<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/08/2022 16:04, Mateusz Konieczny
via Tagging wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:NAF9qhV--3-2@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Aug 23, 2022, 06:25 by <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:me@evancarroll.com">me@evancarroll.com</a>:<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think Eruvs should be put in OSM /if/ they have a recognizable
(even if it is not to the layman) physical presence in the field, as
per "map what's on the ground" (although Eruv's are mostly high
above the ground ;-) )<br>
<br>
I apparently live close to an Eruv, but despite knowing where the
borders are and looking for it, I have not been able to spot it
anywhere (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://enhetwaterwaseenmuur.nl/verhalen.html">https://enhetwaterwaseenmuur.nl/verhalen.html</a>, in Dutch,
or <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://prinsfrank.nl/2020/08/09/The-obscure-eruv-of-amsterdam">https://prinsfrank.nl/2020/08/09/The-obscure-eruv-of-amsterdam</a>).
In that case, an Eruv should not be mapped IMHO.<br>
<br>
IIVQ<br>
</body>
</html>