Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
79 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Robert Delmenico
Some great points here. Good to hear the points of views of all of you. Look forward to hearing more feedback.

Kind regards,

Rob

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, 9:19 am Graeme Fitzpatrick, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks everyone - all makes sense!

Graeme



_______________________________________________
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: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Topographe Fou
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
Putting appart this 'man' vs 'human' debate...

This reminds me a thinking I regularly have in minds: OSM shall have a way to tell all (registered) data users that "starting from yyyy/mm/dd following major change in the database will be applied following vote xxx from OSM community. Please see drawbacks, workarounds and recommandations for editors in wiki page www" . The idea would not be to trigger this mechanism every week but to be able to schedule few data scheme improvements in concertation with (and supervized by) a dedicated Working Group (DWG ? Or a contiunuous improvement wg ?). I think OSM already did it in the past and the wellspreading of its data shall not block us for improvements. Keys can be seen as arbitrary strings from a sw point of view but I think there is a benefit to have consistent keys, which may imply from time to time to review 10 years old tagging schemes. It can even simplify life of editors and data consumers.


LeTopographeFou
Envoyé: 18 octobre 2020 11:09 PM
Répondre à: [hidden email]
Objet: Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Am So., 18. Okt. 2020 um 23:02 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]>:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
*definitely* not something one does auomatically.

But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be done!)

Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace in a Word document?


yes, technically it could be done with a bot or also without a bot, directly on the database, in seconds or less.
And once we have done it, we could do it again and again, for all kinds of reasons.

The problem is not the data at the origin, it is the system around the database.

Cheers.
Martin


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

Re: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

François Lacombe-2
Hi

I second the comments of Topographe below. Continuous improvement is a major challenge.

Le dim. 18 oct. 2020 à 23:09, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> a écrit :
And once we have done it, we could do it again and again, for all kinds of reasons.
Not all kinds of reasons: once the change has been reviewed, voted, discussed by the community for a significant amount of time.
Providing a technical efficiency or a given tool doesn't mean we should overuse that tool.
 
The problem is not the data at the origin, it is the system around the database.

If the system isn't suitable enough, let's improve it.
For instance: among other things, versions keep a record of a manual edit of a particular user and allow change reversal.
Once a big change like man_made => human_made has been reviewed and acknowledged by the community, do we need a formal version to reverse it?
How many DWG changesets have been reversed in the past?
I think the need to create versions for this particular kind of change is very low.

All the best

François

Le lun. 19 oct. 2020 à 08:55, Topographe Fou <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Putting appart this 'man' vs 'human' debate...

This reminds me a thinking I regularly have in minds: OSM shall have a way to tell all (registered) data users that "starting from yyyy/mm/dd following major change in the database will be applied following vote xxx from OSM community. Please see drawbacks, workarounds and recommandations for editors in wiki page www" . The idea would not be to trigger this mechanism every week but to be able to schedule few data scheme improvements in concertation with (and supervized by) a dedicated Working Group (DWG ? Or a contiunuous improvement wg ?). I think OSM already did it in the past and the wellspreading of its data shall not block us for improvements. Keys can be seen as arbitrary strings from a sw point of view but I think there is a benefit to have consistent keys, which may imply from time to time to review 10 years old tagging schemes. It can even simplify life of editors and data consumers.


LeTopographeFou

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

Re: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Shawn K. Quinn
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico
On 10/14/20 19:54, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm proposing that we change the man_made tag to human_made.
>
> I feel it is a discussion that we need to have as there seems to be
> little discussion to date.
[...]
I will vote against this proposal and any like it, because it involves a
lot of retagging work for zero actual benefit.

At least healthcare=*, and the temporary dual tagging required to
transition to it, made some sense. This, to me, makes zero sense and
smacks of change for the sake of change.

--
Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email]>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Shawn K. Quinn
In reply to this post by Oliver Simmons
On 10/18/20 16:04, Oliver Simmons wrote:
> Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the
> present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
> It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was
> changed was a tag key.

+1

In addition to this, it increases revision and changeset counts needlessly.

--
Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email]>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Jo-2
Are they really people who see the tag man_made and go:

Oh, women didn't contribute to this! The tag says so...

Isn't it obvious that man in this case stands for its original meaning: Mensch, ser humano, etc?

Changing it in the database is trivially easy. Letting everyone who uses OSM data know and give them a chance to adapt to the change, not so much.

Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:16 AM Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/18/20 16:04, Oliver Simmons wrote:
> Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the
> present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
> It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was
> changed was a tag key.

+1

In addition to this, it increases revision and changeset counts needlessly.

--
Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email]>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

_______________________________________________
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: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Niels Elgaard Larsen
Jo:
> Are they really people who see the tag man_made and go:
>
> Oh, women didn't contribute to this! The tag says so...

The same people that think that man_made=manhole* implies access:women=no

But i guess that would become human_made=humanhole

We will also have to make it healthcare=midhuman

> Isn't it obvious that man in this case stands for its original meaning: Mensch, ser
> humano, etc?
>
> Changing it in the database is trivially easy. Letting everyone who uses OSM data
> know and give them a chance to adapt to the change, not so much.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:16 AM Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     On 10/18/20 16:04, Oliver Simmons wrote:
>      > Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the
>      > present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
>      > It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was
>      > changed was a tag key.
>
>     +1
>
>     In addition to this, it increases revision and changeset counts needlessly.
>
>     --
>     Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     http://www.rantroulette.com <http://www.rantroulette.com>
>     http://www.skqrecordquest.com <http://www.skqrecordquest.com>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


--
Niels Elgaard Larsen

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

Re: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

nathan case
Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and somewhat distracting.

