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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6 Sep 2022, at 12:02, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> When people who are local on the ground are mapping something that they
> care about, I think we shouldn't press too hard about the edge of
> verifiability.  In general I think we are too prickly about that.  I see
> verifiability as more complicated than a hard yes/no line, and I think
> it's fine to have things that require more effort and understanding to
> verify.   There's a difference between "an ordinary mapper could not
> possibly figure this out" and "an ordinary mapper who really cared about
> this point could not only look but interact with locals to understand
> and learn how to look".
> 
> Having eruvs in OSM is not our big problem.   I think deletionism in
> general is far more serious, especially because it tends to drive away
> contributors.


I subscribe to all of this.

“Learn how to look” puts it nicely, who is verifying on the ground must be able to understand what they see.

Consider how important religion is for many people, and how much of a problem religious boundaries could potentially become if we had “all” of them (what does not seem to happen anyway).

Cheers Martin