In the case of paper maps, if they were notified of the bridge, and proceeded to publish a new version of the map showing it as operational, then yes, they should face consequences. paper maps don't provide turn by turn directions though, so less safety critical.

[–] xhci@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is it the county’s responsibility to notify every map maker? I have always seen maps as “best effort” since I’ve never seen a “perfect” map.

Maps are a really difficult problem since they are by nature a collaborative effort. I would much rather have them than not even with all their flaws, but I also recognize them for what they are.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Realistically, a government couldn't notify every single map maker, but my view is that the map maker should be obliged to act when notified.

[–] xhci@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah - I agree that’s how it should work. I just can’t think of a way to legally enforce that.

For example, you’d need to prove you saw the notification, then verify its legitimate (this can be complicated), publish a revision (what qualifies as timely?), then perhaps even publish a notification that there’s a revision.

Meanwhile, people have been operating without the revision for some amount of time, and IMO should expect that their current version might not be totally accurate anyway.

In the current framework, as soon as you publish a map, it’s out of date anyway. I don’t see how people can be expected to treat them as an ultimate source of truth on that concept alone.