[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - holy well

[Stefan Tauner]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:48:58 +0000
Anne-Karoline Distel <annekadistel at web.de> wrote:

> I agree that historic sacred wells should be tagged as well, but the
> historic tag opens up a rabbit hole every time. I'm afraid we're gonna
> end up with a historic tag on every holy well, which some people will
> not be in favour of. I wouldn't like it for the holy wells in Ireland,
> because AFAIK they are still used for their intended use, not like
> building=church which is now used as a house or a restaurant or a library.

Yes, that "liveness" property is indeed the one distinction that makes
the difference here. Still, I think in the text you should mention this
distinction and differentiate "your" wells from historic ones (or
include them somehow in the proposal).

> (On a related matter, there are mass paths in Ireland, tracks/ footways
> that were only used to go to church. I need to read up more about it,
> because that is another thing the council wants to map. I don't know if
> they lead to holy wells as well. I have only mapped one and used
> name=Mass path, but I'm not sure if that is sufficient.)

I would deem that name-tag misuse TBH. How about mass_path=yes or some
similar attribute together with the proper highway tags?

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner