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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 06.09.22 11:58, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 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.

Citation needed, and I object to your labeling as "deletionism" the 
legitimate question of what belongs in OSM and what doesn't.

I believe that new contributors are just as easily driven away by having 
to navigate too much data that is fully outside their area of expertise.

Someone who wants to map a building and encounters a tree will be able 
to deal with that. But someone splitting a centre line of the river 
Rhine and being asked "are you sure you want to edit these 5 religious 
boundaries" or - in case their editor just does it "automatically" - 
being later asked by another mapper "why did you make an edit to this 
religious boundary in this changeset" might very well conclude that OSM 
is too difficult for them.

And I don't - as I mentioned in my "Layers" post - think that this is 
purely a technical issue ("make the software better and the problem goes 
away"). I *want* someone making an edit to actively contemplate the 
consequences, and this puts an upper limit on the amount of niche 
interest data we can accept.

If something is really *so* unrelated to the rest of OSM that it can be 
edited without regard to other things in OSM, then have someone set up 
their own OSM for that.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"