> mostly because the fact that the man_made tag is clearly a hodgepodge of
> tags that probably should be redefined as separate items.
I pulled down some samples from various areas around the world, and loaded
them into QGIS ( https://bit.ly/3ptp0AG ).
A lot of the usage was very systematic, and
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 20:49, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> Thank you all for the discussion around changing the tag man_made.
>
> After careful consideration I have decided to abandon this proposal
>
Probably the best, because it tried to go too far in one go.
- mostly because the fact that the
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,
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
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.
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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"
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On 10/19/20 09:39, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> 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
What's so wrong with #4 here? What exact problem are we solving by
changing 4
On 10/19/20 15:01, Justin Tracey wrote:
> I don't feel particularly strongly about this change either way, but
> to say it has "zero actual benefit" seems like a pretty obvious
> exaggeration.
How about naming the benefits this has, from your point of view, then?
It's a lot of work to change
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 09:12, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> https://www.lexico.com/definition/natural
>
Using your own source to disprove your arguments!
https://www.lexico.com/definition/man-made
"Made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made
naturally)"
So nothing to
sent from a phone
> On 20. Oct 2020, at 00:55, 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
clearly not, we are already using both. man_made=bridge is a feature, and
| 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
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
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
Bridge=yes is used as a complementary tag on highway and railway objects.
I was thinking of construction=bridge, but that already has another meaning
in OSM context.
I really don't like artificial as a tag. Maybe constructed_by_people...
Can't say that I like that either.
Polyglot
On Tue, Oct
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.
>
>
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
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
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
On 2020-10-19 4:13 a.m., Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 10/14/20 19:54, Robert Delmenico wrote:
>> 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.
> [...]
> I will vote
Or, let's acknowledge that many distinctions are pointless because an awful lot
of primary keys just mean "thing", so the key does not really matter, only the
value counts. Who cares what the * in *=bus_stop says, it's a bus stop.
Peter Elderson
>> Op 19 okt. 2020 om 19:43 heeft Martin
Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 15:04 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural.
>
if we push this forward, humans are part of the natural world as well. Lets
get rid of these dichotomies, and strive for a unified vision of the
Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Robert Delmenico <
rob...@rtbk.com.au>:
> Some great points here. Good to hear the points of views of all of you.
> Look forward to hearing more feedback.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Rob
>
I am delighted to read you like the idea of switching to German
I feel like it is a cherry-picked list of comment.
在 2020年10月19日週一 22:42，Robert Delmenico 寫道：
>
> 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
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
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 -
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging
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
Breaking change come with a cost.
Whether it is worth is a question should be asked.
在 2020年10月19日週一 21:04，Dave F via Tagging 寫道：
> Irrelevant of any implied meaning, 'man_made' always appeared to be a
> clunky, catch-all tag. OSM was being a bit lazy.
> I mean, *everything* is either man made
That in a project to create an up to date map, there are people involved
who get upset over things changing is, indeed, weird.
DaveF
On 19/10/2020 13:58, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Yes, latest update date can be a hint
but treating it is as an argument to avoid
making an edit is
Irrelevant of any implied meaning, 'man_made' always appeared to be a
clunky, catch-all tag. OSM was being a bit lazy.
I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural. We really should
come up with more specific, accurate key tags.
DaveF
On 19/10/2020 12:45, Jo wrote:
It would be best to
Yes, latest update date can be a hint
but treating it is as an argument to avoid
making an edit is really weird to me.
19 paź 2020, 14:51 od tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> I'm in no way supporting the proposal, but this argument of 'it'llmake
> the entities look fully up to date" is illogical.
I'm in no way supporting the proposal, but this argument of 'it'll make
the entities look fully up to date" is illogical. If taken to it's
conclusion, nothing will ever be update again.
It's false to think that just because an entity was amended yesterday,
it means it's up to date:
If a typo
Another illusion shattered... where is this world going to?
Best, Peter Elderson
> Op 19 okt. 2020 om 13:48 heeft Jo het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>
> It would be best to first consider the consequences of such a change. Weigh
> the benefits against what we lose in time (humanhours?) and
It would be best to first consider the consequences of such a change. Weigh
the benefits against what we lose in time (humanhours?) and
resources/energy. And then there is still the point that many objects will
get new timestamps for a change that's not really a change.
Anyway, artificial sounds
No, it would still require a mass edit and breaking changes that will come
with disadvantages already listed by other participant of this discussion
在 2020年10月19日週一 18:42，Robert Delmenico 寫道：
> Nice investigating Nathan,
>
> I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.
>
>
> Would
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
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,
Jo:
Are they really people who see the tag man_made and go:
Oh, women didn't contribute to this! The tag says so...
The same people that think that man_made=manhole* implies access:women=no
But i guess that would become human_made=humanhole
We will also have to make it healthcare=midhuman
Are they really people who see the tag man_made and go:
Oh, women didn't contribute to this! The tag says so...
Isn't it obvious that man in this case stands for its original meaning:
Mensch, ser humano, etc?
Changing it in the database is trivially easy. Letting everyone who uses
OSM data know
On 10/18/20 16:04, Oliver Simmons wrote:
> Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the
> present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
> It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was
> changed was a tag key.
+1
In addition
On 10/14/20 19:54, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> 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.
[...]
I will vote against this proposal and any like it, because it involves a
Hi
I second the comments of Topographe below. Continuous improvement is a
major challenge.
Le dim. 18 oct. 2020 à 23:09, Martin Koppenhoefer
a écrit :
> And once we have done it, we could do it again and again, for all kinds of
> reasons.
>
Not all kinds of reasons: once the change has been
re 2020 11:09 PMÀ: tagging@openstreetmap.orgRépondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.orgObjet: Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made Am So., 18. Okt. 2020 um 23:02 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com>:On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann <r...@tec
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
>
>
>
> ___
>
Thanks everyone - all makes sense!
Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Hi,
On 10/18/20 23:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> And the same applies to brains of people
It appears to me that the end game in this is precisely that, to change
the brains of people. OSM is just a means to and end in that quest.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail
18 paź 2020, 23:00 od graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann <> r...@technomancy.org> > wrote:
>
>> *definitely* not something one does auomatically.
>>
>
> But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be
> done!)
>
> Couldn't a
Am So., 18. Okt. 2020 um 23:02 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <
graemefi...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann wrote:
>
>> *definitely* not something one does auomatically.
>>
>
> But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be
> done!)
>
> Couldn't
Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the
present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was changed
was a tag key.
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, 22:02 Graeme Fitzpatrick,
wrote:
>
>
>
>
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann wrote:
> *definitely* not something one does auomatically.
>
But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be
done!)
Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of
what it is, & change them to
Hi
Le dim. 18 oct. 2020 à 16:25, Martin Koppenhoefer
a écrit :
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 18. Oct 2020, at 12:39, Rory McCann wrote:
> >
> > Yeah changing this is a multi-year project,
>
>
> generations...
>
Certainly, with the current tagging control plane.
That would only took ~3 or
sent from a phone
> On 18. Oct 2020, at 12:39, Rory McCann wrote:
>
> Yeah changing this is a multi-year project,
generations...
Cheers Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Yeah changing this is a multi-year project, and *definitely* not something one
does auomatically.
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, at 11:42 AM, Alan Mackie wrote:
> This proposal requires the retagging of over 3 million objects, breaks
> every existing rendering, editor and a huge amount of documentation
This proposal requires the retagging of over 3 million objects, breaks
every existing rendering, editor and a huge amount of documentation in
order to replace a term already generally considered gender neutral and
easily found in dictionaries (including bilingual ones) with more awkward
phrasing
Love this proposal!
On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 5:11 PM Rory McCann wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, at 2:41 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > And all this effort achieve what?
>
> The liberation of all people from from gender roles
>
>
> ___
> Tagging
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, at 2:41 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> And all this effort achieve what?
The liberation of all people from from gender roles
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Oct 15, 2020, 14:58 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 23:44, Volker Schmidt <> vosc...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> May I remind my dear mapper friends, that tags are just that: tags. From the
>> database point of view these are just couples of arbitrarily chosen,
>>
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 23:44, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> May I remind my dear mapper friends, that tags are just that: tags. From
> the database point of view these are just couples of arbitrarily chosen,
> character strings. OSM uses a convention to make it easier to memorize
> these strings by
May I remind my dear mapper friends, that tags are just that: tags. From
the database point of view these are just couples of arbitrarily chosen,
character strings. OSM uses a convention to make it easier to memorize
these strings by using GB-English terms for them, but, I repeat that is
just a
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:38, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> 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
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
>
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“
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 01:57, 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.
>
You are correct that there was a change
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.
79 matches
Mail list logo
