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, <rob...@rtbk.com.au> 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, <pla16...@gmail.com> 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
