<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
On 08/06/2021 12:20 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
</div>
<div>
Aug 6, 2021, 12:13 by colin.smale@xs4all.nl:
<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div>
On 08/06/2021 11:23 AM David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
On 06/08/2021 06:57, Jay Turner wrote:
<br>
</div>
<div>
> Perhaps "ref:signed=poorly"?
<br>
</div>
<div>
>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
That's subjective and OSM doesn't collect subjective information.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
Ahem... There are plenty of examples of (partially) subjective information in OSM. Tracktype and smoothness for example. Even highway=* gives rise to discussion from time to time, as one mapper's judgement differs from another mapper's. Only by reference to an authoritative source can all elements of personal judgement be eliminated from the equation.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto">
And even then we would run into problems as soon as there is more than one
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
"authoritative source".
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div class="default-style">
There cannot be more than one "authoritative source" by definition.
</div>
<div class="default-style">
<br>
</div>
<div class="default-style">
There can be indirectly authoritative sources, which are individually derived from the authoritative source and can potentially disagree with each other, as a consequence of a mistake or temporal considerations (update date/frequency etc). Such apparent conflicts can be resolved by reference to the authoritative source itself.
</div>
</body>
</html>