I feel like it is a cherry-picked list of comment. 在 2020年10月19日週一 22:42，Robert Delmenico <[email protected]> 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, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging < >> [email protected]> 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 >> [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
