Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 21/10/2020 00.57, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > The word 'Man' in the Old English sense 'mann' had the primary meaning of >"adult male human" > Citation needed My degree is in Old English (and the other early medieval languages of the British Isles) and I can assure you that the sentence quoted is, frankly, beallucas. "Man"/"mann" in OE is usually gender-neutral. Go look at a parallel text of Beowulf if you don't believe me. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
I was referring to the fact people may start wanting to change other tags, I was not talking about language changing.Changing any tags at all in an unnecessary (from a mapping point of view) way I disagree on, but we should at least make it easy to do if it’s going to happen again. From: Phake NickSent: 21 October 2020 15:28To: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolsSubject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial 在 2020年10月21日週三 17:37，Oliver Simmons <oliversi...@gmail.com> 寫道：Agreed, if we are doing this once, we better have a way to do it again as doing it once guarantees that it will happen for another tag in the future. Changing in inside OSM and the OSM Wiki is the easier part though, it’s informing and getting all of the software to recognise the new tag (preferably both as the old tag will still remain on old stuff).Older software is the issue as getting that to be updated is near impossible.There are *tons* of styles and software e.t.c. that are going to break From: Colin SmaleSent: 21 October 2020 10:25To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote: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. If this goes through, it will be traumatic, however you look at it. Do you have any suggestions how to abstract this specific example into a more generic process to a) review all tags currently in the database; b) all wiki content suggesting tagging; and c) all future proposals, to assess their appropriateness in the current and likely future environment? I don't mean to be flippant - this is a serious suggestion. If we are going to have this kind of discussion around any graphology incorporating "possibly offensive" groups of letters we had better have a proper policy in place and a well-oiled process to deal with it. ___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Given the history of language evolution, people keep adopting different terms for discriminatory use and thus what uacceptable vs what is not will always be changing. And since it is almost possible to predict what term in the future will be used by duscriminators, it is basically impossible to guarantee it will happen again. The best we can do is to minimize such chance and hope next time it happens will be more than a millennium from now. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 21/10/2020 00.57, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > Also: > > > The word 'Man' in the Old English sense 'mann' had the primary meaning > of "adult male human" > > Citation needed, particularly as the other thread contains a statement > which directly contradicts this. > > It was I who made that statement. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/man#Etymology_1 See also the usage notes on that page for a little more of the etymology (it clarifies aspects that are ambiguous in the etymology ifself). It also gives a link to the Old English "mann" (from which "man" derives) that makes clear that the primary meaning of "mann" in OE was person/human and that it was rarely used to mean adult male. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mann#Old_English -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
在 2020年10月21日週三 17:37，Oliver Simmons 寫道： > Agreed, if we are doing this once, we better have a way to do it again as > doing it once guarantees that it will happen for another tag in the future. > > > > Changing in inside OSM and the OSM Wiki is the easier part though, it’s > informing and getting all of the software to recognise the new tag > (preferably both as the old tag will still remain on old stuff). > > Older software is the issue as getting that to be updated is near > impossible. > > There are *tons* of styles and software e.t.c. that are going to break > > > > *From: *Colin Smale > *Sent: *21 October 2020 10:25 > *To: *tagging@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial > > > > On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > 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. > > > > If this goes through, it will be traumatic, however you look at it. Do you > have any suggestions how to abstract this specific example into a more > generic process to a) review all tags currently in the database; b) all > wiki content suggesting tagging; and c) all future proposals, to assess > their appropriateness in the current and likely future environment? > > > > I don't mean to be flippant - this is a serious suggestion. If we are > going to have this kind of discussion around any graphology incorporating > "possibly offensive" groups of letters we had better have a proper policy > in place and a well-oiled process to deal with it. > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Given the history of language evolution, people keep adopting different terms for discriminatory use and thus what uacceptable vs what is not will always be changing. And since it is almost possible to predict what term in the future will be used by duscriminators, it is basically impossible to guarantee it will happen again. The best we can do is to minimize such chance and hope next time it happens will be more than a millennium from now. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
On 21/10/2020 00.57, Robert Delmenico wrote: '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" Citation needed, especially as you imply one but don't (AFAICT?) supply a link to it. I'd be especially curious to know whether there is an observable difference in people's mental image of "men", when used in a sense to refer to humans generically, and e.g. "people". Also: The word 'Man' in the Old English sense 'mann' had the primary meaning of "adult male human" Citation needed, particularly as the other thread contains a statement which directly contradicts this. -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
sent from a phone > On 21. Oct 2020, at 06:59, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > "confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man', people > form mental pictures of males" yes, but it does not mean that people think of men when they read “mankind” or “man_made” or “mannequin” or “manslaughter” (the latter a suggestion from my ai partner). IMHO you have to separate the meaning of these terms from the meaning of “man”. I am not opposing the idea that people actively try to change the language for a purpose, but as long as they haven’t succeeded we should not try to overtake them. See the tags as codes and try to convince preset publishers to use terms that you perceive more neutral in their “translations”. Thinking about it, the term “man made” is maybe not even presented to mappers unless they look at tags. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
This is correct, the biggest example is the highway=* values. There are few exception to this rule where using British English could cause confusing.e.g. sidewalk, this is a more American term, but is used because “pavement” (what we call them in Britain) can have multiple meanings. From: Phake NickSent: 21 October 2020 10:38To: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolsSubject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial 在 2020年10月21日週三 15:46，Rory McCann <r...@technomancy.org> 寫道：(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.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.___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging My understanding is that OSM explicitly follow UK English, although I don't know if it follow any specific dialect, accent or speech ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
在 2020年10月21日週三 15:46，Rory McCann 寫道： > (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. > > 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. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging My understanding is that OSM explicitly follow UK English, although I don't know if it follow any specific dialect, accent or speech > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
Agreed, if we are doing this once, we better have a way to do it again as doing it once guarantees that it will happen for another tag in the future. Changing in inside OSM and the OSM Wiki is the easier part though, it’s informing and getting all of the software to recognise the new tag (preferably both as the old tag will still remain on old stuff).Older software is the issue as getting that to be updated is near impossible.There are *tons* of styles and software e.t.c. that are going to break From: Colin SmaleSent: 21 October 2020 10:25To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote: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. If this goes through, it will be traumatic, however you look at it. Do you have any suggestions how to abstract this specific example into a more generic process to a) review all tags currently in the database; b) all wiki content suggesting tagging; and c) all future proposals, to assess their appropriateness in the current and likely future environment? I don't mean to be flippant - this is a serious suggestion. If we are going to have this kind of discussion around any graphology incorporating "possibly offensive" groups of letters we had better have a proper policy in place and a well-oiled process to deal with it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote: > 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. If this goes through, it will be traumatic, however you look at it. Do you have any suggestions how to abstract this specific example into a more generic process to a) review all tags currently in the database; b) all wiki content suggesting tagging; and c) all future proposals, to assess their appropriateness in the current and likely future environment? I don't mean to be flippant - this is a serious suggestion. If we are going to have this kind of discussion around any graphology incorporating "possibly offensive" groups of letters we had better have a proper policy in place and a well-oiled process to deal with it.___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
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
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
(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. 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. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
"Phase 4: All man_made tags to be removed 2031-01-01 00:00 UTC+0" I think that is as reasonable as it could be. Yves Le 21 octobre 2020 04:46:34 GMT+02:00, Robert Delmenico a écrit : >*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] 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
