Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
Can you link actual scientific publication? I am willing to change my mind but I would need to check is it tested on some sane sample of people, not "Canadian males going to university with me" (psychology scientific papers are often only "scientific". So I am not going to treat seriously one that is not documenting properly its methodology, especially info how interviewed people were selected and whatever sample size was of serious size rather than "Sample size was 10, I interviewed my family and friends". See also replication crisis mess, where turned out that many highly cited and widely promoted papers in sociology and psychology were worthless (yes, I am salty about believing in Ted talk about power pose that was based on misleading claims) 21 Oct 2020, 06:57 by rob...@rtbk.com.au: > 'her generic man' has been fixed - it was a typo. > > now reads: > "confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man', people > form mental pictures of males" >___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
'her generic man' has been fixed - it was a typo. now reads: "confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man', people form mental pictures of males" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
(1) I never understood "man made" as "made by males". (2) One of primary meanings of "artificial" for me is fake/pretending/misleading, making this new proposed tags confusing, maybe especially for non-native speakers (3) see inherent problems with deprecating highly used tags (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool to change language, especially if done at cost of making more complicated for mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's meaning remains standard and is well understood Disclaimer: not a native speaker. (1) and (4) may be wrong. Also as not a native speaker I am confused by sentence in proposal "when people read of her generic man, people form mental pictures of" What is meaning of "her generic man"? 21 Oct 2020, 04:46 by rob...@rtbk.com.au: > Link to proposal page:> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/artificial > > Definition> : A tag for identifying human-made (artificial) > structures added to the landscape. > > Please discuss this proposal on the discussion page for the proposal. > > Kind Regards, > > Robert Delmenico > rtbk >___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
*Link to proposal page:* https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/artificial *Definition*: A tag for identifying human-made (artificial) structures added to the landscape. Please discuss this proposal on the discussion page for the proposal. Kind Regards, Robert Delmenico rtbk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Nope, not trolling - I have a genuine interest in what the OSM community thinks about the proposal. I for one though do think there is a bias - and I am entitled to hold that view. There are others that support my view so therefore it exists. A proposal will still be put forward as planned. Kind regards, Rob. On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 12:48, Dave F via Tagging wrote: > It appears so. > > Pretending there is a bias, doesn't mean there is one. > > DaveF > > On 21/10/2020 02:34, Phake Nick wrote: > > > > At this point it's clear enough OP is just trolling? > > > ___ > 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] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
It appears so. Pretending there is a bias, doesn't mean there is one. DaveF On 21/10/2020 02:34, Phake Nick wrote: At this point it's clear enough OP is just trolling? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
"Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results" On 20/10/2020 19:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: but it’s fair to discuss every proposal on its own. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
在 2020年10月21日週三 03:25，Justin Tracey 寫道： > On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote: > >> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias > >> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case, > >> English-speaking men) > > > > So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh, > > wait, that would *still* be biased. > > Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :) > At this point it's clear enough OP is just trolling? > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period
I agree these are very common arrangements. On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 07:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I am not usually mapping this detail of parking fees, but from my > understanding the above suggested tags would work and could be seen as > covered by current state of tagging, no need for a proposal, just use it. > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fee%3Aconditional#values > I agree, I wouldn't think it needs a proposal since I thought it's already covered by the current :conditional and maxstay schemes. > as a note, I believe we should "err on the safe side", i.e. better > A) > fee=yes > fee:conditional = no @ maxstay < 3h > > than B) > fee = no > fee:conditional = yes @ maxstay > 3h > > I think I would ignore the maxstay==3h condition, ;-) > I agree, generally I think of these as paid parking, but with the exception that if you stay for a short time it's free, as opposed to being free parking but if you overstay the parking they charge you a fee (the latter would be more like a fine for going over the limit, but rather this is usually just a grace period for not needing to pay). I've came