[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