<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Aug 31, 2020, 00:17 by frederik@remote.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Hi,<br></div><div><br></div><div>On 8/30/20 22:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:<br></div><blockquote>Though I wonder what should be done with viewpoint itself.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In my mind, a viewpoint is not just something from where you have a nice<br></div><div>view; it needs to be signposted or called a viewpoint. This, while<br></div><div>enjoying some "destination" or perhaps even "attraction" status, is not<br></div><div>what I would call a viewpoint. And even a tourist attraction, I think,<br></div><div>should not be something that is illegal to visit.<br></div></blockquote><div>(1) I think that explicit signpost is not necessary, unusually great<br></div><div>view seems sufficient. At least that is how I used this tag.<br></div><div><br></div><div>(2) As I understand, this place is described/called viewpoint<br></div><div>in multiple sources and widely used as such. So it is fulfilled anyway.<br></div><div><br></div><div>(3) In such case I would actually care about legality (I would not<br></div><div>always care about it! For example I would happily violate China/<br></div><div>North Korean/Russian laws about legality of mapping).<br></div><div><br></div><div>But sadly, it appears to actually to be viewpoint and on the ground<br></div><div>survey would almost certainly confirm this.<br></div> </body>
</html>