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

[stevea]

I agree that eruvs should be in OSM, if a local community wishes to map them, and I'm guessing that at least some (perhaps not all, though perhaps all, in a comprehensive, "let's map every eruv!" campaign were to start) wish to be mapped and are going to be mapped.

I think if you really wanted to "find and see" any particular eruv, you could.  You might have to ask a local rabbinical council (or whatever that might be called), but I don't believe an eruv is particularly secret, in fact, it might be rather proudly exclaimed to be "right here, we proudly offer to OSM its exact and official boundaries."  Just because you can't see something which might be as faint as "fishing line several stories up" (if that's indeed what it is), doesn't mean it isn't there, isn't verifiable, or isn't worthy of being mapped.  All of those things (it's there, it's verifiable and it IS worthy of being mapped) could very well be true.   If so, map away!

> On Aug 27, 2022, at 3:17 PM, Tijmen Stam (Mailinglists) <mailinglists at iivq.net> wrote:
> 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