[OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

Tomas Straupis tomasstraupis at gmail.com
Tue Dec 11 11:08:35 UTC 2018

> Note i have explained to Tomas in length the meaning of the concept of
> verifiability for not directly physically manifested statements in
> http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/#comments
> Using the example of a bus stop without signs or shelter i wrote:
> > A bus stop, even one without a sign or shelter, can be verified by
> > observing that a bus regularly stops at the location. There is
> > nothing in the concept of independent verifiability that limits its
> > application to physical objects.

  This is a very good example of possibly misleading reflection.
  What if a driver is stopping in unofficial position somewhere
outside of large city to let local people he knows out/in even when
there is no official stop?
  What if a national park had a small sign in the forest track and the
sign was not moved when national park boundaries have moved?
  I had an actual situation 5 or so years ago when an address was
mapped in Vilnius. Address does not exist in official records. The
user sent me a picture of this house number. I contacted municipality
ant they explained that the sign is not an official one, it means
nothing, there is no such address.
  You can think of a gazillion of such examples and analysing them (in
my personal opinion) would lead to pointless endless discussions.
  The simpler the rules - the better?

  And in general. While it could be interesting to become some kind of
detectives and follow the leads, use deduction to calculate the
properties of non-physical object. Does it have to be
mandatory/primary way when there is a simpler and more correct way?
Isn't there enough of physical objects (or non-physical without
open/accessible/official documents) to observe, verify and map?


More information about the talk mailing list