[Tagging] Verifiability of geometry
osm at imagico.de
Sun Jun 16 19:20:25 UTC 2019
On Sunday 16 June 2019, Daniel Koc4 wrote:
> Christoph (imagico) has proposed there a set of example rules that he
> believes are self evident and invited to challenge them if someone
> disagrees, so here I am:
Not quite - this is just a collection of statements regarding matters
where you claim i did not provide answers to or where you repeatedly
bring up arguments based on assumptions that have been refuted in the
past already (like the persistent idea that any two-dimensional entity
should best be modeled in OSM with a polygon). It is neither meant to
be an exhaustive framework of principles nor are they necessarily
useful as practical rules.
All of these are not new statements - they are not literal quotes but i
have made them in previous discussions in similar form (here, on the
wiki, on github or elsewhere).
You have stated disagreement with several of these statements but you
have not challenged them in any way by pointing out a logical error or
by arguing why the suggested approach how mappers should decide on how
to map things is of disadvantage to them or to the project as a whole.
With challenging my statements i mean providing evidence for them to be
I would suggest to you not to concentrate on your spontaneous emotional
reaction of dislike to views like mine that differ from your own but to
consider what objective arguments you have that support your position
and what long term consequences this would have. You have made clear
on a lot of occasions that you reject the concept of verifiability as a
guiding principle for mapping decisions but so far the only reason for
this you have ever given is essentially because it is inconvenient and
it prevents the addition of data to OSM you would like to see added.
Given that the reasons why we have and should keep the verifiability
principle have been discussed really extensively this all seems frankly
a bit opportunistic.
More information about the Tagging