<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I agree that it's both "magic", but I'd say state bodies are more
likely to protect sites that are connected to "real religion".</p>
<p>I agree that historic sacred wells should be tagged as well, but
the <font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">historic</font>
tag opens up a rabbit hole every time. I'm afraid we're gonna end
up with a <font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">historic</font>
tag on every holy well, which some people will not be in favour
of. I wouldn't like it for the holy wells in Ireland, because
AFAIK they are still used for their intended use, not like
building=church which is now used as a house or a restaurant or a
library.</p>
<p>Landuse=religious might be useful, if there is a wish tree/ rag
tree nearby, but I think two nodes would do the trick as well.</p>
<p>(On a related matter, there are mass paths in Ireland, tracks/
footways that were only used to go to church. I need to read up
more about it, because that is another thing the council wants to
map. I don't know if they lead to holy wells as well. I have only
mapped one and used name=Mass path, but I'm not sure if that is
sufficient.)</p>
<p>Anne<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 19/02/2021 um 10:00 schrieb Stefan
Tauner:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1MoO24-1lfXpX1bk8-00opDt@mail.gmx.net">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 18:31:56 +0000
Anne-Karoline Distel <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:annekadistel@web.de"><annekadistel@web.de></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I understand it's a bit of a tricky one. Wishing wells/ fountains mostly
used by tourists should not count, because there is not an established
religion behind that thinking of leaving a coin for good luck.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I strongly disagree. That's not different to what "religions" "offer":
feeling better by doing something irrational because someone else
pretends it has a positive effect.
However, I agree with you that in the OSM data model it fits better into
the realm of place_of_worship than tourism and since it does not perturb
other tags related to wells I think the proposed scheme is OK.
However, I think it might make more sense to include more historic
sites that I think are excluded by the current proposal, e.g.:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuragic_holy_well">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuragic_holy_well</a>
historic=water_well might very well fit the "holy" wells in ireland too?
They are definitely nothing new :)
In any case, the handling of such places should be covered in the
proposal text IMHO.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>