to the same conclusion in the past where I tagged https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23024004#map=19/-33.79813/151.18415 Taginfo says 9 things tagged like this already https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/fee%3Aconditional=no%20(maxstay%3C2%20hours) + https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/fee%3Aconditional=no%20(maxstay%3C3%20hours) This is also the syntax I suggested for the streetcomplete quest at https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/102#issuecomment-687761605 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxstay recommends to always add a unit (unlike maxspeed, maxheight, maxweight which all have default units) and all the examples use expanded terms in English eg "hours" instead of "h" or "hr". Any good data consumer would want to parse out all the variants, so I wouldn't complain if you used "h" instead of "hours" but would be nicer if there was only one way to tag it, so I'd prefer to stick with the full term like on the wiki "hours". Unless there is disagreement we can just add this example to the wiki. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period
I think that in this case full blown proposal would be waste of time. Whatever maxstay/time/whatever keyword is used result should be fine. We just need to document it (add to examples list on conditional restrictions page, maybe also on fee page and parking page). I would just wait for whatever anyonehas convincing claim that maxstay is problematic and edit wiki in few days. 20 Oct 2020, 22:34 by bra...@kokanovic.org: > Hi all, > There are lot of parking lots on amenities (shopping malls...), where parking > is free for customers, but only if you park for less than some specified time > amount (let's say 2-3h), imposed by that amenity. After that period, you have > to pay[1]. It is widespread where I live, but I would suspect this is not > limited to my country only. I searched and didn't found any examples on wiki > and taginfo. We discussed this on Telegram channel a bit (thanks Mateusz > Konieczny for help!) and we brainstormed a bit and seems that most logical > way to put this would be with 1) conditional restriction, 2) keyword > "maxstay", already in use for timespans. So, something like: > `fee:conditional=no @ (maxstay < 2h)` > or > `fee:conditional=yes @ (maxstay > 2h)` > (on amenity=parking) > > Question is - how should I pursue this forward, since I never did any > proposal before? Do "conditional restrictions" also fall under regular > proposal process? I guess yes. Maybe I missed something and this already > exists? Mateusz started discussion on > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Conditional_restrictions#Tagging_free.2Fpaid_parking_depending_on_stay_time, > maybe we should just wait on comments there first? Is this "too small" to > bypass proposal? I guess answer is "never". > > Thanks, Branko > > [1] > To cover how this works, in case you didn't had joy of experience to use this > - you usually press machine to get ticket upon entrance (or human hand it to > you) and ramp opens to enter. When you exit, you present ticket to > machine/human and lift gate/ramp opens if you stayed for less than specified > amount of time. It will not open if time limit (of how long you stayed > parked) is reached and in that case, you have to go back and pay first to > some specific place. > > ___ > 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] Parking fee only after some time period
I am not usually mapping this detail of parking fees, but from my understanding the above suggested tags would work and could be seen as covered by current state of tagging, no need for a proposal, just use it. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fee%3Aconditional#values as a note, I believe we should "err on the safe side", i.e. better A) fee=yes fee:conditional = no @ maxstay < 3h than B) fee = no fee:conditional = yes @ maxstay > 3h I think I would ignore the maxstay==3h condition, ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period
Hi all, There are lot of parking lots on amenities (shopping malls...), where parking is free for customers, but only if you park for less than some specified time amount (let's say 2-3h), imposed by that amenity. After that period, you have to pay[1]. It is widespread where I live, but I would suspect this is not limited to my country only. I searched and didn't found any examples on wiki and taginfo. We discussed this on Telegram channel a bit (thanks Mateusz Konieczny for help!) and we brainstormed a bit and seems that most logical way to put this would be with 1) conditional restriction, 2) keyword "maxstay", already in use for timespans. So, something like: `fee:conditional=no @ (maxstay < 2h)` or `fee:conditional=yes @ (maxstay > 2h)` (on amenity=parking) Question is - how should I pursue this forward, since I never did any proposal before? Do "conditional restrictions" also fall under regular proposal process? I guess yes. Maybe I missed something and this already exists? Mateusz started discussion on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Conditional_restrictions#Tagging_free.2Fpaid_parking_depending_on_stay_time, maybe we should just wait on comments there first? Is this "too small" to bypass proposal? I guess answer is "never". Thanks, Branko [1] To cover how this works, in case you didn't had joy of experience to use this - you usually press machine to get ticket upon entrance (or human hand it to you) and ramp opens to enter. When you exit, you present ticket to machine/human and lift gate/ramp opens if you stayed for less than specified amount of time. It will not open if time limit (of how long you stayed parked) is reached and in that case, you have to go back and pay first to some specific place. