Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Robert Delmenico
Link to proposal page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/artificial
Definition:  A tag for identifying human-made (artificial) structures added to the landscape.

Please discuss this proposal on the discussion page for the proposal.

Kind Regards,

Robert Delmenico
rtbk

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Tagging mailing list
(1) I never understood "man made" as
"made by males".

(2) One of primary meanings of "artificial"
for me is fake/pretending/misleading,
making this new proposed tags confusing,
maybe especially for non-native speakers

(3) see inherent problems with deprecating
highly used tags

(4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
to change language, especially if done at 
cost of making more complicated for
mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
meaning remains standard and is well 
understood

Disclaimer: not a native speaker.
(1) and (4) may be wrong.

Also as not a native speaker I am confused
by sentence in proposal
"when people read of her generic man,
people form mental pictures of"

What is meaning of "her generic man"?

21 Oct 2020, 04:46 by [hidden email]:

Definition:  A tag for identifying human-made (artificial) structures added to the landscape.

Please discuss this proposal on the discussion page for the proposal.

Kind Regards,

Robert Delmenico
rtbk

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Robert Delmenico
'her generic man' has been fixed - it was a typo.

now reads:
"confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man', people form mental pictures of males"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Tagging mailing list
Can you link actual scientific publication?

I am willing to change my mind but
I would need to check is it tested on
some sane sample of people, not
"Canadian males going to university with me"

(psychology scientific papers are
often only "scientific".

So I am not going
to treat seriously one that is not
documenting properly its methodology,
especially info how interviewed people
were selected and whatever sample size
was of serious size rather than 
"Sample size was 10, I interviewed
my family and friends".

See also replication crisis mess, where 
turned out that many highly cited and 
widely promoted papers in sociology and
psychology were worthless (yes, I am 
salty about believing in Ted talk about
power pose that was based on misleading
claims)



21 Oct 2020, 06:57 by [hidden email]:
'her generic man' has been fixed - it was a typo.

now reads:
"confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man', people form mental pictures of males"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico
"Phase 4: All man_made tags to be removed 2031-01-01 00:00 UTC+0"
I think that is as reasonable as it could be.
Yves

Le 21 octobre 2020 04:46:34 GMT+02:00, Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Link to proposal page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/artificial
Definition:  A tag for identifying human-made (artificial) structures added to the landscape.

Please discuss this proposal on the discussion page for the proposal.

Kind Regards,

Robert Delmenico
rtbk

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

ebel
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

> (1) I never understood "man made" as
> "made by males".
> (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
> to change language, especially if done at
> cost of making more complicated for
> mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
> meaning remains standard and is well
> understood
>
> Disclaimer: not a native speaker.
> (1) and (4) may be wrong.

It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a quaint old fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging and ir

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

ebel
(I broke my collarbone, so I'm typing one handed and can mistype)

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 9:39 AM, Rory McCann wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> > (1) I never understood "man made" as
> > "made by males".
> > (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
> > to change language, especially if done at
> > cost of making more complicated for
> > mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
> > meaning remains standard and is well
> > understood
> >
> > Disclaimer: not a native speaker.
> > (1) and (4) may be wrong.
>
It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a
quaint old fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging
and ir can take a little while for books, courses and teachers to catch up.

So you'll hear non-natives use words like "whom" or using "he" to refer to generic people of any gender. It always sounds old-fashioned. 🙂

OSM prioritizes local knowledge, by the same logic non-native speakers of English should defer to native English speakers for the meaning of words.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OSM changes the world | Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

ebel
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
> to change language, especially if done at
> cost of making more complicated for
> mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
> meaning remains standard and is well
> understood

The purpose of OSM is to change the world. We're trying to create a map of the world, build by enthusiastic local people and to give it away to everyone for free. We're trying to produce a geo commons for every person. It's too late to say that OSM shouldn't change anything in the world. 🙂

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by ebel



21 Oct 2020, 09:43 by [hidden email]:
(I broke my collarbone, so I'm typing one handed and can mistype)

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 9:39 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> (1) I never understood "man made" as
> "made by males".
> (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
> to change language, especially if done at
> cost of making more complicated for
> mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
> meaning remains standard and is well
> understood
>
> Disclaimer: not a native speaker.
> (1) and (4) may be wrong.
It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a
quaint old fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging
and ir can take a little while for books, courses and teachers to catch up.
Oh, I know. That is why I added my disclaimer
and that is why I tried to read this referenced
scientific study, I am well aware that 
I am not an expert here.

Though I know that it is something that
is kind of tricky topic due to politic issues,
do I wanted to check situation.
So you'll hear non-natives use words like "whom" or using "he" to refer to generic people of any gender. It always sounds old-fashioned. 🙂

OSM prioritizes local knowledge, by the same logic non-native speakers of English should defer to native English speakers for the meaning of words.
I am an expert when it comes to some topics,
but English language is NOT one of them 
and I am well aware about this.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Robert Delmenico
I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a bit of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea. 

I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through any sources that are both for and against the arguments I have raised. I'm thinking that I'll mention the arguments both for and against on the proposal page as this is a big proposal which if it succeeds will have a big impact.

If anyone has any arguments for or against that they wish to have included in the proposal, please feel free to leave them on the talk page for the proposal.



Regards,

Rob

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, 7:49 pm Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <[hidden email]> wrote:



21 Oct 2020, 09:43 by [hidden email]:
(I broke my collarbone, so I'm typing one handed and can mistype)

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 9:39 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> (1) I never understood "man made" as
> "made by males".
> (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
> to change language, especially if done at
> cost of making more complicated for
> mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
> meaning remains standard and is well
> understood
>
> Disclaimer: not a native speaker.
> (1) and (4) may be wrong.
It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a
quaint old fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging
and ir can take a little while for books, courses and teachers to catch up.
Oh, I know. That is why I added my disclaimer
and that is why I tried to read this referenced
scientific study, I am well aware that 
I am not an expert here.

Though I know that it is something that
is kind of tricky topic due to politic issues,
do I wanted to check situation.
So you'll hear non-natives use words like "whom" or using "he" to refer to generic people of any gender. It always sounds old-fashioned. 🙂

OSM prioritizes local knowledge, by the same logic non-native speakers of English should defer to native English speakers for the meaning of words.
I am an expert when it comes to some topics,
but English language is NOT one of them 
and I am well aware about this.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Colin Smale

On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote:

I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a bit of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea. 
 
I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through any sources that are both for and against the arguments I have raised. I'm thinking that I'll mention the arguments both for and against on the proposal page as this is a big proposal which if it succeeds will have a big impact.
 
If anyone has any arguments for or against that they wish to have included in the proposal, please feel free to leave them on the talk page for the proposal.
 
If this goes through, it will be traumatic, however you look at it. Do you have any suggestions how to abstract this specific example into a more generic process to a) review all tags currently in the database; b) all wiki content suggesting tagging; and c) all future proposals, to assess their appropriateness in the current and likely future environment? 
 
I don't mean to be flippant - this is a serious suggestion. If we are going to have this kind of discussion around any graphology incorporating "possibly offensive" groups of letters we had better have a proper policy in place and a well-oiled process to deal with it.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Phake Nick
In reply to this post by ebel


在 2020年10月21日週三 15:46,Rory McCann <[hidden email]> 寫道:
(I broke my collarbone, so I'm typing one handed and can mistype)

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 9:39 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> > (1) I never understood "man made" as
> > "made by males".
> > (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
> > to change language, especially if done at
> > cost of making more complicated for
> > mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
> > meaning remains standard and is well
> > understood
> >
> > Disclaimer: not a native speaker.
> > (1) and (4) may be wrong.
>
It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a
quaint old fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging
and ir can take a little while for books, courses and teachers to catch up.

So you'll hear non-natives use words like "whom" or using "he" to refer to generic people of any gender. It always sounds old-fashioned. 🙂

OSM prioritizes local knowledge, by the same logic non-native speakers of English should defer to native English speakers for the meaning of words.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

My understanding is that OSM explicitly follow UK English, although I don't know if it follow any specific dialect, accent or speech


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Oliver Simmons
In reply to this post by Colin Smale

Agreed, if we are doing this once, we better have a way to do it again as doing it once guarantees that it will happen for another tag in the future.

 

Changing in inside OSM and the OSM Wiki is the easier part though, it’s informing and getting all of the software to recognise the new tag (preferably both as the old tag will still remain on old stuff).

Older software is the issue as getting that to be updated is near impossible.

There are *tons* of styles and software e.t.c. that are going to break

 

From: [hidden email]
Sent: 21 October 2020 10:25
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

 

On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote:

I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a bit of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea. 

 

I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through any sources that are both for and against the arguments I have raised. I'm thinking that I'll mention the arguments both for and against on the proposal page as this is a big proposal which if it succeeds will have a big impact.

 

If anyone has any arguments for or against that they wish to have included in the proposal, please feel free to leave them on the talk page for the proposal.

 

If this goes through, it will be traumatic, however you look at it. Do you have any suggestions how to abstract this specific example into a more generic process to a) review all tags currently in the database; b) all wiki content suggesting tagging; and c) all future proposals, to assess their appropriateness in the current and likely future environment? 

 

I don't mean to be flippant - this is a serious suggestion. If we are going to have this kind of discussion around any graphology incorporating "possibly offensive" groups of letters we had better have a proper policy in place and a well-oiled process to deal with it.

 


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Oliver Simmons
In reply to this post by Phake Nick

This is correct, the biggest example is the highway=* values.

 

There are few exception to this rule where using British English could cause confusing.

e.g. sidewalk, this is a more American term, but is used because “pavement” (what we call them in Britain) can have multiple meanings.

 

 

From: [hidden email]
Sent: 21 October 2020 10:38
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

 

 

20201021日週三 15:46Rory McCann <[hidden email]> 寫道:

(I broke my collarbone, so I'm typing one handed and can mistype)

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 9:39 AM, Rory McCann wrote:


> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> > (1) I never understood "man made" as
> > "made by males".
> > (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
> > to change language, especially if done at
> > cost of making more complicated for
> > mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
> > meaning remains standard and is well
> > understood
> >
> > Disclaimer: not a native speaker.
> > (1) and (4) may be wrong.
>
It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a
quaint old fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging
and ir can take a little while for books, courses and teachers to catch up.

So you'll hear non-natives use words like "whom" or using "he" to refer to generic people of any gender. It always sounds old-fashioned. 🙂

OSM prioritizes local knowledge, by the same logic non-native speakers of English should defer to native English speakers for the meaning of words.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 

My understanding is that OSM explicitly follow UK English, although I don't know if it follow any specific dialect, accent or speech

 

 


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OSM changes the world | Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by ebel



Oct 21, 2020, 09:49 by [hidden email]:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
(4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
to change language, especially if done at
cost of making more complicated for
mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
meaning remains standard and is well
understood

The purpose of OSM is to change the world. We're trying to create a map of the world, build by enthusiastic local people and to give it away to everyone for free. We're trying to produce a geo commons for every person. It's too late to say that OSM shouldn't change anything in the world. 🙂
I wrote "I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool to change language".

I see this proposal as similar to "we should use Esperanto as language for name tag"
that appeared some time ago.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico


sent from a phone

> On 21. Oct 2020, at 06:59, Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> "confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man', people form mental pictures of males"


yes, but it does not mean that people think of men when they read “mankind” or “man_made” or “mannequin” or “manslaughter” (the latter a suggestion from my ai partner). IMHO you have to separate the meaning of these terms from the meaning of “man”.

I am not opposing the idea that people actively try to change the language for a purpose, but as long as they haven’t succeeded we should not try to overtake them.

 See the tags as codes and try to convince preset publishers to use terms that you perceive more neutral in their “translations”. Thinking about it, the term “man made” is maybe not even presented to mappers unless they look at tags.


Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OSM changes the world | Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by ebel
The purpose of OSM is to **map** the world.

If this brings about positive change such as the things you mentioned
(any many more), that's good and that is the reason why many people
contribute to such a free wiki world map.
This is a huge difference to your statement! You seem to defend that OSM
should be used as a tool to change language, for politically motivated
reasons in this case.

OSM is as much about change as science, FOSS or wikipedia is about
change. Who would trust wikipedia as a reliable source if their mission
was to "bring about (political) change"?

In my book, furthering political or social ideologies does not even fall
remotely under the mission of OSM. I dearly hope it stays this way.

Tobias

On 21/10/2020 09:49, Rory McCann wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>> (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
>> to change language, especially if done at
>> cost of making more complicated for
>> mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
>> meaning remains standard and is well
>> understood
>
> The purpose of OSM is to change the world. We're trying to create a map of the world, build by enthusiastic local people and to give it away to everyone for free. We're trying to produce a geo commons for every person. It's too late to say that OSM shouldn't change anything in the world. 🙂
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OSM changes the world | Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Matthew Woehlke
On 21/10/2020 09.34, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> You seem to defend that OSM should be used as a tool to change
> language, for politically motivated reasons in this case.

Indeed; we should not forget that the ultimate motivation here is *very
much* political. (Note: as I stated elsewhere, that may not be the OP's
motivation, but that of the forces manipulating the OP.)

OTOH, there is unfortunately a political aspect to *not* making the
change... because the group that wants a change can't tolerate the
status quo.

> In my book, furthering political or social ideologies does not even fall
> remotely under the mission of OSM. I dearly hope it stays this way.

Likewise.

--
Matthew

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Matthew Woehlke
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico
On 21/10/2020 00.57, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> 'her generic man' has been fixed - it was a typo.
>
> now reads:
> "confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man',
> people form mental pictures of males"

Citation needed, especially as you imply one but don't (AFAICT?) supply
a link to it. I'd be especially curious to know whether there is an
observable difference in people's mental image of "men", when used in a
sense to refer to humans generically, and e.g. "people".

Also:

> The word 'Man' in the Old English sense 'mann' had the primary meaning of "adult male human"

Citation needed, particularly as the other thread contains a statement
which directly contradicts this.

--
Matthew

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

Phake Nick
In reply to this post by Oliver Simmons


在 2020年10月21日週三 17:37,Oliver Simmons <[hidden email]> 寫道:

Agreed, if we are doing this once, we better have a way to do it again as doing it once guarantees that it will happen for another tag in the future.

 

Changing in inside OSM and the OSM Wiki is the easier part though, it’s informing and getting all of the software to recognise the new tag (preferably both as the old tag will still remain on old stuff).

Older software is the issue as getting that to be updated is near impossible.

There are *tons* of styles and software e.t.c. that are going to break

 

From: [hidden email]
Sent: 21 October 2020 10:25
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

 

On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote:

I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a bit of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea. 

 

I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through any sources that are both for and against the arguments I have raised. I'm thinking that I'll mention the arguments both for and against on the proposal page as this is a big proposal which if it succeeds will have a big impact.

 

If anyone has any arguments for or against that they wish to have included in the proposal, please feel free to leave them on the talk page for the proposal.

 

If this goes through, it will be traumatic, however you look at it. Do you have any suggestions how to abstract this specific example into a more generic process to a) review all tags currently in the database; b) all wiki content suggesting tagging; and c) all future proposals, to assess their appropriateness in the current and likely future environment? 

 

I don't mean to be flippant - this is a serious suggestion. If we are going to have this kind of discussion around any graphology incorporating "possibly offensive" groups of letters we had better have a proper policy in place and a well-oiled process to deal with it.

 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Given the history of language evolution, people keep adopting different terms for discriminatory use and thus what uacceptable vs what is not will always be changing. And since it is almost possible to predict what term in the future will be used by duscriminators, it is basically impossible to guarantee it will happen again. The best we can do is to minimize such chance and hope next time it happens will be more than a millennium from now.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12