[Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-09-19 18:59, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which is
> "current or real".
> You shouldn't, it is one of our basic principles and it's here to stay.
> Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the
> ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree
> about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be solved
> immediately.

It's time this mantra was updated. A more practical version would be
something like "independently and publicly verifiable." In other words,
verifiable by a random mapper without special privilege using only
acceptable sources. If two mappers disagree, the point can often be
decided by reference to the sources, without needing a site visit.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20180919/fa642a16/attachment.html>