Ok, I will use that with the tag for the physical obstructions.
Thanks all for the discussion
August 24, 2020 7:07:08 PM CEST Joseph Eisenberg <[email protected]>
wrote:
RE: "Would something like hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target =
sitting be more clear?"
While this is somewhat less ambiguous, it looks and sounds quite strange in
English, and it's quite long.
How about "lying_down=obstructed", "sitting=obstructed", "skating=obstructed"
or something like that?
I also think it would be a good idea to tag the physical obstructions, like
width=, length=, slope=, arm_rests=, spikes=, skatestoppers=, etc, as others
have mentioned.
– Joseph Eisenberg
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:46 AM Vucod via Tagging <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Just to clarify an important point. The hostile_architecture key was
> suggested as a main/category tag to go along with specific keys
> (lying_hindrance, sitting_hindrance).
> Used alone, I agree that it would be very vague and could be difficult to
> verify. I would say to only use it in combination with specific keys but I
> don't know how this would be followed by mappers...
>
> On the specific tags:
>
> @Josepth Eisenberg(mail below):
>
> As others have said, no_* and *=prohibited loose the notion of hindrance that
> is crucial if we want to map physical and visible things. Would something
> like hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target = sitting be more
> clear? And yes, the goal is to make clear that {lying|sitting|...} is
> physically obstructed (no relation to legal usage).
>
> @Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> "what about benches being completely removed (or never installed), it’s
> equally hostile but not mappable. Or shops who are right away not built in a
> way that you could sit down on their facade."
>
> With tags like lying_hindrance and sitting_hindrance, we don't look for the
> intentions of the builders but we just look for these hindrances. So, we
> would not map your examples.
>
> "quite common in Rome are inside corners of buildings filled with masonry
> (typically up to 1,5m) so people do not urinate (not a recent feature, most
> look as if they were hundreds of years old). And in this case, it’s also
> probably more beneficial than hostile in the general perception. At least I
> guess many of us would deny a right of public urination in the city?"
>
> Yes with the term "hostile", an opinion could be seen behind it but the term
> "hostile architecture" refers to the enforcement/prevention of some
> behaviors whether it is good or not. In German and French, they use defensive
> architecture/ defensive urban design where it is less opinionated.
>
> @Mateusz Konieczny : ""length was refused as an official key for bench" Why?
> Is there some valid reason, or maybe it was part of proposal that failed for
> other reasons."
>
> length and width keys on benches were refused because they judged that it was
> going too much into details
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Attributes)
>
>
> On the generic tag:
>
> As info:
>
> - "Hostile architecture", a Wikipédia article, a subreddit and 150 000 google
> results
> - "Hostile design", 20 000 google results
>
> Vucod
>
> August 23, 2020 10:22:38 PM CEST Joseph Eisenberg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. As an alternative
> "anti-homeless" is also not precise enough. We are getting closer with the
> initial suggestion that the feature is to prevent lying down, sleeping or
> sitting.
>
> However, I think the tags "sitting_hindrance=" and "lying_hindrance" are not
> clear enough in English. The term "lying" is ambiguous, since it can refer to
> "telling lies" (falsehoods) as well. Also, in English syntax it sounds
> strange to say something is a "lying hindrance", because this would normally
> be an obstacle which is lying down, rather than a hindrance to a person lying
> down.
>
> 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. Perhaps someone else has a better phrase?
>
>
> We want to make it clear that lying down or sitting down is not allowed or
> physical obstructed, right?
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 18:22, Oliver Simmons <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Someone else can probably think of a better suggestion
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
