Greg, Greg Troxel wrote: > and (more or less) the community views it as such as > evidenced by holding services of some kind with some attendance". This > latter part is necessary to exclude Joe putting up a "church of Joe" in > his front yard; the town would then say "joe is a nutcase", as opposed > to if he held services weekly and 20 people came, where they'd say > something more like ".... but I suppose it's a church".
I think that people sometimes tag wayside crosses or little shrines as "places of worship", even if they serve only the occasional rambler or maybe a procession of catholics once a year. I'd be wary of putting up such requirements. They get you into trouble because it may well be that if the "Church of Joe" attracts a drunken crowd once each year for Joe's birthday, his "Church" may be visited more often than some obscure shrine on the side of a mountain somewhere, and then you're fully into a "yours is not a proper religion but mine is" argument. > We should remember that the purpose of maps is to represent reality to > map users, not to make political points. It's hard to tell which is > going on here, but if no one comes up with pictures of worship houses > for disputed religions, it seems like a frivolous argument. I still think that, while understandable, going down this way will deny a lot of established religions some of *their* places of worship. Bye Frederik _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
