In other words, stop the edit war, discuss pros and cons on the talk page, and be open to include more rather than remove. If it is concluded as not a religion than find alternative tagging.
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:religion [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:denomination Frederik's comment about the on-the-ground-rule is right on. Before reading the talk page, I was thinking: "we only put places_of_worship on the map when there is a place on the ground that is self-labeled a place of worship 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". Perhaps those who want to include Pastafarianism should send in links to pictures of churches, together with descriptions of how they pass the 'act like a church' and 'viewed by the community as a church' tests in their local community. As for 'this group thinks this mountain is a sacred place, but there's no sign', I think there needs to be a "widely recognized by the community" test. For example, it might be reasonable to put the 4 main vortexes in Sedona on the map, but not the other 100 that everyone claims is on their property. (The main 4 pass the test that if you go to Sedona and walk around and ask random people they will know about them, more or less.) 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.
pgpPJq6ESAC94.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
