[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - holy well

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 at 19:26, Anne-Karoline Distel <annekadistel at web.de>
wrote:

I will have a good think about it, obviously restricted access needs to be
> marked. The one I mapped had a kissing gate at the end, that's how I got
> thinking that it must be something more than just an ordinary path.
>

I'm not sure that a kissing gate is an indication of the destination/usage
of
a path.  The only one I've mapped gave access to a cemetery and a quick
search on google indicates they were common for access to graveyards.
Possibly because stiles pose problems for women wearing their sunday
best and gates can be left open.  Animals nibbling grass in a graveyard
was probably seen as not showing sufficient respect for the dead or
something.  As for access, destination or customers might work.

> Your council's mapping requirements seem to be getting more and more
> esoteric.  Would it be better to let them use uMap for these things?
>
> Must be the lockdown, I don't know. They see it as heritage and rightly
> so. It's probably to do with prevention of littering or something.
>

If they just want a map they can use for their own purposes, and they come
up with things to map that are hard to justify as having utility in OSM
itself, uMap might be the way to go.  They can mark whatever they
want, however frivolous.  Not that I'm saying the things you wanted
ways of mapping so far don't fit OSM, but it sounds like they might
eventually want things that don't fit at all.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210220/3874255e/attachment.htm>