Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Apr 3, 2019, 11:34 PM by pla16...@gmail.com: > We may state that the information isn't reliable, but I don't see that as an > excuse to map things > incorrectly.  It's an admission that we make mistakes, not a licence to > deliberately mis-map. > With that I perfectly agree. OpenStreetMap data

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous, sacred / ceremonial sites

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 22:34:55 +0100 From: Paul Allen To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 22:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 08:15, marc marc wrote: > or next step is adding access=private on all houses That is assumed to be the rule - or is your house open for anybody to just walk in 24/7? :-) > and access=permissive on all shop ? > Same, because any shop owner can refuse service to any

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 07:36, Paul Allen wrote: > > I see no reason to disallow something like access=adherents and every > reason to adopt > it. Even if you think it completely unnecessary, it's not doing any harm > if it represents the > actual situation on the ground better than having

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Le 04.04.19 à 00:00, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : >> On 3. Apr 2019, at 23:34, Paul Allen wrote: >> >> What harm does it do if somebody does add access=adherent (assuming that to >> be the case)? > > There are such restrictions in some places and we should map them, if we know > it well, or

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

sent from a phone > On 3. Apr 2019, at 23:34, Paul Allen wrote: > > I can understand (just) people arguing about whether it should be > access=adherents or > access=adherent, whether it should be adherents or customers, or something > like that. But > arguing about whether or not we should

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 22:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > haven’t we written somewhere in our terms that the information isn’t > reliable? I’m quite sure we have. Some people have to be told that coffee > is hot, kittens must not be dried in the microwave and map data may contain > errors. >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 05:45, Paul Allen wrote: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 20:25, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > That is quite poor argument, someone believing map data so blindly would >> be dead soon >> anyway. >> > > You're right. People aren't that stupid. Except the drivers who blindly >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

sent from a phone > On 3. Apr 2019, at 21:44, Paul Allen wrote: > > But then I > remember some of the civil liability actions that have succeeded in US courts > and realize > that a mis-tag of that nature might result in having to pay a lot of money in > compensation > to the bereaved

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

sent from a phone > On 3. Apr 2019, at 20:34, Paul Allen wrote: > > Do you really wish somebody to get stoned > to death for entering a place of worship because OSM stated that access was > open to all? not stating the access tag is different from stating ‘open for all’ though. You should

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 20:25, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: That is quite poor argument, someone believing map data so blindly would be > dead soon > anyway. > You're right. People aren't that stupid. Except the drivers who blindly follow their GPS up dead-end goat tracks or over cliffs because

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Apr 3, 2019, 8:34 PM by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 18:29, Topographe Fou <> letopographe...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> Access=adherents is a non-sens. You don't have to be a customer to enter a >> shop (you may become one, but only after

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Apr 3, 2019, 7:28 PM by letopographe...@gmail.com: > Access=adherents is a non-sens. You don't have to be a customer to enter a > shop (you may become one, but only after you entered), same for most of the > places of worship when you are not an "adherent" (which by the way is hard to >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 18:29, Topographe Fou wrote: > > Access=adherents is a non-sens. You don't have to be a customer to enter a > shop (you may become one, but only after you entered), same for most of the > places of worship when you are not an "adherent" (which by the way is hard > to

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

LeTopographeFou De: matkoni...@tutanota.comEnvoyé: 3 avril 2019 12:25 PMÀ: tagging@openstreetmap.orgRépondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.orgObjet: Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wednesday, 3 April 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > Apr 3, 2019, 12:20 PM by vosc...@gmail.com: > > > "building=church" is a building that has the characteristics of a church, > > but to indicate its use as a (christian) church it has to be tagged with > >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Apr 3, 2019, 12:20 PM by vosc...@gmail.com: > "building=church" is a building that has the characteristics of a church, but > to indicate its use as a (christian) church it has to be tagged with > "amenity=place_of_worship" plus "religion=christian" > I would assume that the default is

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Apr 3, 2019, 12:23 PM by matkoni...@tutanota.com: > > > > Apr 3, 2019, 11:26 AM by > r...@technomancy.org > > : > >> For controlling access, it depends on what sort of control there is. >> Most sacred sites ("churches") aren't tagged as `access=private` (even >>

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Apr 3, 2019, 11:26 AM by r...@technomancy.org: > For controlling access, it depends on what sort of control there is. > Most sacred sites ("churches") aren't tagged as `access=private` (even > though they are). One would hope data consumers would take that as implied. > Typical christian place

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

"building=church" is a building that has the characteristics of a church, but to indicate its use as a (christian) church it has to be tagged with "amenity=place_of_worship" plus "religion=christian" I would assume that the default is "access=private" as the priest/pastor/... has the power to

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wednesday, 3 April 2019, Rory McCann wrote: > > For controlling access, it depends on what sort of control there is. > Most sacred sites ("churches") aren't tagged as `access=private` (even > though they are). One would hope data consumers would take that as implied. I would never have

[Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On 02/04/2019 23:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Is there an OSM policy on mapping sacred / ceremonial sites? Yes, OSM has had `amenity=place_of_worship` for a while now, as well as `landuse=religious`. Are there any other places where the local original inhabitants may not want their sites