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote: >> It's the same reason we want >> discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should >> be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and >> participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome >> joining in. > > ...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to > polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as > encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of > being inimically opposed to "conservatives"). > I have no idea what "the SJW agenda" is, but it doesn't seem relevant to the discussion anyway. >> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias >> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case, >> English-speaking men) > > So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh, > wait, that would *still* be biased. Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :) > > > The idea that you can make everyone happy is a delusion (source: John > Lydgate (disputed)). All we're seeing right now is that the SJW crowd > are making the most noise. The real issue is groups — *ANY* groups — > trying to force their ideology down other's throats and decide what > opinions are "allowed" and what aren't. > > What needs to stop isn't "intolerance" (the SJW agenda isn't about > eliminating intolerance — quite the opposite! — but about replacing one > flavor with another), it's the inability to agree to disagree. Groups > should feel welcoming even to people with different opinions, rather > than vilifying anyone who disagrees with the group. > > I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to grind with a strawman that hasn't come up in this discussion. Nobody said anything about "intolerance", there is no vilifying here, and nobody is "forcing" any opinions on anyone. If you have some specific criticism of how someone is conducting themself, sure, bring it up, but dragging the tagging mailing list into something that has no obvious connection to tagging seems counterproductive. Thanks, - Justin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?
Initial effect of separate highway=busway would be that all data consumers that have not added support to this new tag would not display them. Due to nature of busways in most cases it would not be deeply harmful effect or very disruptive, but for some unknown time (possibly very long) highway=busway would be not rendered. Note that various data consumer are not obligated to render anything and vote on approving proposal is not changing anything. But if highway=busway is an improvement to our tagging schema I would support such chane. "tagging schema allows for differentiation between long roadways in which buses may travel on carrying passengers, and short short service roads buses may travel on to enter a garage" Is service=busway capable of this distinction? AFAIK yes, "short short service roads buses may travel on to enter a garage" seems to be service=driveway Oct 20, 2020, 17:51 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > I'm actually the author of the highway=busway proposal. I don't actually work > with the database, so I don't know how disruptive creating a new highway=* > tag would be. Having a separate highway=busway tag just seemed obvious to me. > I would not hierarchically place busways under highway=service due to their > role in carry large amounts of people to any number of destinations. > > However so, these idiosyncrasies will not bother me so long so the tagging > schema allows for differentiation between long roadways in which buses may > travel on carrying passengers, and short short service roads buses may travel > on to enter a garage. The reason why this matters to me is because without > this differentiation, the OSM-Carto devs are unwilling to add rendering for > busways (that's different than service roads): > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4226#issuecomment-712528676 > > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
sent from a phone > On 20. Oct 2020, at 13:20, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > You think you're being original with your proposal, but it's not the case. > Every couple of years someone come along with the same argument. but it’s fair to discuss every proposal on its own. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote: It's the same reason we want discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome joining in. ...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of being inimically opposed to "conservatives"). If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias towards a particular segment of the population (in this case, English-speaking men) So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh, wait, that would *still* be biased. The idea that you can make everyone happy is a delusion (source: John Lydgate (disputed)). All we're seeing right now is that the SJW crowd are making the most noise. The real issue is groups — *ANY* groups — trying to force their ideology down other's throats and decide what opinions are "allowed" and what aren't. What needs to stop isn't "intolerance" (the SJW agenda isn't about eliminating intolerance — quite the opposite! — but about replacing one flavor with another), it's the inability to agree to disagree. Groups should feel welcoming even to people with different opinions, rather than vilifying anyone who disagrees with the group. -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?
