First, forgive the message in Markdown this is a post I originally made here that I was asked to bring up here https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/85389/edit/ An [Eruv](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv) is > ritual halakhic enclosure made for the purpose of allowing activities which are normally prohibited on Shabbat (due to the prohibition of hotzaah mereshut lereshut), specifically: carrying objects from a private domain to a semi-public domain (carmelit), and transporting objects four cubits or more within a semi-public domain. The enclosure is made within some Jewish communities, especially Orthodox Jewish communities. I'm asking here because an Eruv seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage,  * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html Note, on that webpage, > An entire neighborhood that is walled in would be considered enclosed for these purposes, but **in most modern cities and towns that is not feasible, nor is it necessary. In fact, the modern city eruv will make use of existing telephone poles (with their wires going from the top of one pole to the next), fencing, and existing walls, for example, to allow the enclosed area to be considered “private.”** This is **ONLY** an argument against the un-walled version. I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy (as compared to the civil courthouse). 3. They're a purely administrative construct. A few things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence: imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind their adherents in clerical arbitration. What about the territory of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, do we want a polygon covering Houston and Galveston for that: what would our position be if the Pope and Cardinal DiNardo disagree on that? 3. There is a status on an Eruv: they can be up or down. For example, if one of the arbitrary chosen barriers is a light post, and that light post is replaced the Eruv is status=down until it's remedied, inspected, and certified to be back up. There are Facebook groups and pages that track this. For example, https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02RVVnXmsTQ5LFHZATQbEvrFoTxaQVPn16HxjPyAQxq1iYMmm1X1ss7Fg5FqSsHPJel&id=52052821389 This is unique, as we're talking about an area which may not just change, but may be entirely invalid until recertified. 4. This is contentious and exclusive: why should anyone have an Eruv or another religious administrative district that has no binding power covering their house, neighborhood, and parks? 5. This will force us to establish a religion, or an acceptable set of religions: what will we do when the Church of Satan sends an emissary to a local Jewish temple, and desecrates the ground with a verbal curse? Will that range of their desecration be a welcomed addition to OSM. Because boundary=religious welcomes this kind of trolling. Proposal: Deletion ==== There are four of these on OSM, 1. Religious Meyerland Minyan Eruv, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77096, United States 2. Eruv Chigwell and Hainault Eruv, London Borough of Redbridge, London, Essex, Greater London, England, United Kingdom 3. Religious United Orthodox Synagogues Eruv, Westwood Park, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States 4. Religious Young Israel of Houston - Eruv excluded areas, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States Second Proposal ==== I can't see an area with `boundary=religious` following the spirit of the site. If there is no physical boundary it doesn't belong here. Perhaps all these should all be removed. * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious * [Overpass Link for `boundry=religious`](https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1leG) (the Catholic example is actually what they're doing in the Philippines, where the diocese polygons are in OSM)

First, forgive the message in Markdown this is a post I originally made here that I was asked to bring up here https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/85389/edit/ An [Eruv](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv) is > ritual halakhic enclosure made for the purpose of allowing activities which are normally prohibited on Shabbat (due to the prohibition of hotzaah mereshut lereshut), specifically: carrying objects from a private domain to a semi-public domain (carmelit), and transporting objects four cubits or more within a semi-public domain. The enclosure is made within some Jewish communities, especially Orthodox Jewish communities. I'm asking here because an Eruv seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage, *  * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html Note, on that webpage, > An entire neighborhood that is walled in would be considered enclosed for these purposes, but **in most modern cities and towns that is not feasible, nor is it necessary. In fact, the modern city eruv will make use of existing telephone poles (with their wires going from the top of one pole to the next), fencing, and existing walls, for example, to allow the enclosed area to be considered “private.”** This is **ONLY** an argument against the un-walled version. I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy. clergy (as compared to the civil courthouse). 3. They're a purely administrative construct. Two more A few things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability. ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence: imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind their adherents in clerical arbitration. What about the territory of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, do we want a polygon covering Houston and Galveston for that: what would our position be if the Pope and Cardinal DiNardo disagree on that? 3. There is a status on an Eruv: they can be up or down. For example, if one of the arbitrary chosen barriers is a light post, and that light post is replaced the Eruv is status=down until it's remedied, inspected, and certified to be back up. There are Facebook groups and pages that track this. For example, https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02RVVnXmsTQ5LFHZATQbEvrFoTxaQVPn16HxjPyAQxq1iYMmm1X1ss7Fg5FqSsHPJel&id=52052821389 This is unique, as we're talking about an area which may not just change, but may be entirely invalid until recertified. 4. This is contentious and exclusive: why should anyone have an Eruv or another religious administrative district that has no binding power covering their house, neighborhood, and parks? 5. This will force us to establish a religion, or an acceptable set of religions: what will we do when the Church of Satan sends an emissary to a local Jewish temple, and desecrates the ground with a verbal curse? Will that range of their desecration be a welcomed addition to OSM. Because boundary=religious welcomes this kind of trolling. Proposal: Deletion ==== There are four of these on OSM, 1. Religious Meyerland Minyan Eruv, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77096, United States 2. Eruv Chigwell and Hainault Eruv, London Borough of Redbridge, London, Essex, Greater London, England, United Kingdom 3. Religious United Orthodox Synagogues Eruv, Westwood Park, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States 4. Religious Young Israel of Houston - Eruv excluded areas, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States Second Proposal ==== I can't see an area with `boundary=religious` following the spirit of the site. If there is no physical boundary it doesn't belong here. Perhaps here. Perhaps all these should all be removed. Especially if it's currently not accepted to have secular (state) administrative boundaries. removed. * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious * [Overpass Link for `boundry=religious`](https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1leG) (the Catholic example is actually what they're doing in the Philippines, where the diocese polygons are in OSM)

An [Eruv](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv) is > ritual halakhic enclosure made for the purpose of allowing activities which are normally prohibited on Shabbat (due to the prohibition of hotzaah mereshut lereshut), specifically: carrying objects from a private domain to a semi-public domain (carmelit), and transporting objects four cubits or more within a semi-public domain. The enclosure is made within some Jewish communities, especially Orthodox Jewish communities. I'm asking here because an Eruv seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage, * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html Note, on that webpage, > An entire neighborhood that is walled in would be considered enclosed for these purposes, but **in most modern cities and towns that is not feasible, nor is it necessary. In fact, the modern city eruv will make use of existing telephone poles (with their wires going from the top of one pole to the next), fencing, and existing walls, for example, to allow the enclosed area to be considered “private.”** This is **ONLY** an argument against the un-walled version. I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy. 3. They're a purely administrative construct. Two more things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? ability. Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence: imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind their adherents in clerical arbitration. What about the territory of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, do we want a polygon covering Houston and Galveston for that: what would our position be if the Pope and Cardinal DiNardo disagree on that? Proposal: Deletion ==== There are four of these on OSM, 1. Religious Meyerland Minyan Eruv, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77096, United States 2. Eruv Chigwell and Hainault Eruv, London Borough of Redbridge, London, Essex, Greater London, England, United Kingdom 3. Religious United Orthodox Synagogues Eruv, Westwood Park, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States 4. Religious Young Israel of Houston - Eruv excluded areas, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States Second Proposal ==== I can't see an area with `boundary=religious` following the spirit of the site. If there is no physical boundary it doesn't belong here. Perhaps all these should all be removed. Especially if it's currently not accepted to have secular (state) administrative boundaries. * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious * [Overpass Link for `boundry=religious`](https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1leG) (the Catholic example is actually what they're doing in the Philippines, where the diocese polygons are in OSM)

An [Eruv](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv) is > ritual halakhic enclosure made for the purpose of allowing activities which are normally prohibited on Shabbat (due to the prohibition of hotzaah mereshut lereshut), specifically: carrying objects from a private domain to a semi-public domain (carmelit), and transporting objects four cubits or more within a semi-public domain. The enclosure is made within some Jewish communities, especially Orthodox Jewish communities. I'm asking here because an Eruv seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage, * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html Note, on that webpage, > An entire neighborhood that is walled in would be considered enclosed for these purposes, but **in most modern cities and towns that is not feasible, nor is it necessary. In fact, the modern city eruv will make use of existing telephone poles (with their wires going from the top of one pole to the next), fencing, and existing walls, for example, to allow the enclosed area to be considered “private.”** This is **ONLY** an argument against the un-walled version. I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy. 3. They're a purely administrative construct. Two more things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence: imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind their adherents in clerical arbitration. What about the territory of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, do we want a polygon covering Houston and Galveston for that: what would our position be if the Pope and Cardinal DiNardo disagree on that? Proposal: Deletion ==== There are four of these on OSM, 1. Religious Meyerland Minyan Eruv, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77096, United States 2. Eruv Chigwell and Hainault Eruv, London Borough of Redbridge, London, Essex, Greater London, England, United Kingdom 3. Religious United Orthodox Synagogues Eruv, Westwood Park, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States 4. Religious Young Israel of Houston - Eruv excluded areas, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States Second Proposal ==== I can't see an area with `boundary=religious` following the spirit of the site. If there is no physical boundary it doesn't belong here. Perhaps all these should all be removed. Especially if it's currently not accepted to have secular (state) administrative boundaries. * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious * [Overpass Link for `boundry=religious`](https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1leG) (the Catholic example is actually what they're doing in the Philippines, where the diocese polygons are in OSM)

An [Eruv](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv) is > ritual halakhic enclosure made for the purpose of allowing activities which are normally prohibited on Shabbat (due to the prohibition of hotzaah mereshut lereshut), specifically: carrying objects from a private domain to a semi-public domain (carmelit), and transporting objects four cubits or more within a semi-public domain. The enclosure is made within some Jewish communities, especially Orthodox Jewish communities. I'm asking here because an Eruv seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage, * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html Note, on that webpage, > An entire neighborhood that is walled in would be considered enclosed for these purposes, but **in most modern cities and towns that is not feasible, nor is it necessary. In fact, the modern city eruv will make use of existing telephone poles (with their wires going from the top of one pole to the next), fencing, and existing walls, for example, to allow the enclosed area to be considered “private.”** This is **ONLY** an argument against the un-walled version. I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy. 3. They're a purely administrative construct. Two more things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence: imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind their adherents in clerical arbitration. arbitration. What about the territory of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, do we want a polygon covering Houston and Galveston for that: what would our position be if the Pope and Cardinal DiNardo disagree on that? Proposal: Deletion ==== There are four of these on OSM, 1. Religious Meyerland Minyan Eruv, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77096, United States 2. Eruv Chigwell and Hainault Eruv, London Borough of Redbridge, London, Essex, Greater London, England, United Kingdom 3. Religious United Orthodox Synagogues Eruv, Westwood Park, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States 4. Religious Young Israel of Houston - Eruv excluded areas, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States Second Proposal ==== I can't see an area with `boundary=religious` following the spirit of the site. If there is no physical boundary it doesn't belong here. Perhaps all these should all be removed. Especially if it's currently not accepted to have secular (state) administrative boundaries. * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious

An [Eruv](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv) is > ritual halakhic enclosure made for the purpose of allowing activities which are normally prohibited on Shabbat (due to the prohibition of hotzaah mereshut lereshut), specifically: carrying objects from a private domain to a semi-public domain (carmelit), and transporting objects four cubits or more within a semi-public domain. The enclosure is made within some Jewish communities, especially Orthodox Jewish communities. I'm asking here because this an Eruv seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage, * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html Note, on that webpage, > An entire neighborhood that is walled in would be considered enclosed for these purposes, but **in most modern cities and towns that is not feasible, nor is it necessary. In fact, the modern city eruv will make use of existing telephone poles (with their wires going from the top of one pole to the next), fencing, and existing walls, for example, to allow the enclosed area to be considered “private.”** This is **ONLY** an argument against the un-walled version. I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy. 3. They're a purely administrative construct. Two more things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence: imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind their adherents in clerical arbitration. Proposal: Deletion ==== There are four of these on OSM, 1. Religious Meyerland Minyan Eruv, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77096, United States 2. Eruv Chigwell and Hainault Eruv, London Borough of Redbridge, London, Essex, Greater London, England, United Kingdom 3. Religious United Orthodox Synagogues Eruv, Westwood Park, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States 4. Religious Young Israel of Houston - Eruv excluded areas, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States Second Proposal ==== I can't see an area with a `boundary=religious` following the spirit of the site. If there is no physical boundary it doesn't belong here. Perhaps all these should all be removed. Especially if it's currently not accepted to have secular (state) administrative boundaries. * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious

I'm asking here because this seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage, * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy. 3. They're a purely administrative construct. Two more things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence: imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind their adherents in clerical arbitration. Proposal: Deletion ==== There are four of these on OSM, 1. Religious Meyerland Minyan Eruv, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77096, United States 2. Eruv Chigwell and Hainault Eruv, London Borough of Redbridge, London, Essex, Greater London, England, United Kingdom 3. Religious United Orthodox Synagogues Eruv, Westwood Park, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States 4. Religious Young Israel of Houston - Eruv excluded areas, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States Second Proposal ==== I can can't see an area with a `boundary=religious` following the spirit of the site. Perhaps these should all be removed. removed. Especially if it's currently not accepted to have secular (state) administrative boundaries. * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious

