Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Robert Delmenico]

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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, <> rob...@rtbk.com.au> > 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, <>> elga...@agol.dk>> > 
>> 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

[Shawn K. Quinn]

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 million objects in the database to some other key?

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Shawn K. Quinn]

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 all 4 million of these tags, and we lose
the last edited date when we do this (i.e. if something hasn't been
touched for 5 years, and we make this frivolous change from man_made=*
to human_made=*, the object then shows as last edited that day, not 5
years ago).

> A lot of this thread has been on the ramifications on the database, on
> data consumers, and on people being offended or misinformed, but these
> seem to be missing the point changes like this are supposed to have. The
> reason changes like this are useful is they serve as cultural markers
> for community openness and understanding.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here.

> Now, whether the impact this specific tag has is of sufficient
> weight to accept the costs others have mentioned (most notable IMHO
> being the impact on current data consumers), well that's the
> discussion we should be having. But hyperbole like "[this] makes zero > sense 
> and smacks of change for the sake of change" is not a helpful>
part of that discussion.

Maybe it's not helpful to you. But I would like to think that the
opinion of someone who has contributed to the project for eight years
actually counts for something.

I'll repeat it: Making this change will destroy data on 4 million
objects for zero actual benefit, and for a primary reason that make zero
sense besides change for the sake of change. It should not be made for
at least these reasons, if not others as well. In fact, looking at it
again, the more I think this is likely a frivolous or joke proposal, and
should not even go as far as a vote. Something tells me if this was a
tag like highway=* we were talking about, we wouldn't even be having
this discussion.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I agree that highway=bus_guideway deserved it's own tag, since it is
halfway to a rubber-tyred light metro, and quite similar to the "people
mover" systems often found at airports, which often use concrete guidways
and rubber-tired vehicles.

But since other busways serve the same public transit function and are
exclusively for public transportation use, they are functionally similar
from the perspective of a rider or a mapper.

And there are already some examples of highway=bus_guideway getting misused
for other busways, so it would be helpful to settle on the best way to tag
these:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4226#issue-724131173

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 4:02 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> 18 paź 2020, 20:22 od joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:
>
> While the current tagging is ok, it seems inconsistent that
> highway=bus_guideway gets its own tag, while other busways which are
> similar in function are tagged as highway=service.
>
> Given that rail-like bus guideway is
> drastically different in its structure from
> roads I see no problem with it getting a
> separate highway value.
> ___
> 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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 do with men, as opposed to women!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 every 
instance of this tag is representing a bridge.
bridge=yes is a property, we add it to highways and railways, and many 
instances of this tag can point to the very same bridge.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Robert Delmenico]

|   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

[Robert Delmenico]

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Jo]

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 20, 2020, 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
>
> 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

[Walker Bradley]

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Robert Delmenico]

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

[Robert Delmenico]

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

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

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

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 22:17 Uhr schrieb Emvee via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> On 19/10/2020 11:51, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > Martin, please do not even think about deprecating a tagging that is
> > heavily used.like highway=crossing with bicycke=no|yes|dismount
>
> I do not call highway=crossing with bicycle=no|dismount heavily used. On
> some locations the density is higher but on quite some places it is not
> used at all.



it depends on the point of view. Of all highway=crossing nodes, only 3,65%
have a bicycle=* tag, but these are 163 331 objects.
Most of them are bicycle=yes tags, only 10 462 are bicycle=no and 8 949 are
bicycle=dismount

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=crossing#combinations


Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

19 paź 2020, 22:43 od tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>
>
 This  recent wiki change by  Emvee 
   is in my view not 
 helpful,  or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread  
 tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different  
 question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is  supposed 
 to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)

>>>
>>> The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a  node, 
>>> see >>> https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265
>>>
>>>
>>> Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore  bicycle=no 
>>> in combination with highway=crossing means that it  is more or less 
>>> useless as routers are they main data  consumers while at the same 
>>> time crossing data is far from  being complete.
>>>
>>>
>>> My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and  it 
>>> does not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian  issue 
>>> can be deduced from the connecting ways.
>>>
>>>
>> We still have the valid mapping practice, that sideways are mapped  with 
>> tags at the highway= with no seperately mapped  ways.
>>  Therefor we still have highway=crossing nodes _without_ a crossing  way.
>>  Some of these still have no bicycle crossing allowed.
>>  
>>  How can/should a mapper map this 'new' information now? 
>>
>
> Discussed also elsewhere in this thread, but an option is just to  
> retrain from adding bicycle=no/dismount as it is problematic for  routing 
> while it does not add value, for these highway=crossing  nodes _without_ 
> a crossing way routers will not > treat>  them different if there is  
> bicycle=no/yes/dismount or whatever
>
>

How specific data consumers process
OSM data does not really change 
meaning of OSM data.

