On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:19 AM, John Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 30 May 2010 23:17, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > > From what I can tell, it was actually the solution to such an edit war. > How > > "map what the people on the ground say" turned into "map what's on the > > ground", I can't figure out. > > Seems like it would logically go the other way round, from map what > was on the ground to map what people on the ground say... > I'm not sure what it means to "logically go" one way or the other, but the earliest reference I can find to any sort of "on the ground rule" is November/December 2007, and it's that one quoted at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes . If you can find an earlier one I'd be quite interested. In any case, more important than the etymology of the phrase "map what's on the ground" is what it means and whether or not it's good advice. In terms of its use in excluding verifiable information I think it is quite problematic. When a route isn't written "on the ground" that's exactly when it's most useful to have it identified in a map.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
