[Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 3 21:34:55 UTC 2019


On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 22:06, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> haven’t we written somewhere in our terms that the information isn’t
> reliable? I’m quite sure we have. Some people have to be told that coffee
> is hot, kittens must not be dried in the microwave and map data may contain
> errors.
>

Sadly, yes, some people do have to be told these things.  Or, to state it
more precisely, many
companies find it necessary to place warnings of such things on their
products to avoid being
sued in court.  AGAIN.  That's why we have so many warning labels in our
daily lives, telling
us not to do things that the vast majority of us would never think of doing.

We may state that the information isn't reliable, but I don't see that as
an excuse to map things
incorrectly.  It's an admission that we make mistakes, not a licence to
deliberately mis-map.

One person in this thread claimed, incorrectly, that there are no access
restrictions to religious
structures and that it is not possible to determine if somebody meets the
restrictions he said
don't exist.  Such restrictions do exist and the penalties for contravening
them can be harsh.
Very harsh.

I see no reason to disallow something like access=adherents and every
reason to adopt
it.  Even if you think it completely unnecessary, it's not doing any harm
if it represents the
actual situation on the ground better than having access=yes,
access=private or no
access tag at all.  It doesn't conflict with any other tagging, and doesn't
break the
semantics of the access=* tag.

I can understand (just) people arguing about whether it should be
access=adherents or
access=adherent, whether it should be adherents or customers, or something
like that.  But
arguing about whether or not we should tag the access restriction at all
seems silly.  What harm
does it do if somebody does add access=adherent (assuming that to be the
case)?

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190403/4090e051/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list