text: YOU are the one who assert this note is true, so YOU "walk down the path with Mapillary" (to ostensibly prove/disprove what I assert to be true and is confirmed by both various layers of visual imagery, public data which assert the polygon, and baloney-sandwich noise like "things can be inaccurate."  Damn it, man, SHOW US how what is accurately mapped is inaccurate, don't say "could be," that's a pile of horseflop.
  
  1)  The data in OSM are asserted by their author to be true and meet ODbL and all that.
  
  2)  To challenge these data, you'd need an "equal or better source" which shows something different.  OK, but you haven't.  You use weasel words like "can be inaccurate" and "OSM provides..." without citing WHICH source we DO provide.  It's like you're trying to publish a scholarly academic paper and you repeatedly can't get past simple peer review.  Go back to square one and assert some truth (somewhere) without weasel words or insults.
  
  MAP WELL!