Thank you all for the discussion around changing the tag man_made. After careful consideration I have decided to abandon this proposal - mostly because the fact that the man_made tag is clearly a hodgepodge of tags that probably should be redefined as separate items.
Thanks for all your input, fair to say this process has been interesting at best. Kind Regards, Rob. On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 00:50, Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20/10/2020 15.22, Justin Tracey wrote: > > On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote: > >> On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote: > >>> It's the same reason we want > >>> discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should > >>> be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and > >>> participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome > >>> joining in. > >> > >> ...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to > >> polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as > >> encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of > >> being inimically opposed to "conservatives"). > > > > I have no idea what "the SJW agenda" is, but it doesn't seem > > relevant to the discussion anyway. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior > > If you don't see the relevance, I'm afraid I can't help you. The topic > under discussion is a prime facet of said agenda. > > >>> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias > >>> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case, > >>> English-speaking men) > >> > >> So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh, > >> wait, that would *still* be biased. > > > > Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :) > > I don't mind discussing whether or not bias is present. I *do* mind > someone else assigning a bias to a group when no such bias exists. > > > I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to > > grind [...] > > True. > > > [...] with a strawman that hasn't come up in this discussion. Nobody > > said anything about "intolerance", there is no vilifying here, and > > nobody is "forcing" any opinions on anyone. > > Less true. This started as someone / some group deciding that our use of > a term that has been historically and widely recognized as > gender-neutral is biased. > > Please note I'm not singling out the OP. In fact, I rather get the > impression he's just innocently exploring an idea that has been forced > on him. My objection isn't to this discussion as such, but to the groups > that ultimately caused us to be having it. > > Ultimately, given the technical arguments against change, it's hard for > me to take a stance on the proposal *without* at least considering the > underlying reasons why such things come up in the first place. If I just > ignore those aspects, the obvious answer is that the proposal is > expensive and pointless... but ignoring SJWs is dangerous. (Again, > ironically; those people employ the exact same sorts of tactics they > vilify their opponents for using.) > > Anyway, most of why I brought it up was in reply to "contributing and > participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and [anyone wishing to do so] > should feel welcome joining in." I wanted to express my agreement with > the goal, but *dis*agreement with the means of accomplishing that goal. > > -- > Matthew > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