Especially if it is "that part is currently
not supported"
>
> If in a later stage the crossing way is added, that crossing way  will 
> have the correct access rights.
>
>
And if mapper wants to map it right now
this tagging is method to do that.

Note that in some regions people 
decided to map sidewalks with 
sidewalk tag not with separate ways
>
> Like written, I do not see a need but maybe, like elsewhere  proposed, a 
> new tag should be used instead.
>
>
I also see no need for a new tag :)___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

This recent wiki change by Emvee
 is in my view not
helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread
tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question,
but it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe
the establsihed methods of tagging)


The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node,
see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265

Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no in
combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less
useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same
time crossing data is far from being complete.

My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it does
not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue can be
deduced from the connecting ways.


We still have the valid mapping practice, that sideways are mapped
with tags at the highway= with no seperately mapped ways.
Therefor we still have highway=crossing nodes _without_ a crossing way.
Some of these still have no bicycle crossing allowed.

How can/should a mapper map this 'new' information now?


Discussed also elsewhere in this thread, but an option is just to
retrain from adding bicycle=no/dismount as it is problematic for routing
while it does not add value, for these highway=crossing nodes _without_
a crossing way routers will not treat them different if there is
bicycle=no/yes/dismount or whatever

If in a later stage the crossing way is added, that crossing way will
have the correct access rights.

Like written, I do not see a need but maybe, like elsewhere proposed, a
new tag should be used instead.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

On 19/10/2020 11:51, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Martin, please do not even think about deprecating a tagging that is
heavily used.like highway=crossing with bicycke=no|yes|dismount


I do not call highway=crossing with bicycle=no|dismount heavily used. On
some locations the density is higher but on quite some places it is not
used at all. Most people understand after some explanation how routers
are interpreting things and see the problem. An educated guess is that
we are talking about 3000 cases that are problematic.


I am already ignoring the frequent JOSM Warning about the deprecated
crossing=island which JOSM shows me everytime I download a stretch of
road that contains this tagging, not to speak of the tens of warnings
of deprecated tags in bus lines, which I even don't know how to fix,
that turn up everytime I my download area touches a bus line.

People differ, I like data consistency and try to fix problems reported
and see it as a good way to learn more about openstreetmap.

I also don't agree with " not worth the benefit of informing cyclists
whether they have to push 4 meters or can drive on the crossing.". To
the contrary, I would like the bicycle routers to inform the cuyclist
about the difference nd send them preferably across bicycle-friendly
crossings.
Good bicycle navigation is an important issue, in the context of bike
sharing, and for people who trvel with their folding bikes.


First observation is that for 95% of the cases the access rights of the
connection ways suffice, so it can be see as pointless tagging. For the
remaining 5% of the cases, things can be fixed by mapping the actual
length of the crossing as separate osm way with the right access rights.
That way the bicycle routes can make an even better estimate on how long
the crossing takes.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Justin Tracey]

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 against this proposal and any like it, because it involves a
> lot of retagging work for zero actual benefit.
> 
> At least healthcare=*, and the temporary dual tagging required to
> transition to it, made some sense. This, to me, makes zero sense and
> smacks of change for the sake of change.
> 

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.

A lot of this thread has been on the ramifications on the database, on
data consumers, and on people being offended or misinformed, but these
seem to be missing the point changes like this are supposed to have. The
reason changes like this are useful is they serve as cultural markers
for community openness and understanding. 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. 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), even if those hints were just a result of change
in zeitgeist or popular language norms, then that has an impact on the
sort of people we attract as a community. (As an extreme example, it was
mentioned elsewhere that tags are nearly arbitrary identifiers, but if
all tags were randomly selected bits of profanity, I'm guessing everyone
here would agree, the community would be a lot smaller, and leave out a
lot of the more professional-oriented contributors.)

