[Tagging] [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki

[John F. Eldredge]

Well, some people in the traffic-jam discussion seem to be taking the viewpoint that if something is not verifiable by people in other geographical locations, without actually visiting the location under discussion, then it should not be classified as being verifiable at all.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

-----Original Message-----
From: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 18:29:34 
To: <john at jfeldredge.com>
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list<talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki

2010/5/31 John F. Eldredge <john at jfeldredge.com>:
> This brings up another question.  On the tagging list, there is currently a discussion of whether or not to tag areas that have frequent traffic jams.  If something is only verifiable part of the time, such as having traffic jams or being the site of a market on the weekends, does it count as "verifiable on the ground"?


Is there currently any reason to talk about this? IMHO OSM is a
project that should be also fun to contribute and to use. If it
becomes a bureaucratic hazzle like the German Wikipedia people will
leave - at least I will probably. I guess you don't know this, but in
the German Wikipedia there are actually groups of people enjoying
deleting articles of others which cover topics that are either "not
relevant" or "not elaborate enough". All this is of course done in a
strictly "democratic" way, there are "Kill lists", votings and so on.

I would be really sad to see OSM end in endless discussions about
"relevance", leading to many mappers leave the ship.

cheers,
Martin