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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Anthony wrote:
> By these definitions, something that is able to be confirmed as true or 
> false in an official online source is actually *more* verifiable than 
> something written on a street sign in a place where Google Street View 
> has not yet visited.  It certainly is verifiable, and it is not 
> necessarily "on the ground".

Something that is available from an official online source but not 
verifiable on the ground should not - in my personal opinion - be 
included in OSM.

For the simple reason that we cannot improve the data - how should we if 
there is not reference on the ground? So the data will just sit there 
and be left to rot, or left to wait for another update by those who keep 
it. But OSM is not a "mirror" for official data. I don't want data that 
OSMers cannot work with; such data would only be in OSM for ease of 
retrieval, and I don't view OSM as some data dumpster for the world's 
geodata.

Bye
Frederik
-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"