Now, whether the impact this specific tag has is of sufficient weight to
accept the costs others have mentioned (most notable IMHO being the
impact on current data consumers), well that's the discussion we should
be having. But hyperbole like "[this] makes zero sense and smacks of
change for the sake of change" is not a helpful part of that discussion.

Thanks,
 - Justin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

On 18/10/2020 10:30, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Oct 18, 2020, 10:27 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

On 18/10/2020 07:46, Volker Schmidt wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the
crossing node, but refrain from access like tags on this node
(no bicycle or foot tags). The access should be derived from
the crossing ways.


This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using
the crossing node.
However, in practical terms it happens very often that in a first
mapping of a road the foot and/or bicycle crossings, as they are
nicely visible on aerial imaging, ar mapped, but not the crossing
foot- and/or cycle-ways, mainly because the details are not
visible on aerial imagery or the mapper is not interested, at
that stage, in foot/cycling details. And the distinction, at
least in Italy, between foot-only and combined foot-cycle
crossing are well visable on satellite imagery. Also
traffic-signals are often clearly visible because of the stop
lines. Hence in that first round it is easy to map crossings and
basic crossing types. The crossing way is then often added later.
To me it comes natural not to remove the existing tagging on a
crossing node when I add a crossing  way later.


But what is the use of adding bicycle=no/dismount for, let's call
it a solitary crossings?

What you mean by "solitary crossing"?

I have been working on code to detect types of crossing, so here you go.

A node marked with highway=crossing that is part of:

  *  one osm way that is not highway=footway/pedestrian/cycleway or
equivalent and where the node is not the end of start of the osm way
   * two osm ways that are both highway=footway/pedestrian/cycleway or
equivalent and where for both osm ways the node is either the end or
start of the osm way

(Did leave out oneway osm ways)

Anythings else is not a solitary crossing.
Do you have a better name?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Peter Elderson]

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 Koppenhoefer  
>> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 15:04 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging 
>> :
>> 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 world, 
> where human and nature aren't opposing poles but where the humans live in and 
> with the nature, as part of it.
> 
> And yes, if we are moving away from "man made" we can at this point also have 
> a look how the objects under this key could be organized better. I agree that 
> "artificial" would not be beneficial in this context, but rather a renaming 
> with the same issues (or even worse, think of things like "man_made=works", 
> wouldn't it be horrible to have "artificial=works"?)
> 
> 
> 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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 world,
where human and nature aren't opposing poles but where the humans live in
and with the nature, as part of it.

And yes, if we are moving away from "man made" we can at this point also
have a look how the objects under this key could be organized better. I
agree that "artificial" would not be beneficial in this context, but rather
a renaming with the same issues (or even worse, think of things like
"man_made=works", wouldn't it be horrible to have "artificial=works"?)


Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 language
for tagging.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Phake Nick]

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 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Robert Delmenico]

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 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
>> 

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[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.

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

[Paul Allen]

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 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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Phake Nick]

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 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 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 like made up to me. artificial=dyke, not really
> a dyke, but it looks like it.
>
> man_made has the advantage of being succinct. Most people will immediately
> understand what is meant by it. Almost nobody will think women were not
> involved in the creation of the feature.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM Robert Delmenico 
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Dave F via Tagging]

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 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'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 in a road's name is amended, but the road is left
incorrectly tagged as 'tertiary' instead of 'primary' it's not up
to date.

Likewise an entity previously amended 10 years ago doesn't mean
it's inaccurate.

DaveF



On 18/10/2020 22:04, 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.


On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, 22:02 Graeme Fitzpatrick,
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:



On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann
mailto: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 bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=,
regardless of what it is, & change them to human_made=,
similar to using Find & Replace in a Word document?

& no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities
behind it all, so please be gentle with explaining that I'm
an idiot! :-)

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



___
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

[Dave F via Tagging]

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 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 like made up to me. artificial=dyke, not 
really a dyke, but it looks like it.


man_made has the advantage of being succinct. Most people will 
immediately understand what is meant by it. Almost nobody will think 
women were not involved in the creation of the feature.


Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM Robert Delmenico > wrote:


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 mailto:nathanc...@outlook.com>> 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


___
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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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. If taken toit's 
> conclusion, nothing will ever be update again.
>  
>  It's false to think that just because an entity was amendedyesterday, it 
> means it's up to date:
>  If a typo in a road's name is amended, but the road is leftincorrectly 
> tagged as 'tertiary' instead of 'primary' it's not up todate.
>  
>  Likewise an entity previously amended 10 years ago doesn't mean it's
> inaccurate.
>  
>  DaveF
>   
>  
>  
> On 18/10/2020 22:04, Oliver Simmons  wrote:
>
>> Doing this would make over 3M objects have theirdate updated to the 
>> present, when the last meaningful change mayhave 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, 22:02Graeme Fitzpatrick, <>> 
>> graemefi...@gmail.com>> >wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 bot be set to simply find all cases of  
>>> man_made=, regardless of what it is, & change them  to 
>>> human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace in  a Word 
>>> document?
>>>
>>> & no, as you can see, I don't understand the  
>>> technicalities behind it all, so please be gentle with  
>>> explaining that I'm an idiot! :-)
>>>
>>> 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
>>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Dave F via Tagging]

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 in a road's name is amended, but the road is left incorrectly 
tagged as 'tertiary' instead of 'primary' it's not up to date.


Likewise an entity previously amended 10 years ago doesn't mean it's 
inaccurate.


DaveF


On 18/10/2020 22:04, 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.



On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, 22:02 Graeme Fitzpatrick, > wrote:





On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann mailto: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 bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=,
regardless of what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to
using Find & Replace in a Word document?

& no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities behind
it all, so please be gentle with explaining that I'm an idiot! :-)

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


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Peter Elderson]

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 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 like made up to me. artificial=dyke, not really a 
> dyke, but it looks like it.
> 
> man_made has the advantage of being succinct. Most people will immediately 
> understand what is meant by it. Almost nobody will think women were not 
> involved in the creation of the feature.
> 
> Polyglot
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM Robert Delmenico  wrote:
>> 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
> ___
> 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

[Jo]

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 like made up to me. artificial=dyke, not really a
dyke, but it looks like it.

man_made has the advantage of being succinct. Most people will immediately
understand what is meant by it. Almost nobody will think women were not
involved in the creation of the feature.

Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM Robert Delmenico 
wrote:

> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Phake Nick]

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 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

18 paź 2020, 20:22 od joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:
> While the current tagging is ok, it seems inconsistent that 
> highway=bus_guideway gets its own tag, while other busways which are similar 
> in function are tagged as highway=service. 
>
Given that rail-like bus guideway is 
drastically different in its structure from
roads I see no problem with it getting a
separate highway value.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

19 paź 2020, 10:27 od dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:39, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>>
>> Still, highway=crossing bicycle=no is an acceptable tagging (like you can 
>> map cemeteries or parks
>> or churches as nodes in the first pass, especially when there is no good 
>> aerial imagery available)
>>
>
>
> my preference is deprecating this as it has too many risks, not worth the 
> benefit of informing cyclists whether they have to push 4 meters or can drive 
> on the crossing.
>
"not worth benefit" 

As a cyclist - this is a critically important info.

Dismounting on every crossing is
extremely annoying.

Car equivalent would be stopping car, leaving it and entering again - even if 
traffic light is green!___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Robert Delmenico]

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

[nathan case]

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

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Volker Schmidt]

Martin, please do not even think about deprecating a tagging that is
heavily used.like highway=crossing with bicycke=no|yes|dismount
I am already ignoring the frequent JOSM Warning about the deprecated
crossing=island which JOSM shows me everytime I download a stretch of road
that contains this tagging, not to speak of the tens of warnings of
deprecated tags in bus lines, which I even don't know how to fix, that turn
up everytime I my download area touches a bus line.

I also don't agree with " not worth the benefit of informing cyclists
whether they have to push 4 meters or can drive on the crossing.". To the
contrary, I would like the bicycle routers to inform the cuyclist about the
difference nd send them preferably across bicycle-friendly crossings.
Good bicycle navigation is an important issue, in the context of bike
sharing, and for people who trvel with their folding bikes.

Volker


On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 10:29, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:39, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
> >
> > Still, highway=crossing bicycle=no is an acceptable tagging (like you
> can map cemeteries or parks
> > or churches as nodes in the first pass, especially when there is no good
> aerial imagery available)
>
>
> my preference is deprecating this as it has too many risks, not worth the
> benefit of informing cyclists whether they have to push 4 meters or can
> drive on the crossing.
>
> I would suggest sth like crossing:bicycle=yes/no
>
> 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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

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

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 and give them a chance to adapt to the change, not so much.


Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:16 AM Shawn K. Quinn > wrote:


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 to this, it increases revision and changeset counts needlessly.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn mailto:skqu...@rushpost.com>>

http://www.rantroulette.com 
http://www.skqrecordquest.com 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




--
Niels Elgaard Larsen

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Jo]

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 and give them a chance to adapt to the change, not so much.

Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:16 AM Shawn K. Quinn 
wrote:

> 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 to this, it increases revision and changeset counts needlessly.
>
> --
> Shawn K. Quinn 
> http://www.rantroulette.com
> http://www.skqrecordquest.com
>
> ___
> 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] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:39, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Still, highway=crossing bicycle=no is an acceptable tagging (like you can map 
> cemeteries or parks
> or churches as nodes in the first pass, especially when there is no good 
> aerial imagery available)


my preference is deprecating this as it has too many risks, not worth the 
benefit of informing cyclists whether they have to push 4 meters or can drive 
on the crossing.

I would suggest sth like crossing:bicycle=yes/no

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Shawn K. Quinn]

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 to this, it increases revision and changeset counts needlessly.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Shawn K. Quinn]

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
lot of retagging work for zero actual benefit.

At least healthcare=*, and the temporary dual tagging required to
transition to it, made some sense. This, to me, makes zero sense and
smacks of change for the sake of change.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[François Lacombe]

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 reviewed, voted,
discussed by the community for a significant amount of time.
Providing a technical efficiency or a given tool doesn't mean we should
overuse that tool.


> The problem is not the data at the origin, it is the system around the
> database.
>

If the system isn't suitable enough, let's improve it.
For instance: among other things, versions keep a record of a manual edit
of a particular user and allow change reversal.
Once a big change like man_made => human_made has been reviewed and
acknowledged by the community, do we need a formal version to reverse it?
How many DWG changesets have been reversed in the past?
I think the need to create versions for this particular kind of change is
very low.

All the best

François

Le lun. 19 oct. 2020 à 08:55, Topographe Fou  a
écrit :

> Putting appart this 'man' vs 'human' debate...
>
> This reminds me a thinking I regularly have in minds: OSM shall have a way
> to tell all (registered) data users that "starting from /mm/dd
> following major change in the database will be applied following vote xxx
> from OSM community. Please see drawbacks, workarounds and recommandations
> for editors in wiki page www" . The idea would not be to trigger this
> mechanism every week but to be able to schedule few data scheme
> improvements in concertation with (and supervized by) a dedicated Working
> Group (DWG ? Or a contiunuous improvement wg ?). I think OSM already did it
> in the past and the wellspreading of its data shall not block us for
> improvements. Keys can be seen as arbitrary strings from a sw point of view
> but I think there is a benefit to have consistent keys, which may imply
> from time to time to review 10 years old tagging schemes. It can even
> simplify life of editors and data consumers.
>
>
> LeTopographeFou
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Topographe Fou]

  Putting appart this 'man' vs 'human' debate...This reminds me a thinking I regularly have in minds: OSM shall have a way to tell all (registered) data users that "starting from /mm/dd following major change in the database will be applied following vote xxx from OSM community. Please see drawbacks, workarounds and recommandations for editors in wiki page www" . The idea would not be to trigger this mechanism every week but to be able to schedule few data scheme improvements in concertation with (and supervized by) a dedicated Working Group (DWG ? Or a contiunuous improvement wg ?). I think OSM already did it in the past and the wellspreading of its data shall not block us for improvements. Keys can be seen as arbitrary strings from a sw point of view but I think there is a benefit to have consistent keys, which may imply from time to time to review 10 years old tagging schemes. It can even simplify life of editors and data consumers.  LeTopographeFou   De: dieterdre...@gmail.comEnvoyé: 18 octobre 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 :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 human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace in a Word document?yes, technically it could be done with a bot or also without a bot, directly on the database, in seconds or less.And once we have done it, we could do it again and again, for all kinds of reasons.The problem is not the data at the origin, it is the system around the database.Cheers.Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging