On 28/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
Since the AfD was started there have been only three
edits to the
article, and the only sources added are of the same kind. Am I really
completely off-base in thinking that direct interpretation of maps and
satellite photos is original research? I can't really see it as
anything else.
I was going to just agree with you, but took a look at the article and
took a look at one of the maps in question:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.839503,-92.152655&spn=0.00826,0.02373…
The map (which overlays a satellite photo) is pretty unambiguous. From
the map one can see the ghost ramp, and can determine its coordinates.
I could accept your point if we were talking about satellite photos
only. But maps are symbolic representations of space; they are
designed to be unambiguous and easily read.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)