On Mon, 31 May 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Anthony wrote: > > I guess the suggestion to "map what's on the ground" is good advice as > > long as it's not exclusionary. But my beef is with people who tell us > > to "map what's on the ground" to the exclusion of everything that isn't > > on the ground. > > Problem is that whatever is not on the ground is not verifiable; I'd > have to take the mapper's word for it. And this opens the door to people > inventing stuff.
Specific problem Bicentennial National Trail http://www.nationaltrail.com.au/ can be followed from maps but not signed much on the ground (one of the Au mappers has been marking this) _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
