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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 will be never 100% correct 
(like any map)
and there is always danger of not spotted deliberately malicious edit and we 
are unable
to make promises that it is perfect.

But going into this direction is desirable and what we are doing.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

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:


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.


Sadly, yes, some people do have to be told these things.  Or, to state it
more precisely, many
companies find it necessary to place warnings of such things on their
products to avoid being
sued in court.  AGAIN.  That's why we have so many warning labels in our
daily lives, telling
us not to do things that the vast majority of us would never think of doing.

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.

One person in this thread claimed, incorrectly, that there are no access
restrictions to religious
structures and that it is not possible to determine if somebody meets the
restrictions he said
don't exist.  Such restrictions do exist and the penalties for contravening
them can be harsh.
Very harsh.

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 access=yes,
access=private or no
access tag at all.  It doesn't conflict with any other tagging, and doesn't
break the
semantics of the access=* tag.


[...]

I agree with access=adherents if used as a default, in the event you 
don't know any different.  Access=yes would apply I think to most 
churches in the United States, as anyone is welcome to enter.  I know 
that's the case for my church.


Mark



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 person they don't
want in their shop


> a default value per religion/country look like a better idea
>

Default via religion may work, but you wouldn't be able to do it via
country, as there's not one country anywhere on Earth that has 100%
membership of any one religion. Saw this mentioned only a few weeks ago,
but even places like Saudi Arabia & Iran, are "only" mid - high 90% Muslim.
Even Vatican City wasn't 100% Catholic!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 access=yes,
> access=private or no
> access tag at all.  It doesn't conflict with any other tagging, and
> doesn't break the
> semantics of the access=* tag.
>
> 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 tag the access restriction at all
> seems silly.  What harm
> does it do if somebody does add access=adherent (assuming that to be the
> case)?
>

Agree entirely (but I think that =adherents sounds better than =adherent
:-)), but, as in most things, there will always be occasional awkward ones.

As anyone who is involved in checking family history knows, the Church of
the Latter Day Saints has probably the biggest collection of family history
records in the World. Their family history libraries are usually located in
a corner of their church building, & are open to the general public, but
the public are not allowed into the church proper, so that would need a
combination of access=adherents on the building & also access=customers (?)
on the library room/s.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[marc marc]

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 not add or modify them if we’re unsure or unacquainted.

but we don't map the legislation, isn't it ?
or next step is adding access=private on all houses and 
access=permissive on all shop ?
a default value per religion/country look like a better idea
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 tag the access restriction at all 
> seems silly.  What harm
> does it do if somebody does add access=adherent (assuming that to be the 
> case)?


+1 to all of this. 
There are such restrictions in some places and we should map them, if we know 
it well, or not add or modify them if we’re unsure or unacquainted.

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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.
>

Sadly, yes, some people do have to be told these things.  Or, to state it
more precisely, many
companies find it necessary to place warnings of such things on their
products to avoid being
sued in court.  AGAIN.  That's why we have so many warning labels in our
daily lives, telling
us not to do things that the vast majority of us would never think of doing.

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.

One person in this thread claimed, incorrectly, that there are no access
restrictions to religious
structures and that it is not possible to determine if somebody meets the
restrictions he said
don't exist.  Such restrictions do exist and the penalties for contravening
them can be harsh.
Very harsh.

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 access=yes,
access=private or no
access tag at all.  It doesn't conflict with any other tagging, and doesn't
break the
semantics of the access=* tag.

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 tag the access restriction at all
seems silly.  What harm
does it do if somebody does add access=adherent (assuming that to be the
case)?

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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
> follow their GPS up
> dead-end goat tracks or over cliffs because they accidentally selected
> "walking route."
> It seems to happen about once a year in the UK.  Some people ARE that
> stupid.
>

Sorry, OT I know, but there was actually an article on the TV news only
last night about food-delivery cyclists pedalling through car tunnels
(despite them being signposted "No pedestrians or cyclists") as they are
following their GPS.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 family of a stupid person.


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.

Ciao, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 not add access=yes if you’re not sure about the situation, rather don’t 
add any access tags when you don’t know.

There is also conditional access based on gender, or dress code (e.g. no 
shorts, no bare shoulders, in catholic churches around here, there are signs 
for this and it is controlled at the entrance at bigger churches). On the other 
hand they might lend you a blanket to cover yourself, if it’s just the 
shoulders. Similarly in synagogues they might lend you headdress if you arrive 
unprepared. In these cases there is an access restriction based on how you must 
dress, but it doesn’t complicate the situation if you’re willing to conform 
(you don’t have to provide special clothing yourself).

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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 they accidentally selected
"walking route."
It seems to happen about once a year in the UK.  Some people ARE that
stupid.

Ordinarily I'm happy if people like that collect their well-deserved Darwin
award.  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 family of a stupid person.

I wouldn't force anybody to tag access=adherents (or whatever it is that we
fail to decide
upon), but I'm not going to object if somebody does so.  Not even if
they're using local
knowledge rather than an explicit sign to determine how they tag it.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 you entered), same for most of the 
>> places of worship when you are not an "adherent" (which by the way is hard 
>> to prove/unprove in most cases).
>>
>
> However, the same is not true of ALL places of worship.  There are some 
> denominations of
> some religions where non-believers are not permitted to enter places of 
> worship.  The penalties
> for failing to observe that prohibition can be severe.  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?
>
That is quite poor argument, someone believing map data so blindly would be 
dead soon 
anyway.

