On Monday 19 June 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > *Ideally* verified on the ground, but yes, other means of > verifiability can be acceptable. However, the OP in this case > explicitly said that "The extent of a settlement is not explicitly > defined" which certainly thwarts *any* kind of verification, doesn't > it?
Not necessarily, this is why i asked for the practical meaning of "the extend of a settlement". As i read it "not explicitly defined" just means it is not directly observable on the ground but that does not necessarily mean it is not practically verifiable. To give an abstract example - you could for example implicitly define a city area as the sum of all points on the surface that are closer to this city centre than to any other city centre. This would not make much sense and it would make even less sense to map this as an area but this is theoretically a well defined concept of a city area that is not explicitly defined. Regarding names of geographic features - these are rarely verifiable on the ground, especially for natural objects, verifiability here often is equivalent to "you get consistent answers if you ask locals about the name of this feature". -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
