Liz <edodd <at> billiau.net> writes: > > 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) >
If anything is unclear on the ground the mapper needs to provide a source. That way other mappers can judge whether the source is legitimate. -- Andrew _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
