On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote: > On 28/09/2010 02:41, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Dave F.<dave...@madasafish.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 28/09/2010 01:41, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >>>> >>>> Strawman. We're only talking about former railway alignments. >>> >>> Hmm... not sure you understand the meaning of the straw man argument. >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> You're (sic) statement "Because we don't only map what's currently >>> there." proves >>> you (& I) have moved the discussion on to include all data. >> >> False dichotomy. There's a big difference between mapping only what's >> current and mapping everything that has ever existed. > > Err... Yes?! That's been a part of my point all along - a big increase in > data clutter!
You don't understand. There are various points along the way; it's not an either-or. Just because we map some non-current features doesn't mean we map all. Just because we draw individual lots in urban centers doesn't mean we do the same in homogenous suburbs. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
