They mean the same thing, we tag different aspects of a bridge with different tags.
All bridges are man_made and all bridges are bridges. Therefore if the tag for man_made=bridge was changed to bridge=yes, and bridge=yes was used for both ways and areas then this would simplify the tagging of bridges. One would then use bridge=construction instead of construction=bridge to match the standards used in buildings (building=construction). If you take the buildings for example: buildings=yes (area) is equivalent to man_made=building (not used) as all buildings are man_made, yet we don't tag it as man_made rather just building=yes for areas. *If building=yes applies to areas, why doesn't bridge=yes apply to areas?* The same stands for all other man_made tags. Most common man_made tags: man_made=pier could become pier=yes man_made=storage_tank could become storage_tank=yes or storage_tank=(content) *Perhaps I'll drop the gender argument and go with man_made is actually not required and perhaps we should tackle these one-by-one therefore reducing the immediate changes required.* Regards, Rob. On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 17:01, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > They do NOT mean the same thing. How they differ has already been > mentioned 2 or 3 times in this thread. > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 06:59 Robert Delmenico <rob...@rtbk.com.au> wrote: > >> 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, <rob...@rtbk.com.au> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Please read this article: >>> >>> >>> https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra&page=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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
