<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#333399" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Aren't all of these to be considered as a
place_of_worship? Worship (as is religious) is neutral enough
and we already have tags for most if not all of these items. I
consider worship as a broad term that can be used in all these
examples: putting flowers, prayers, meditation, offerings etc...
are all expressions of worship of one or multiple gods or
religious symbols.<br>
A well is a well, religious or not, atheists or other believers
consider it like that, we have a general man_made=well for that.
A cross is a cross, their or non-Christian cultures who use
symbols which we all call a cross in other religions, although
we defined them also as man_made and here a tree grown in a
cross shape, that's a religious symbol, that is a "holy" thing
but do I want to tag it as man_made ? (but that's again a
different discussion and "special case"). The religious context
can be added with an existing tag: denomination = *. <br>
If it's located within or near a larger site that as a whole is
considered already a place_of_worship or a cemetery etc... it's
even simpler, just add a well node, a cross node etc... to the
area. If you want to map it as a node, fine, it's man_made=well
and add amenity=place_of_worship + denomination. What is
against that ?<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I don't understand where the need comes from
of so many people in this group to add ever more specialised top
level keys. It makes OSM and it's accessibility ever more
complex. If we have good and clear tagging what is against
attribution ? We are creating ever more duplicate use cases for
essentially variants of the same things, making it ever more
complicated as when tags get more and more used to deprecate
them and get stuck. Frankly speaking, making a mess of it. </font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/02/2021 01:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP4zaXqS0psMR7T8dZbU=Ei77_z=Rjci_gPHOfL5mEAbWUMCfA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br clear="all">
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 at
06:34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a
href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Many places with "miraculous water" / "blessed water"
do not qualify for<br>
</div>
<div>amenity=place_of_worship, and such tagging would be
incorrect</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I mentioned this the other week as part of the discussion
about historic cemeteries, but didn't get any response.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Maybe we could use a new top tag of religious= to cover
all sorts of things like roadside crosses, grottos, shrines
& now wells, & move them away from amenity /
man-made / historic / tourism etc?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Graeme</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>