[Tagging] RFC: Removal of Eruvs from OSM, and further boundry=religious

[Evan Carroll]

First, forgive the message in Markdown this is a post I originally made
here that I was asked to bring up here
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/85389/ You can read it there if
you want to see it rendered.

An [Eruv](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv) is

> ritual halakhic enclosure made for the purpose of allowing activities
which are normally prohibited on Shabbat (due to the prohibition of hotzaah
mereshut lereshut), specifically: carrying objects from a private domain to
a semi-public domain (carmelit), and transporting objects four cubits or
more within a semi-public domain. The enclosure is made within some Jewish
communities, especially Orthodox Jewish communities.

I'm asking here because an Eruv seems _against_ the spirit of
OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called
"Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage,

 * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html

Note, on that webpage,

> An entire neighborhood that is walled in would be considered enclosed for
these purposes, but **in most modern cities and towns that is not feasible,
nor is it necessary. In fact, the modern city eruv will make use of
existing telephone poles (with their wires going from the top of one pole
to the next), fencing, and existing walls, for example, to allow the
enclosed area to be considered “private.”**

This is **ONLY** an argument against the un-walled version.

I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM?
](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?
),

> But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not
belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in
subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a
general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a
map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an
**administrative construct managed by a government authority.**
Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily
observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way
that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be
reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.**

All of that applies to an Eruv.

1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do.
2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct
communication with the clergy (as compared to the civil courthouse).
3. They're a purely administrative construct.

A few things to consider that make it worse in my opinion,

1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities
granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an
T-Mobile service area?
2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious
jurisprudence: imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what
Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind their adherents
in clerical arbitration. What about the territory of the Archdiocese of
Galveston-Houston, do we want a polygon covering Houston and Galveston for
that: what would our position be if the Pope and Cardinal DiNardo disagree
on that?
3. There is a status on an Eruv: they can be up or down. For example, if
one of the arbitrary chosen barriers is a light post, and that light post
is replaced the Eruv is status=down until it's remedied, inspected, and
certified to be back up. There are Facebook groups and pages that track
this. For example,
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02RVVnXmsTQ5LFHZATQbEvrFoTxaQVPn16HxjPyAQxq1iYMmm1X1ss7Fg5FqSsHPJel&id=52052821389
This is unique, as we're talking about an area which may not just change,
but may be entirely invalid until recertified.
4. This is contentious and exclusive: why should anyone have an Eruv or
another religious administrative district that has no binding power
covering their house, neighborhood, and parks?
5. This will force us to establish a religion, or an acceptable set of
religions: what will we do when the Church of Satan sends an emissary to a
local Jewish temple, and desecrates the ground with a verbal curse? Will
that range of their desecration be a welcomed addition to OSM. Because
boundary=religious welcomes this kind of trolling.

Proposal: Deletion
====

There are four of these on OSM,

1. Religious Meyerland Minyan Eruv, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77096,
United States
2. Eruv Chigwell and Hainault Eruv, London Borough of Redbridge, London,
Essex, Greater London, England, United Kingdom
3. Religious United Orthodox Synagogues Eruv, Westwood Park, Houston,
Harris County, Texas, United States
4. Religious Young Israel of Houston - Eruv excluded areas, Houston, Harris
County, Texas, United States

Second Proposal
====

I can't see an area with `boundary=religious` following the spirit of the
site. If there is no physical boundary it doesn't belong here. Perhaps all
these should all be removed.

* https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious
* [Overpass Link for `boundry=religious`](https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1leG)
(the Catholic example is actually what they're doing in the Philippines,
where the diocese polygons are in OSM)

--
Evan Carroll - me at evancarroll.com
System Lord of the Internets
web: http://www.evancarroll.com
ph: 281.901.0011 <+1-281-901-0011>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220822/db8b45af/attachment.htm>