On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 21:24, Joseph Eisenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. > However, it is a "term of the art." It's what it's called out in the real world, so is likely to be used in the media. As with many phrases in colloquial English, the sum is greater than the parts. Most people in the UK understand what is meant by "Listed Building" even though it is impossible to discern the meaning from the component words. Yes, the media does matter. The first a mapper may know that benches in a particular location have been replaced is a local newspaper saying they've been replaced by hostile architecture. After a survey to find out where they are, the mapper then has to figure out how to map hostile architecture. It makes life simpler if we use that term. As an alternative "anti-homeless" is also not precise enough. > I agree. The intention may be to deter the homeless but it has an effect upon everyone. Those things are not just uncomfortable to sleep on, most designs are uncomfortable to sit on. They are hostile to everyone. > So it would be better to change the order of words in the tags, e.g. > "no_lying=" and "no_sitting=" , or just simplify to "sitting=prohibited" > and "lying_down=prohibited" or similar. But I admit that none of those > options are perfectly clear. > They are perfectly unclear. Normal benches can have a sign saying "lying down is prohibited" without being designed to make it difficult or impossible. Those phrases apply to legal usage, not to physical possibility. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
