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

[Marc_marc]

Hello,

Le 23.08.22 à 06:25, Evan Carroll a écrit :
> 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do.

I don't see the relevance of the argument.
osm serves also to increase geographical knowledge.
I have no idea what the majority of rail signage means...
and this is probably the case for the majority of people.
I do not object to their existence in osm

> 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct 
> communication with the clergy (as compared to the civil courthouse).

or not... we're mapping house numbers without necessarily being
in direct communication with the authority concerned
we look the ground and use local knowledge when a sign is missing

> 3. They're a purely administrative construct.

like addr:housenumber

> 1. It's effectively a service-area.

there is no problem to add a barrier=wall or a wire (see power=line), 
and I don't see how a relation based on this physical object
would be a problem.
of course the wall or the wire could be destroyed...
the same for a house, a bench, or any other objet
of course a destroyed bench is "down", what's the issue ?
see the area of a nudist club or highway=services or 
leisure=beach_resort with sometimes a much less precise limit.

<cutting due to too many arguments in all directions without
seeing what the main argument is>

> If there is no physical boundary it doesn't belong here.
> Perhaps all these should all be removed.

with this argument, it is also necessary to erase the administrative 
boundary relations because even those of the countries have almost
no existence on the ground. there are only a few barrier=border_control 
(sometime not on the boundary itself) and a few historic=milestone 
(sometime also not on the boundary, for ex before a river bridge
marking the boundary) but the majority of the node have no existence
on the ground and all the criticisms made above also apply to these 
borders (it is necessary to reconcile with the official source,
there is a problem if another country decides to move its border
(cfr the current armed conflict), they are an administrative 
construction, ...

This is why I suggest that you rationalise your arguments:
what is the real problem that makes you ask for a removal ?
the argument in question must obviously be valid for similar cases.

Regards,
Marc