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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Aug 23, 2022, 06:25 by me at evancarroll.com:

> But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. 
>
Because they are not verifiable by survey AND not having any great reason to ignore that
(unlike administrative boundaries) and resulting in making data extremely hard to edit.

None applies to Eruvs.

> 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do.
>
irrelevant

> 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy (as compared to the civil courthouse).
>
clergy is not banned from contributing (at least on OSM side)

> 3. They're a purely administrative construct.
>
there are also physical, verifiable and mappable construct

> 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?
>
no, but "you are entering T-Mobile service area" signs are mappable and
if T-Mobile would setup rope around such area it would be mappable.

> 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?
>
We would map what is marked in terrain and none if there is no physical representation
like wire/rope.

BTW, someone is mapping administrative boundaries of Catholic Church in Poland.
I am a bit dubious about this project. But Eruv has a physical presence.

> 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.
>
I would not recommend using OSM for critical operations, if alternative exists.
Devout Jews should likely consult rabbi, not OSM.
That is irrelevant for Eruv mappability.

>
> 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?
>
because it is mappable physical structure

> 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.
>
Statues or elaborate long-term rope setups erected by Church of Satan are also mappable.
Online declarations unverifiable in place are not.

> Proposal: Deletion
>
I oppose that

> 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)
>
Here I am not opposed to deletion.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220824/93ed5bc4/attachment.htm>