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

[Tijmen Stam (Mailinglists)]

On 24/08/2022 16:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.

I think Eruvs should be put in OSM /if/ they have a recognizable (even 
if it is not to the layman) physical presence in the field, as per "map 
what's on the ground" (although Eruv's are mostly high above the ground 
;-) )

I apparently live close to an Eruv, but despite knowing where the 
borders are and looking for it, I have not been able to spot it anywhere 
(https://enhetwaterwaseenmuur.nl/verhalen.html, in Dutch, or 
https://prinsfrank.nl/2020/08/09/The-obscure-eruv-of-amsterdam). In that 
case, an Eruv should not be mapped IMHO.

IIVQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220828/ec815435/attachment.htm>