I'm asking here because this seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage, * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy. 3. They're a purely administrative construct. Two more things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence: imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind you their adherents in clerical arbitration. Proposal: Deletion ==== There are four of these on OSM, 1. Religious Meyerland Minyan Eruv, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77096, United States 2. Eruv Chigwell and Hainault Eruv, London Borough of Redbridge, London, Essex, Greater London, England, United Kingdom 3. Religious United Orthodox Synagogues Eruv, Westwood Park, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States 4. Religious Young Israel of Houston - Eruv excluded areas, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States Second Proposal ==== I can see an area with a `boundary=religious` following the spirit of the site. Perhaps these should all be removed. * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious

I'm asking here because this seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage, * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy. 3. They're a purely administrative construct. Two more things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence? Imagine jurisprudence: imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind you in clerical arbitration. Proposal: Deletion ==== There are four of these on OSM, 1. Religious Meyerland Minyan Eruv, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77096, United States 2. Eruv Chigwell and Hainault Eruv, London Borough of Redbridge, London, Essex, Greater London, England, United Kingdom 3. Religious United Orthodox Synagogues Eruv, Westwood Park, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States 4. Religious Young Israel of Houston - Eruv excluded areas, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States Second Proposal ==== I can see an area with a `boundary=religious` following the spirit of the site. Perhaps these should all be removed. * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious

I'm asking here because this seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage, * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy. 3. They're a purely administrative construct. Two more things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence? Imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind you in clerical arbitration. Proposal: Deletion ==== There are four of these on OSM, 1. Religious Meyerland Minyan Eruv, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77096, United States 2. Eruv Chigwell and Hainault Eruv, London Borough of Redbridge, London, Essex, Greater London, England, United Kingdom 3. Religious United Orthodox Synagogues Eruv, Westwood Park, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States 4. Religious Young Israel of Houston - Eruv excluded areas, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States Second Proposal ==== I can see an area with a `boundary=religious` following the spirit of the site. Perhaps these should all be removed. * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dreligious

I'm asking here because this seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage, * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy. 3. They're a purely administrative construct. Two more things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence? Imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind you in clerical arbitration.arbitration. Proposal: Deletion ==== There are four of these on OSM, 1. Religious Meyerland Minyan Eruv, Houston, Harris County, Texas, 77096, United States 2. Eruv Chigwell and Hainault Eruv, London Borough of Redbridge, London, Essex, Greater London, England, United Kingdom 3. Religious United Orthodox Synagogues Eruv, Westwood Park, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States 4. Religious Young Israel of Houston - Eruv excluded areas, Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States

I'm asking here because this seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage, * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy. 3. They're a purely administrative construct. Two more things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence? Imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind you in clerical arbitration.

I'm asking here because this seems _against_ the spirit of OpenStreetMaps in my neighborhood there is a gigantic area called "Meyerland Minyan Eruv". You can read more about it on their webpage, * http://www.meyerlandminyan.org/eruv.html I'll cite the same logic in [Does parcel data belong in OSM? ](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel#Does_parcel_data_belong_in_OSM?), > But many mappers believe that the parcel boundaries specifically do not belong in OSM. The core reasons for this position are discussed in subsequent sections. **But the general idea is that OSM is not a general-purpose geo data repository.** It is a system for crowd-sourcing a map. Also, parcel boundaries and some related data (e.g., zoning) are an **administrative construct managed by a government authority.** Accordingly, they change frequently in **ways that can't be readily observed on the ground.** Also, if a mapper edits the parcel data in a way that **conflicts with the authoritative source, the conflict must be reconciled somehow, which would be difficult and maybe impossible.** All of that applies to an Eruv. 1. Most people don't know they live in one, if they do. 2. The authoritative source of one would require OSM be in direct communication with the clergy. 3. They're a purely administrative construct. Two more things to consider that make it worse in my opinion, 1. It's effectively a service-area. I've never seen commercial entities granted this ability? Is OSM the right place to find out if you're in an T-Mobile service area? 2. We'd be subjecting ourselves to all kinds of arbitrary religious jurisprudence? Imagine finding your house in an area that tells you what Mormon and Jehova Witness Elders have the ability to bind you in clerical arbitration.