<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>Sep 6, 2022, 20:40 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><div>* EXCLUSION IN OSM: An Eruv excludes community members of other religions and non-believers from engaging in a dispute. Further, an Eruv requires renting all non-Jews' homes in a ceremonial lease with the government to use non-Jews property, potentially against their consent. Including other (non-Jews) place of worship. To the extent that a religion requires excluding other religions, do we want this in OSM?<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">This is weird claim. Even if eruvs are somehow bad: are you really proposing to<br></div><div dir="auto">delete from map all bad things because they are bad?<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If yes - then I am confused why you started with eruvs of all things.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>* DISPUTE RESOLUTION: It gives us no method of dispute resolution. If one person or a group of people get to say it's right _because_ they said so, we have a problem. We should avoid these situations. Presumably, we don't want to handle ecclesiastical differences on the tagging list.<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">As pointed out Eruvs require - by definition - physical presence.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I would not oppose deprecation of nonphysical boundary=religious (maybe even support),<br></div><div dir="auto">though I bet that it would not pass.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But this arguments seem to not work really well here.<br></div> </body>
</html>