boundaries; they are not easily verifiable on the ground but we're making an exception because of their undoubted usefulness. In addition these generally accepted exceptions, there's also a lot of stuff in our database that will not withstand scrutiny and will likely be deleted if someone looks at it with a keen "is this verifiable on the ground" eye. The existence of such data cannot be taken as a sign that our principles are moot. > See for example this node: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2518973091 > > There is absolutely nothing on the ground. And 1402 is a long time ago > to be current. > > But there is a brown sign directing visitors to it: > > https://goo.gl/maps/LSVnemQ5fxw Yes, you would normally at least map the sign so there's less potential for a dispute. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
