<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Aug 23, 2022, 06:25 by me@evancarroll.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. <br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Because they are not verifiable by survey AND not having any great reason to ignore that<br></div><div dir="auto">(unlike administrative boundaries) and resulting in making data extremely hard to edit.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">None applies to Eruvs.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">irrelevant<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="auto">2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy (as compared to the civil courthouse).<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">clergy is not banned from contributing (at least on OSM side)<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>3. They're a purely administrative construct.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">there are also physical, verifiable and mappable construct<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area?<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">no, but "you are entering T-Mobile service area" signs are mappable and<br></div><div dir="auto">if T-Mobile would setup rope around such area it would be mappable.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence: imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind their adherents in clerical arbitration. What about the territory of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, do we want a polygon covering Houston and Galveston for that: what would our position be if the Pope and Cardinal DiNardo disagree on that?<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">We would map what is marked in terrain and none if there is no physical representation<br></div><div dir="auto">like wire/rope.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">BTW, someone is mapping administrative boundaries of Catholic Church in Poland.<br></div><div dir="auto">I am a bit dubious about this project. But Eruv has a physical presence.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>3. There is a status on an Eruv: they can be up or down. For example, if one of the arbitrary chosen barriers is a light post, and that light post is replaced the Eruv is status=down until it's remedied, inspected, and certified to be back up. There are Facebook groups and pages that track this. For example, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02RVVnXmsTQ5LFHZATQbEvrFoTxaQVPn16HxjPyAQxq1iYMmm1X1ss7Fg5FqSsHPJel&id=52052821389" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02RVVnXmsTQ5LFHZATQbEvrFoTxaQVPn16HxjPyAQxq1iYMmm1X1ss7Fg5FqSsHPJel&id=52052821389</a> This is unique, as we're talking about an area which may not just change, but may be entirely invalid until recertified.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I would not recommend using OSM for critical operations, if alternative exists.<br></div><div dir="auto">Devout Jews should likely consult rabbi, not OSM.<br></div><div dir="auto">That is irrelevant for Eruv mappability.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">4. This is contentious and exclusive: why should anyone have an Eruv or another religious administrative district that has no binding power covering their house, neighborhood, and parks?<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">because it is mappable physical structure<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>5. This will force us to establish a religion, or an acceptable set of religions: what will we do when the Church of Satan sends an emissary to a local Jewish temple, and desecrates the ground with a verbal curse? Will that range of their desecration be a welcomed addition to OSM. Because boundary=religious welcomes this kind of trolling.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Statues or elaborate long-term rope setups erected by Church of Satan are also mappable.<br></div><div dir="auto">Online declarations unverifiable in place are not.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Proposal: Deletion<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I oppose that<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="auto">I can't see an area with `boundary=religious` following the spirit of the site. If there is no physical boundary it doesn't belong here. Perhaps all these should all be removed.<br></div><div><br></div><div>* <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious</a><br></div><div>* [Overpass Link for `boundry=religious`](<a href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1leG" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1leG</a>) (the Catholic example is actually what they're doing in the Philippines, where the diocese polygons are in OSM)<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Here I am not opposed to deletion.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>