[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - holy well

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I could live without place_of_worship=holy_well and just the
"amenity=place_of_worship" in combination with man_made=well or
natural=spring, so that combination would definitely find you holy wells
on overpass-turbo.

On a different note, "pattern" is used for the act of celebration of the
patron saint as well. If you search the internet for "pattern" and "holy
well": https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=pattern+holy+well. It's not just
the Hiberno-English for "patron saint".

Anne

Am 18/02/2021 um 23:49 schrieb Bert -Araali- Van Opstal:
>
> Aren't all of these to be considered as a place_of_worship? Worship
> (as is religious) is neutral enough and we already have tags for most
> if not all of these items. I consider worship as a broad term that can
> be used in all these examples: putting flowers, prayers, meditation,
> offerings etc... are all expressions of worship of one or multiple
> gods or religious symbols.
> A well is a well, religious or not, atheists or other believers
> consider it like that, we have a general man_made=well for that. A
> cross is a cross, their or non-Christian cultures who use symbols
> which we all call a cross in other religions, although we defined them
> also as man_made and here a tree grown in a cross shape, that's a
> religious symbol, that is a "holy" thing but do I want to tag it as
> man_made ? (but that's again a different discussion and "special
> case"). The religious context can be added with an existing tag:
> denomination = *.
> If it's located within or near a larger site that as a whole is
> considered already a place_of_worship or a cemetery etc... it's even
> simpler, just add a well node, a cross node etc... to the area. If you
> want to map it as a node, fine, it's man_made=well and add
> amenity=place_of_worship + denomination.  What is against that ?
>
> I don't understand where the need comes from of so many people in this
> group to add ever more specialised top level keys. It makes OSM and
> it's accessibility ever more complex.  If we have good and clear
> tagging what is against attribution ? We are creating ever more
> duplicate use cases for essentially variants of the same things,
> making it ever more complicated as when tags get more and more used to
> deprecate them and get stuck.  Frankly speaking, making a mess of it.
>
> On 19/02/2021 01:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 at 06:34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>> <tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Many places with "miraculous water" / "blessed water" do not
>>     qualify for
>>     amenity=place_of_worship, and such tagging would be incorrect
>>
>>
>> I mentioned this the other week as part of the discussion about
>> historic cemeteries, but didn't get any response.
>>
>> Maybe we could use a new top tag of religious= to cover all sorts of
>> things like roadside crosses, grottos, shrines & now wells, & move
>> them away from amenity / man-made / historic / tourism etc?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210218/37f85b42/attachment-0001.htm>