I'm actually the author of the highway=busway proposal. I don't actually work with the database, so I don't know how disruptive creating a new highway=* tag would be. Having a separate highway=busway tag just seemed obvious to me. I would not hierarchically place busways under highway=service due to their role in carry large amounts of people to any number of destinations. However so, these idiosyncrasies will not bother me so long so the tagging schema allows for differentiation between long roadways in which buses may travel on carrying passengers, and short short service roads buses may travel on to enter a garage. The reason why this matters to me is because without this differentiation, the OSM-Carto devs are unwilling to add rendering for busways (that's different than service roads): https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4226#issuecomment-712528676___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On 19/10/2020 18.46, Robert Delmenico wrote: 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.' Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made? Because someone with a PC stick up their decided to declare that "man made" meant "made by men" rather than "made by males" as used to be the case. Besides, the correct solution is clearly to restore the original meaning of "man" to be gender neutral and to (re)introduce something else to mean "an adult male". -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
No. In the context of OSM, think of man_made=bridge akin to a noun. The actual bridge object. bridge=* is akin to an adjective/attribute of an object. DaveF On 20/10/2020 05:56, Robert Delmenico wrote: Essentially though, they mean the same thing: man_made=bridge is for areas yes is for ways ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On 19/10/2020 15:39, Robert Delmenico wrote: Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to identify adult males. That's your misinterpretation. You think you're being original with your proposal, but it's not the case. Every couple of years someone come along with the same argument. The results are always the same - Nothing happens, because almost everybody else comprehends the basics of the English language. Option 4 is always the outcome. DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
sent from a phone > On 20. Oct 2020, at 09:02, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > But you could count the bridge=yes (areas) for number of bridges, and > bridge=yes (ways) for number of bridges with roads crossing them. no, bridge=yes areas could still be properties of polygon objects on bridges. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
sent from a phone > On 20. Oct 2020, at 06:59, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > Essentially though, they mean the same thing: > man_made=bridge is for areas > bridge=yes is for ways > > Both refer to to say there is a bridge and each assumes each others meaning - > I wouldn't think we would use natural=bridge. they do not mean the same thing, one is a tag for a bridge, the other is a tag for highways, railways, waterways etc. to state they are on a bridge. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
But you could count the bridge=yes (areas) for number of bridges, and bridge=yes (ways) for number of bridges with roads crossing them. Rob On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:52 pm Andrew Harvey, wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:34 pm Robert Delmenico, wrote: > >> They mean the same thing, we tag different aspects of a bridge with >> different tags. >> > > Not quite if I want to count how many bridges there are you'd count > man_made=bridge. Counting bridge=yes would give you an overcount as it's > only road segments on a bridge not a bridge. > >> ___ > 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] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:34 pm Robert Delmenico, wrote: > They mean the same thing, we tag different aspects of a bridge with > different tags. > Not quite if I want to count how many bridges there are you'd count man_made=bridge. Counting bridge=yes would give you an overcount as it's only road segments on a bridge not a bridge. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
They mean the same thing, we tag different aspects of a bridge with different tags. All bridges are man_made and all bridges are bridges. Therefore if the tag for man_made=bridge was changed to bridge=yes, and bridge=yes was used for both ways and areas then this would simplify the tagging of bridges. One would then use bridge=construction instead of construction=bridge to match the standards used in buildings (building=construction). If you take the buildings for example: buildings=yes (area) is equivalent to man_made=building (not used) as all buildings are man_made, yet we don't tag it as man_made rather just building=yes for areas. *If building=yes applies to areas, why doesn't bridge=yes apply to areas?* The same stands for all other man_made tags. Most common man_made tags: man_made=pier could become pier=yes man_made=storage_tank could become storage_tank=yes or storage_tank=(content) *Perhaps I'll drop the gender argument and go with man_made is actually not required and perhaps we should tackle these one-by-one therefore reducing the immediate changes required.* Regards, Rob. On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 17:01, Jo wrote: > They do NOT mean the same thing. How they differ has already been > mentioned 2 or 3 times in this thread. > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 06:59 Robert Delmenico wrote: > >> Essentially though, they mean the same thing: >> man_made=bridge is for areas >> bridge=yes is for ways >> >> Both refer to to say there is a bridge and each assumes each others >> meaning - I wouldn't think we would use natural=bridge. >> >> Perhaps there could be a proposal to change man_made=bridge to bridge=yes >> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 3:41 pm Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, < >> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 20 paź 2020, 00:52 od rob...@rtbk.com.au: >>> >>> Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is >>> somewhat superfluous. >>> >>> Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes >>> >>> Are you aware that we have bridge=yes >>> and man_made=bridge used with a >>> different meaning? >>> >>> >>> Perhaps all of the existing man_made=[value] tags should be changed to >>> [value]=yes >>> >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:46 am Robert Delmenico, >>> wrote: >>> >>> Please read this article: >>> >>> >>> https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra=usage_7_gender_neutral_writing_questions_usage >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.' >>> >>> Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 'It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these >>> issues. >>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?' >>> >>> Hence why I said who am I to decide! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 'Marriam-webster: >>> == >>> Definition of man-made >>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings' >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/not-everything-is-man-made-13-amazing-inventions-you-can-thank-women-for/ >>> >>> Should we use the term man-made if it is made entirely by women? >>> >>> Also, check out the translations in the Collins dictionary - what do you >>> notice? >>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/man-made >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 'As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.' >>> >>> Midwife actually translates as 'with woman'. The wife part relates to >>> the person giving birth. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 8:44 am Niels Elgaard Larsen, >>> wrote: >>> >>> Robert Delmenico: >>> > >>> > I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much >>> interest in changing >>> > the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in >>> hearing the >>> > thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine. >>> If there was no >>> > interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system >>> works yeah? >>> > >>> > Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far >>> > >>> > Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to >>> identify adult >>> > males. >>> >>> Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males. >>> >>> > I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to >>> decide that as I >>> > am a adult male. >>> >>> It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these >>> issues. >>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves? >>> >>> > I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable >>> alternative >>> > exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms. >>> >>> Marriam-webster: >>> == >>> Definition of man-made >>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings >>> == >>> >>> >>> > We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to >>> airline >>> > attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should >>> adapt to these >>> > changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community. >>>
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
They do NOT mean the same thing. How they differ has already been mentioned 2 or 3 times in this thread. On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 06:59 Robert Delmenico wrote: > Essentially though, they mean the same thing: > man_made=bridge is for areas > bridge=yes is for ways > > Both refer to to say there is a bridge and each assumes each others > meaning - I wouldn't think we would use natural=bridge. > > Perhaps there could be a proposal to change man_made=bridge to bridge=yes > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 3:41 pm Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> 20 paź 2020, 00:52 od rob...@rtbk.com.au: >> >> Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is >> somewhat superfluous. >> >> Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes >> >> Are you aware that we have bridge=yes >> and man_made=bridge used with a >> different meaning? >> >> >> Perhaps all of the existing man_made=[value] tags should be changed to >> [value]=yes >> >> >> Rob >> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:46 am Robert Delmenico, >> wrote: >> >> Please read this article: >> >> >> https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra=usage_7_gender_neutral_writing_questions_usage >> >> >> >> >> 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.' >> >> Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made? >> >> >> >> >> >> 'It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these >> issues. >> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?' >> >> Hence why I said who am I to decide! >> >> >> >> >> 'Marriam-webster: >> == >> Definition of man-made >> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings' >> >> >> >> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/not-everything-is-man-made-13-amazing-inventions-you-can-thank-women-for/ >> >> Should we use the term man-made if it is made entirely by women? >> >> Also, check out the translations in the Collins dictionary - what do you >> notice? >> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/man-made >> >> >> >> >> >> 'As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.' >> >> Midwife actually translates as 'with woman'. The wife part relates to the >> person giving birth. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 8:44 am Niels Elgaard Larsen, >> wrote: >> >> Robert Delmenico: >> > >> > I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much >> interest in changing >> > the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in >> hearing the >> > thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine. If >> there was no >> > interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system >> works yeah? >> > >> > Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far >> > >> > Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to >> identify adult >> > males. >> >> Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males. >> >> > I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to >> decide that as I >> > am a adult male. >> >> It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these >> issues. >> Why? Can't they speak for themselves? >> >> > I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable >> alternative >> > exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms. >> >> Marriam-webster: >> == >> Definition of man-made >> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings >> == >> >> >> > We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to >> airline >> > attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should >> adapt to these >> > changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community. >> >> As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife. >> >> >> -- >> Niels Elgaard Larsen >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
