Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Thank you all for the discussion around changing the tag man_made. After careful consideration I have decided to abandon this proposal - mostly because the fact that the man_made tag is clearly a hodgepodge of tags that probably should be redefined as separate items. Thanks for all your input, fair to say this process has been interesting at best. Kind Regards, Rob. On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 00:50, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 20/10/2020 15.22, Justin Tracey wrote: > > 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. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior > > If you don't see the relevance, I'm afraid I can't help you. The topic > under discussion is a prime facet of said agenda. > > >>> 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! :) > > I don't mind discussing whether or not bias is present. I *do* mind > someone else assigning a bias to a group when no such bias exists. > > > I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to > > grind [...] > > True. > > > [...] 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. > > Less true. This started as someone / some group deciding that our use of > a term that has been historically and widely recognized as > gender-neutral is biased. > > Please note I'm not singling out the OP. In fact, I rather get the > impression he's just innocently exploring an idea that has been forced > on him. My objection isn't to this discussion as such, but to the groups > that ultimately caused us to be having it. > > Ultimately, given the technical arguments against change, it's hard for > me to take a stance on the proposal *without* at least considering the > underlying reasons why such things come up in the first place. If I just > ignore those aspects, the obvious answer is that the proposal is > expensive and pointless... but ignoring SJWs is dangerous. (Again, > ironically; those people employ the exact same sorts of tactics they > vilify their opponents for using.) > > Anyway, most of why I brought it up was in reply to "contributing and > participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and [anyone wishing to do so] > should feel welcome joining in." I wanted to express my agreement with > the goal, but *dis*agreement with the means of accomplishing that goal. > > -- > Matthew > > ___ > 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] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)
All of these would be acceptable to me - Preference from highest to lowest: amenity=deceased_viewing amenity=viewing_arrangements amenity=place_of_mourning amenity=mourning_room amenity=mourning Rob On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 19:45, wrote: > Thanks for all the interventions. > > To avoid that the discussion becomes inconclusive again, could everybody > rate the following "favourable", "acceptable" or "unfavourable"? > > amenity=mourning > amenity=place_of_mourning > amenity=mourning_room > amenity=viewing_arrangements > amenity=deceased_viewing > > Am 04.11.2020 11:17 schrieb woll...@posteo.de: > > Dear all, > > > > As there have been no more comments for some time on this proposal, > > I've set it to voting. Please have a look and vote: > > > > Chapel of rest: a room or building where families and friends can come > > and view someone who has died before their funeral > > > > Proposal page: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Chapel_of_rest > > > > Discussion page: > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Chapel_of_rest > > > > Thanks! > > > > Vollis > > ___ > 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*
I like the new options. In Australia it would be beneficial to note which addresses don't have power, rather than those that do so this would work well. For remote communities in Australia, the off grid option would be good. Many homes also have solar panels connected and this would be great for firefighters as solar panels provide an electrocution risk in a house for situation. Rob On Wed, 4 Nov 2020, 8:10 am Lukas Richert, wrote: > I also think the *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and > *electricity:generator=yes/no/backup* tags are clearer and would allow > for off-grid buildings to be tagged more distinctly. > > The electricity tag isn't used a lot yet. I have no experience with > automated or semi-automated edits, but perhaps changing electricity=none > and electricity=grid to electricity:grid=yes would be relatively > straightforward? (This is unfortunately the problem with people adding > major undiscussed/proposed tags to the main wiki. Especially power_supply > is frustrating. ) > > What do others think about the tag options > > electricity:grid=yes/no/backup > electricity:generator=yes/no/backup > electricity=yes > electricity=no > > [electricity=yes would be used when grid or generator is unknown] instead > of > > electricity=grid > electricity=generator > electricity=yes > electricity=no > > Cheers Lukas > > > On 03/11/2020 21:20, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 00:13, Lukas Richert wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> While the original proposal did specify that generators are usually >> diesel, broadening the definition would only lead to a loss of detail, but >> the tagging would still be correct. I'm hesitant to use *offgrid* as a >> building that has, for example, a grid connection with solar panels on the >> roof would then be tagged as *electricity=grid;offgrid* instead of >> *electricity=grid;generator*. The former is illogical. >> >> However, I don't have any experience in developing countries: is it >> easier to verify if something is off-grid compared to if it is connected to >> a generator? And, would it be necessary to differentiate between local >> grids (i.e. 2-3 generators, no substations, transfromers, etc.) and >> national grids? Perhaps then a network tag would be useful, i.e. >> network=national, local, regional similar to the way cycle networks are >> mapped? >> >> A further suggestion was to change the tagging to >> *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and/or >> *electricity:generator=yes/no/backup*. This might be less ambiguous for >> tagging amenities or buildings that get electricity from both sources and >> would then be more consistent with tagging such as >> *electricity:generator:origin=diesel* when, e.g. a building has a backup >> diesel generator but is connected to the grid. Unfortunately, it would then >> not be consistent with the use by the Healthsites Mapping Project, although >> this already has the inconsistent *electricity=none* tag which should >> probably be changed directly to *electricity=no.* >> > Here is the link to that suggestion I made > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values > and > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources > > The whole point of the proposal process is to identify these potential > issues, resolve them, and get community agreement. If the goal is just to > implement someone else's standard then we can't use the wisdom of the > community here to improve the tag, therefore I'm not too fussed about > making this match what another project is using, instead we should aim to > have the best tags and documentation as the outcome of this proposal > process. Then if that's different, other projects closely tied to OSM can > migrate to the OSM community accepted schema. > > ___ > Tagging mailing > listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency
I'm not sure what you're referring to but I'll put some options here to discuss: Fire districts: used for declaring total for bans in Australia https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/warnings-restrictions/find-your-fire-district Neighbourhood safer places in Victoria - where you can go as a last resort in a bushfire situation https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/plan-prepare/neighbourhood-safer-places There are also administrative fire service regions/districts in Victoria but there would be minimal value in mapping these. https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/about/where-we-are There are training grounds used solely for training emergency service personnel https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/about/victorian-emergency-management-training-centres There is land which the fire stations sit on amenity=fire_station https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfire_station Then there is the fire stations building=fire_station https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dfire_station Kind regards, Rob On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 9:20 am Graeme Fitzpatrick, wrote: > > > Hi Christian > > On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 18:35, Nüssli Christian (SRZ) < > christian.nues...@zuerich.ch> wrote: > >> I wanted to ask you if there's a correct mapping of fire service areas. >> That's areas in fire protection guidelines that will be reserved for >> emergency vehicles. >> > > Sorry, but what do you mean by "fire service areas", & "reserved for > emergency vehicles"? > > Are you referring to fire stations & emergency lanes? > > I found quite a few that are tagged as landuse=military which is in my >> opinion – the incorrect way. >> > > No, not even knowing for sure what we're talking about, but I can see that > would be wrong! > > Thanks > > Graeme > > ___ > 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a bit of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea. I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through any sources that are both for and against the arguments I have raised. I'm thinking that I'll mention the arguments both for and against on the proposal page as this is a big proposal which if it succeeds will have a big impact. If anyone has any arguments for or against that they wish to have included in the proposal, please feel free to leave them on the talk page for the proposal. Regards, Rob On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, 7:49 pm Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > 21 Oct 2020, 09:43 by r...@technomancy.org: > > (I broke my collarbone, so I'm typing one handed and can mistype) > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 9:39 AM, Rory McCann wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > > (1) I never understood "man made" as > > "made by males". > > (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. > > It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a > quaint old fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging > and ir can take a little while for books, courses and teachers to catch up. > > Oh, I know. That is why I added my disclaimer > and that is why I tried to read this referenced > scientific study, I am well aware that > I am not an expert here. > > Though I know that it is something that > is kind of tricky topic due to politic issues, > do I wanted to check situation. > > So you'll hear non-natives use words like "whom" or using "he" to refer to > generic people of any gender. It always sounds old-fashioned. > > OSM prioritizes local knowledge, by the same logic non-native speakers of > English should defer to native English speakers for the meaning of words. > > I am an expert when it comes to some topics, > but English language is NOT one of them > and I am well aware about this. > ___ > 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
Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is free. There is some more information available here: https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20 . Regards, Rob On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, 7:32 pm stevea, wrote: > In California, a common (not quite frequent, certainly not always) > arrangement at malls, supermarkets and other places with parking lots > (large and small) is a sign that reads "you can park here for three hours, > but after that we have the right to tow your car away." (Sometimes > punctuated with 'video surveillance active' to make the point fairly direct > and that "they mean business"). In my experience of driving-and-parking > for many decades, I personally have never gotten towed (the few times I've > gone over a time limit), I've never heard of anybody (that I personally > know) getting towed, but I have seen the extremely infrequent tow truck > towing a car that has likely been there a while — perhaps it was abandoned, > used for illegal purposes or was otherwise a public nuisance. > > So, while that "moderately serious consequence" of getting towed is > possible, it's rare. And, while this is not a "fee," it certainly turns > into a fairly large one once the bottom-line-costs, tow truck driver and > storage charges (per day, usually) are added together and paid to get one's > car back from the impound lot. > > If you are writing a proposal, this is a reality in certain parts of the > world the proposal should consider, if it wants to convey the full > situation (on Earth, in cars, with humans, on parking lots). In short, > what appears to be "simply" a fee can be fairly full-throated when it comes > to describing the entire semantic richness of the situation. > > A tag like maxstay is a good beginning. An additional tag of something > like towing_penalty=yes|no is a start down this road. > > SteveA > ___ > 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] 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
[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
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
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 >>> > >&g
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
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
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
| Of course, as mentioned, what do we do with beaver dams & wasp (& any other type of) nests, animal burrows & so on? Would they be considered natural? a definition is "existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind." https://www.lexico.com/definition/natural On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 20:14, nathan case wrote: > >> >> Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, >> handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, >> and constructed" as options instead of man-made. > > > Out of those options, I personally think either "MANufactured" :-), or > "constructed" would be good choices. > > Of course, as mentioned, what do we do with beaver dams & wasp (& any > other type of) nests, animal burrows & so on? > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 00:42, Robert Delmenico wrote: > >> >> I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide >> that as I am a adult male. >> > > But I note that, despite there being at least a few ladies who subscribe > to this list (at least going by their user names!), none of them have yet > weighed into the discussion? > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > ___ > 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
I like that! On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:59 am Walker Bradley, wrote: > I certainly support Rob’s view on *=yes > > Or if we want something similar to man_made=*, we have natural= we could > also have unnatural= > > On Oct 19, 2020, at 22:55, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > > 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 > > 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
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
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 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
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
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
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Also Paul, I could be confrontational, but what's the point? I wanted feedback on the proposal and wanted to hear what others had to say. I wanted to take on the ideas to create a great proposal and highlight both the pros and cons so that those who are voting are informed on the matter, rather than that of just my opinion. OSM users are entitled to vote how they like. I'm not here to persuade as I feel that most who would vote on this proposal are strongly for or against - merely I am raising a point that I feel needs to be discussed. Regards, Rob On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 1:39 am Robert Delmenico, wrote: > > 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. > > I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide > that as I am a adult male. > > I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable > alternative exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms. > > 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. > > I am open to alternatives and have been paying close attention to the > feedback this far. > > I think artificial is a better term than man_made and human_made but there > may be another better term out there. > > Dave F raises a good point though. Rather than seeing this as a gender > issue, perhaps we should see it as the opposite of natural - because > broadly speaking things are either natural or artificial. I see this in the > sense of artificial, these would be considered things developed or created > by humans. > > Sure it's a huge task, but regardless of the amount of tags to change I > feel the change is needed. Perhaps there needs to be a way to implement a > way to change a tag in bulk without affecting the date of the changeset, > and with OSMF board approval if it affects more than 100,000 tags for > example. > > There are a few ways to go from here: > 1: change man_made to human_made > 2: change man_made to artificial > 3: change man_made to some other term > 4: leave man_made as is > > I'm certainly leaning towards the second option. > > I feel that the public vote by the wiki will be an interesting exercise > and I am glad that I have started this discussion. > > If the OSM community decides to stick with man_made I'm fine with that - > even if I feel that there could be a better term out there to define these > objects. > > Look forward to further discussion on this topic and I appreciate all > feedback given thus far - being both for and against. > > Kind regards, > > > Rob > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 1:02 am Paul Allen, wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging < >> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >> >> I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural. >>> >> >> Unless you want to argue that humans are supernatural or unnatural, >> humans are natural. Therefore anything humans make is natural, >> just as beaver dams and wasps' nests are natural. >> >> If you wish to argue that humans are a special exception then >> everything we make is man_made, so buildings, bridges, parks, >> gardens, etc. is man_made. >> >> OSM tagging is not a good candidate for cladistic taxonomy. There >> is too much multiple inheritance to even consider that type of >> taxonomy. Houses are buildings, which are man-made, houses >> have walls and walls are built, so man_made=house and building=wall >> Except humans build walls, so man_made=wall. >> >> >>> We really should come up with more specific, accurate key tags. >>> >> >> Perhaps in some cases. Where such need arises it happens, such as >> with healthcare. >> >> On balance, moving to human_made or artificial is a lot of pain without >> any gain whatsoever with regard to map accuracy in order to appease >> the feelings of those who do not understand etymology. Are we >> to next propose persontoric=* because those who do not understand >> etymology object to a supposed gender bias in "historic"? >> >> That the proposer pro
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
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. I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide that as I am a adult male. I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable alternative exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms. 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. I am open to alternatives and have been paying close attention to the feedback this far. I think artificial is a better term than man_made and human_made but there may be another better term out there. Dave F raises a good point though. Rather than seeing this as a gender issue, perhaps we should see it as the opposite of natural - because broadly speaking things are either natural or artificial. I see this in the sense of artificial, these would be considered things developed or created by humans. Sure it's a huge task, but regardless of the amount of tags to change I feel the change is needed. Perhaps there needs to be a way to implement a way to change a tag in bulk without affecting the date of the changeset, and with OSMF board approval if it affects more than 100,000 tags for example. There are a few ways to go from here: 1: change man_made to human_made 2: change man_made to artificial 3: change man_made to some other term 4: leave man_made as is I'm certainly leaning towards the second option. I feel that the public vote by the wiki will be an interesting exercise and I am glad that I have started this discussion. If the OSM community decides to stick with man_made I'm fine with that - even if I feel that there could be a better term out there to define these objects. Look forward to further discussion on this topic and I appreciate all feedback given thus far - being both for and against. Kind regards, Rob On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 1:02 am Paul Allen, wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural. >> > > Unless you want to argue that humans are supernatural or unnatural, > humans are natural. Therefore anything humans make is natural, > just as beaver dams and wasps' nests are natural. > > If you wish to argue that humans are a special exception then > everything we make is man_made, so buildings, bridges, parks, > gardens, etc. is man_made. > > OSM tagging is not a good candidate for cladistic taxonomy. There > is too much multiple inheritance to even consider that type of > taxonomy. Houses are buildings, which are man-made, houses > have walls and walls are built, so man_made=house and building=wall > Except humans build walls, so man_made=wall. > > >> We really should come up with more specific, accurate key tags. >> > > Perhaps in some cases. Where such need arises it happens, such as > with healthcare. > > On balance, moving to human_made or artificial is a lot of pain without > any gain whatsoever with regard to map accuracy in order to appease > the feelings of those who do not understand etymology. Are we > to next propose persontoric=* because those who do not understand > etymology object to a supposed gender bias in "historic"? > > That the proposer profusely thanks those who put forward > arguments against the change whilst apparently ignoring > those arguments does nothing to persuade me of the > merits of his/her case. It smacks of the so-called > "non-confrontational" tactics that might better be > called "passive confrontational." > > -- > Paul > > ___ > 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
Nice investigating Nathan, I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made. Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal? Change man_made= to artificial= Rob On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case wrote: > Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current > widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and > somewhat distracting. > > A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a > synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used. > > Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade, > hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and > constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority (if > not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not naturally > occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold. > > Other sources: > https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/ > > https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made > > An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however. > > Best, > > Nathan > ___ > 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
Some great points here. Good to hear the points of views of all of you. Look forward to hearing more feedback. Kind regards, Rob On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, 9:19 am Graeme Fitzpatrick, wrote: > > Thanks everyone - all makes sense! > > Graeme > > > > ___ > 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
Good point Martin. Someone else has suggested artificial as another alternative. I'm open to all feedback at this stage and happy if anyone wants to add onto the proposal the pros and cons of that's allowed. Rob On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, 7:38 pm Martin Koppenhoefer, wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 15. Oct 2020, at 02:57, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > > > I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is > commonly accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been > adapted that way due to past practices of gender bias. > > > I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a man, > as in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not > suitable for gender neutral language, everything refers back to men. I > propose to use German as the language for tags. > It might look like an impossible endeavor at first glance to retag those > millions or billions of objects, but if you dig deeper you will find that > many tags are already more German than English, so ultimately it wouldn’t > be as much change as it may sound initially. > > Cheers Martin > > > ___ > 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] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Hi, I'm proposing that we change the man_made tag to human_made. I feel it is a discussion that we need to have as there seems to be little discussion to date. This is my first proposal so forgive me if i've missed something out on the proposal page. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/human_made I understand that there are around 4 million tags with man_made on them and it would be a huge task to change them all, but perhaps if this is considered for future tagging. I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is commonly accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been adapted that way due to past practices of gender bias. Regardless of the outcome of this proposal, this is a worthy discussion to be had in my mind. Looking forward to your feedback Yours, Robert Delmenico rtbk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
