From: Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:07:40 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Because normally we don't report on errors on maps. We don't say "FDOT turned over part of SR 2 to Nassau County in the 1980s, but some maps still show it as a state road."
Why not, if it's verifiable? Surely that is an interesting and useful piece of information?
I'd have said that the general principle is that normally we don't try to adjudicate truth or resolve conflicting sources.
If there are conflicting sources and you're pretty sure one is right _and nobody else cares,_ just put in the one that's right. If _somebody else cares_ then, even if they're an idiot, put in both and source them both. Why not?
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
I'd have said that the general principle is that normally we don't try to adjudicate truth or resolve conflicting sources.
If there are conflicting sources and you're pretty sure one is right _and nobody else cares,_ just put in the one that's right. If _somebody else cares_ then, even if they're an idiot, put in both and source them both. Why not?
We do "try to adjudicate truth or resolve conflicting sources". See the whole 9/11 thing, where people keep trying to put in that it may have been caused by the U.S. Government.
In this specific case, map companies get their information about numbered routes from a number of sources, but it all comes down to a few primary sources: road signs, the Department of Transportation, and (in some states, but not in Florida, the legislative definitions). In this case, there are no signs, and nothing directly from the DOT indicates that it uses the causeway. Thus the map companies or their sources made a mistake somewhere along the line.