Though this information is worth tagging.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 
> prove/unprove in most cases).
>
In Morocco in nearly all mosques nonmuslims are not allowed to enter.

In areas with heavy tourism traffic there are explicit signs in English.

Kaaba is another known to me case of place where only Muslims are
allowed to enter, not sure is it signposted but it is certainly taggable.

> I think this discussion (on accessing places of worship) will never come to 
> an end and don't see the need to set an access tag when there is no clear 
> signage (which is usually the fact I think). 
>
Though in cases where there is a sign it may be useful to tag this, or in 
cases where access is simply blocked.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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 prove/unprove in most cases).
>

However, the same is not true of ALL places of worship.  There are some
denominations of
some religions where non-believers are not permitted to enter places of
worship.  The penalties
for failing to observe that prohibition can be severe.  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?

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Topographe Fou]

 The signage should make the tag, not the opposite. I think it is one of the main rule here. Otherwise there will always be interpretations and personnal feelings.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 prove/unprove in most cases).I think this discussion (on accessing places of worship) will never come to an end and don't see the need to set an access tag when there is no clear signage (which is usually the fact I think). In this case why not discussing of accessing shops (when you are not buying), railroad stations (when you are not yet a traveller or don't plan to travel but to buy a newspaper), parkings (when you are not going to park but to drop someone)...Let stick to the "sign" rule, it's far more simple and international.Yours,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 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` (eventhough they are). One would hope data consumers would take that as implied.Typical christian place of worship is access=permissive (at least in Europe).Though there are some that should be tagged access=permissive.There was discussion about tagging list about "religious based accessrestrictions" a few months ago (thread starts here:https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037649.html). There wasn't a clear winner.access=adherents seems to be one that is likely to work wellThe Greek tribe has an ancestral belief system ("Christianity") whichhas some sites they consider sacred, such as Mouth Athos (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2135921 ). That's currentlytagged as a regular `admin_level=3` even though it has strict accesscontrol (only men are allowed there!).Note that Athos is quite unique - typical one will not getadmin_level. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Philip Barnes]

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 
> > "amenity=place_of_worship" plus "religion=christian"
> > I would assume that the default is "access=private" as the 
> > priest/pastor/... has the power to refuse anyone. At best it is something 
> > similar to "access=customer"
> >
> Why not access=permissive, at least for ones open to a public (with right to 
> refuse entry used
> only in extreme cases)?

That in my experience is the norm, during the  daytime churches  are generally 
open. In towns and cities there will usually be someone there but in villages 
the norm is that the door is unlocked.

Phil (trigpoint) 
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 "access=private" as the priest/pastor/... 
> has the power to refuse anyone. At best it is something similar to 
> "access=customer"
>
Why not access=permissive, at least for ones open to a public (with right to 
refuse entry used
only in extreme cases)?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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
>> though they are). One would hope data consumers would take that as implied.
>>
> Typical christian place of worship is access=permissive (at least in Europe).
> Though there are some that should be tagged access=permissive.
>
Should be "Though there are some that should be tagged access=private".

For example in some monasteries.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 of worship is access=permissive (at least in Europe).
Though there are some that should be tagged access=permissive.

> There was discussion about tagging list about "religious based access
> restrictions" a few months ago (thread starts here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037649.html 
> 
> ). There wasn't a clear winner.
>
access=adherents seems to be one that is likely to work well

> The Greek tribe has an ancestral belief system ("Christianity") which
> has some sites they consider sacred, such as Mouth Athos (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2135921 
> >  ). That's currently
> tagged as a regular `admin_level=3` even though it has strict access
> control (only men are allowed there!).
>
Note that Athos is quite unique - typical one will not get
admin_level. 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Volker Schmidt]

"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 refuse anyone. At best it is something
similar to "access=customer"

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, 11:38 Philip Barnes,  wrote:

>
>
> 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 considered a church to be private, after all it is the
> one type of building that it is acceptable to try the door and enter if it
> is unlocked.
>
> Permissive maybe, but not private.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Philip Barnes]

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 considered a church to be private, after all it is the one 
type of building that it is acceptable to try the door and enter if it is 
unlocked. 

Permissive maybe, but not private.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Rory McCann]

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 mapped, & how did you work it out?


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.

There was discussion about tagging list about "religious based access
restrictions" a few months ago (thread starts here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037649.html
). There wasn't a clear winner.

The Greek tribe has an ancestral belief system ("Christianity") which
has some sites they consider sacred, such as Mouth Athos (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2135921 ). That's currently
tagged as a regular `admin_level=3` even though it has strict access
control (only men are allowed there!).

And there's always `access=private` as a simple, and effective, approach.

At the far end of the spectrum, there has been a practice in OSM to
*not* map certain things, such as private/non-publicized domestic
violence shelters, or the nesting sites of endangered birds. Use this
approach with care, but don't be afraid to use it.


--
Rory


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging