[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -mass rock
Bert -Araali- Van Opstal
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Sat Apr 10 17:57:33 UTC 2021
I understood. What this proposal lacks is however what do we regard as
You say by:
- local knowledge OR
- school collection OR
- field name OR
To me this should be:
- signage AND
- local knowledge OR school collection OR field name
as only the signage is accessible and verifiable by every mapper on the
They might be in use, still today. However one should consider how
consistently it is used for that purpose. As comparison to similar
- in many countries mass takes place outside the church, due to the
pandemic or even other constraints (like the crowd is too big for the
church, no church present in the vicinity ...). F.i. on a grass field,
an open space in the forest, a playground at a school etc... , are we
going to tag all of these as "mass grounds"", they might even have a
- in some churches concerts are organised. They might be advertisement
about them, mentioned in periodic magazines, newspapers, literaure
etc... . Are we going to tag these churches as concert halls ?
- even an "historical" field name might exist, referring to it's
historical use, but the current use no longer reflects that usage, so we
shouldn't map and tag it as current use. Their are many examples of
these features all over the world, historical names but currently used
differently, thus mapped according to current use.
What I am trying to say Anne is that the proposal how it is written
know, invites for lots of mapping of non verifiable places. It needs to
On 10/04/2021 18:38, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
> I wasn't suggesting tagging any old rock in a field as a mass rock,
> only the ones where local knowledge, reference in the school
> collection (linked on the proposal page), the field name or even
> signage proves their former or present use as such.
> And they are used still, especially now that worship in churches is
> not allowed due to COVID restrictions: Mass rock worship on Achill
> <https://twitter.com/Sachinettiyil/status/1378976540331941888?s=20> on
> Easter Sunday.
> On 10/04/2021 16:26, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal wrote:
>> I am completely against mapping something that is not verifiable or
>> historical (disputed or not as being historic).
>> With verifiable I mean with local knowledge and some sign of ground
>> The presence of the rock itself does not signify that it was used for
>> this purpose. The (historic) mass aspect is a use case. So if there
>> is no inscriptions or some kind of permanent marking that it was used
>> for this purpose in the past I would not map it in the regular OSM,
>> it belongs in https://www.openhistoricalmap.org
>> If we would start mapping these use cases we should ask ourselves
>> where this is going to take us ? What more use cases are we going to
>> map which solely exist in the minds or literature. It doesn't make
>> much sense in mapping the real world, only clutter the map.
>> In case their is some physical trace of usage of the rock for this
>> purpose, I would support it and it would be justified. However minor
>> or vague it is, but it needs to be a combination of both verifiable
>> as in local knowledge as some evidence of the use (not the physical
>> natural feature as the existence of the rock).
>> Bert Araali
>> Should be mapped on historic.osm .
>> On 02/04/2021 18:21, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
>>> Just to be clear - the rock itself is not sacred, it was just safer
>>> to celebrate mass in the open air with guards posted around rather
>>> than meeting in a barn or church ruin, because you could just flee
>>> across the fields or into the woods in case British soldiers were
>>> approaching to avoid being killed.
>>> And I haven't found out whether there might still be annual mass
>>> being said in some locations, especially when there is a holy well
>>> On 02/04/2021 13:53, Paul Allen wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 13:30, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>>>> <tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>>>> to clarify:
>>>> I am 100% fine with tagging existing and visible remains/ruins
>>>> So you won't have a problem with tagging a mass rock. Which tags get
>>>> used are open to discussion, but even you have to agree that if the
>>>> rock is still there, it can be mapped.
>>>> I am not accepting mapping things of completely and utterly
>>>> gone, without any trace whatsoever - and without danger of
>>>> accidental remapping.
>>>> The rocks are still there. And can be mapped as natural=rock
>>>> (or bare_rock or whatever). Plus some other tags.
>>>> Actually, a rock doesn't have to have been used for masses to be
>>>> sacred. And it may still be in use. And it's mappable.
>>>> If we come up with a sensible set of tags for holy rocks, I'll
>>>> map it.
>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging