[OSM-talk] Improving ref=* documentation

[ET Commands]

> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 00:40:55 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl>
> To: stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>, "Brian M. Sperlongano"
> 	<zelonewolf at gmail.com>
> Cc: osm-talk <talk at openstreetmap.org>, Talk-GB
> 	<talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Improving ref=* documentation
>
>> On 08/04/2021 11:43 PM stevea <steveaosm at softworkers.com> wrote:
>>
>>   
>> +1 here:  I say "on-the-ground truth" overrides a database (whether government, private or otherwise), every time.
>>
>> Is it possible I'm mistaken in some particular corner case?  Sure, but I (we) have yet to be presented that (here).
>>
>>
>> On Aug 4, 2021, at 2:34 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If the sign on the ground doesn't match the government's database, then the obvious answer is that the government database is wrong.  I don't see why we would replicate demonstrably wrong data into OSM.
> I would say they are both right, but in different frames of reference. Neither are demonstrably wrong.
>
> The government database gives an authoritative answer to the question of what the road number *IS* - this is their prerogative, they issue the IDs. Nobody can argue otherwise.
>
> The on-the-ground signage gives an authoritative answer to the question of what the road *IS SIGNED AS*, and the question of what is written on the sign present at a certain location. Asking a sample of local residents or regular users might provide an answer to the question of what the road is *KNOWN AS* which is yet another different semantic.
>

Residents can be wrong.  Databases can be wrong.  Street name signs can 
be wrong.  I work for the GIS department in Indianapolis, and I've known 
examples of all three cases.