[Tagging] RFC: Removal of Eruvs from OSM, and further boundry=religious
Frederik Ramm
frederik at remote.org
Sat Aug 27 20:55:48 UTC 2022
Hi,
I think it is time to repeat my mantra:
On 8/25/22 17:41, Sinus Pi wrote:
> Not only are Catholic dioceses (administrative areas) being mapped in
> OSM in some countries, while having no physical representation
If someone says "X should not be in OSM", then please never try to
oppose that by saying "but (a similar) Y is also in OSM!"
Or, more poignantly, just because there's rubbish data in OSM, don't
take that as a reason to add more rubbish.
For years I have painfully noticed how mappers in some countries are
super avid in mapping "boundary=religious", and I don't like it at all -
you can find places in OSM that are covered by 5 or more such boundaries
of different faiths and different levels. These are usually not
verifiable on the ground, they make editing harder for mappers, they are
setting a bad precedent (see above), and they should go.
And, repeating myself for the umpteenth time, no, that doesn't mean that
you can now go and delete all sub-national admin boundaries just because
they are not verifiable on the ground.
We have a general rule that says stuff must be verifiable. General rule
doesn't mean "no-exception-made set in stone", but it means: You need a
very good reason for mapping something not verifiable. Such a reason
could be that the data is of a relatively high usefulness to relatively
many people, or that the data is useful for mappers in their work.
In my opinion these reasons are true for admin boundaries. Anyone
wanting to map religious boundaries or other fancy stuff that is not
visible on the ground, and requires research from documents etc. in
order to verify, should be requested to present a very good reason for
deviating from the general rule.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the Tagging
mailing list