[Tagging] Verifiability of geometry
daniel at xn--ko-wla.pl
Sun Jun 16 21:28:28 UTC 2019
W dniu 16.06.2019 o 21:20, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> 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.
To have interpretation is not a logical error and I didn't claim that.
But lack of objective support makes it just your opinion. It would be
really bad if you would contradict yourself, but still it's just a weak
point worth showing.
Your strait definition for example does not contain logically fallacy,
but is just unrelated to reality, as I have shown, which is still OK for
philosophy, but bad for mapping, which is about actually representing
the world outside. I think this is exactly disadvantage for the project.
> I would suggest to you not to concentrate on your spontaneous emotional
You did not see or hear me and you claim some personal statements, which
are not only false, but also sound patronizing to me. Please, don't.
> 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.
I have shown you a positive proposition of proper solving the problem of
the example object. You have not shown that is logically wrong, so I
guess it should enough for you, if you follow your own rules of proving,
so here you lack some consistency.
But what worries me more is that you just not even commented why this
would be a bad thing for reasons other than logic.
> You have made clear on a lot of occasions that you reject the concept of verifiability as a
No, I don't - it's just your interpretation.
For some reason you claim that changing the type of geometry in the
world of geometry into another type of geometry is OK. I wonder if you
would change the name into some other name in the database? That's what
I call verifiability. And I have not heard something like "verifiability
is only for names and existence of the object", the verifiability of
geometry was special case to make it clear. If you change the geometry
in a subjective way, it does not sound like verifiable for me - you have
introduced something virtual instead of real geometry.
This rule does not tell anything about perceived expectations of
mappers, but also nothing about perceived problems with maintenance. We
have areas for admin boundaries and coastlines, which are a burden, but
for the sake of verifiability we don't turn them into nodes for example,
out of the blue. Even if they are huge and it means fixing them if they
"I see dead people" [Sixth Sense]
More information about the Tagging