On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Am 17.04.2015 um 19:33 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com>: > > In all cases the argument that "some barely-detectable trace > archaeological remnant remains" seems to be thin justification for a > pre-held like of the feature. > > The only problem with this comparison is that craters with hundreds of > meters of diameter don't typically fall into the "barely-detectable" > category. > Nobody has, at any stage, objected to mapping craters Craters and shorter mountains are fine: they represent visible features in today's world. Missing atols however are arguable, as are the historic events that seem better suited to a database of georeferenced historic events. Creating such a database would open up tremendous opportunity to map other events, like Woodstock (the concert), or other famous event sites that don't have plaques or memorials.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
