Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Oh sure, I'm not going to dispute that (things like "work" get in the > way there too). But to say it's "not conscientious" isn't right.
It may have been a poor choice of words (British/American usage
difference maybe?). I meant that someone leaving off the names is being
less thorough than is possible, not that they are wrong in so doing. In
retrospect, "meticulous" ("marked by extreme or excessive care in the
consideration or treatment of details") would have been a better choice.
> Ultimately many mappers make all completeness issues shallow anyway. ;)
Absolutely, and fortunately for us.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