A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used.

Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority (if not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not naturally occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.

Other sources:
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/ 
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made

An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.

Best,

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

Re: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Robert Delmenico
Nice investigating Nathan,

I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.


Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal?
Change man_made= to artificial=

Rob


On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and somewhat distracting.

A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used.

Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority (if not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not naturally occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.

Other sources:
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made

An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.

Best,

Nathan
_______________________________________________
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: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Phake Nick
No, it would still require a mass edit and breaking changes that will come with disadvantages already listed by other participant of this discussion

在 2020年10月19日週一 18:42,Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> 寫道:
Nice investigating Nathan,

I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.


Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal?
Change man_made= to artificial=

Rob


On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and somewhat distracting.

A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used.

Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority (if not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not naturally occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.

Other sources:
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made

An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.

Best,

Nathan
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
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: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Jo-2
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico
It would be best to first consider the consequences of such a change. Weigh the benefits against what we lose in time (humanhours?) and resources/energy. And then there is still the point that many objects will get new timestamps for a change that's not really a change.

Anyway, artificial sounds like made up to me. artificial=dyke, not really a dyke, but it looks like it.

man_made has the advantage of being succinct. Most people will immediately understand what is meant by it. Almost nobody will think women were not involved in the creation of the feature.

Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nice investigating Nathan,

I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.


Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal?
Change man_made= to artificial=

Rob


On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and somewhat distracting.

A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used.

Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority (if not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not naturally occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.

Other sources:
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made

An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.

Best,

Nathan
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
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: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Peter Elderson
Another illusion shattered... where is this world going to?

Best, Peter Elderson

Op 19 okt. 2020 om 13:48 heeft Jo <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:


It would be best to first consider the consequences of such a change. Weigh the benefits against what we lose in time (humanhours?) and resources/energy. And then there is still the point that many objects will get new timestamps for a change that's not really a change.

Anyway, artificial sounds like made up to me. artificial=dyke, not really a dyke, but it looks like it.

man_made has the advantage of being succinct. Most people will immediately understand what is meant by it. Almost nobody will think women were not involved in the creation of the feature.

Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nice investigating Nathan,

I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.


Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal?
Change man_made= to artificial=

Rob


On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and somewhat distracting.

A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used.

Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority (if not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not naturally occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.

Other sources:
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made

An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.

Best,

Nathan
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
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: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Oliver Simmons
I'm in no way supporting the proposal, but this argument of 'it'll make the entities look fully up to date" is illogical. If taken to it's conclusion, nothing will ever be update again.

It's false to think that just because an entity was amended yesterday, it means it's up to date:
If a typo in a road's name is amended, but the road is left incorrectly tagged as 'tertiary' instead of 'primary' it's not up to date.

Likewise an entity previously amended 10 years ago doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

DaveF
 

On 18/10/2020 22:04, Oliver Simmons wrote:
Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was changed was a tag key.


On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, 22:02 Graeme Fitzpatrick, <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
*definitely* not something one does auomatically.

But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be done!)

Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace in a Word document?

& no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities behind it all, so please be gentle with explaining that I'm an idiot! :-)

Thanks

Graeme

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

_______________________________________________
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: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Tagging mailing list
Yes, latest update date can be a hint
but treating it is as an argument to avoid
making an edit is really weird to me.

19 paź 2020, 14:51 od [hidden email]:
I'm in no way supporting the proposal, but this argument of 'it'll make the entities look fully up to date" is illogical. If taken to it's conclusion, nothing will ever be update again.

It's false to think that just because an entity was amended yesterday, it means it's up to date:
If a typo in a road's name is amended, but the road is left incorrectly tagged as 'tertiary' instead of 'primary' it's not up to date.

Likewise an entity previously amended 10 years ago doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

DaveF
 


On 18/10/2020 22:04, Oliver Simmons wrote:
Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was changed was a tag key.


On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, 22:02 Graeme Fitzpatrick, <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
*definitely* not something one does auomatically.

But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be done!)

Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace in a Word document?

& no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities behind it all, so please be gentle with explaining that I'm an idiot! :-)

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list

_______________________________________________
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: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Jo-2
Irrelevant of any implied meaning, 'man_made' always appeared to be a clunky, catch-all tag. OSM was being a bit lazy.
I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural.  We really should come up with more specific, accurate key tags.

DaveF

On 19/10/2020 12:45, Jo wrote:
It would be best to first consider the consequences of such a change. Weigh the benefits against what we lose in time (humanhours?) and resources/energy. And then there is still the point that many objects will get new timestamps for a change that's not really a change.

Anyway, artificial sounds like made up to me. artificial=dyke, not really a dyke, but it looks like it.

man_made has the advantage of being succinct. Most people will immediately understand what is meant by it. Almost nobody will think women were not involved in the creation of the feature.

Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nice investigating Nathan,

I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.


Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal?
Change man_made= to artificial=

Rob


On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and somewhat distracting.

A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used.

Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority (if not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not naturally occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.

Other sources:
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made

An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.

Best,

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

_______________________________________________
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: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
That in a project to create an up to date map, there are people involved who get upset over things changing is, indeed, weird.

DaveF

On 19/10/2020 13:58, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Yes, latest update date can be a hint
but treating it is as an argument to avoid
making an edit is really weird to me.

19 paź 2020, 14:51 od [hidden email]:
I'm in no way supporting the proposal, but this argument of 'it'll make the entities look fully up to date" is illogical. If taken to it's conclusion, nothing will ever be update again.

It's false to think that just because an entity was amended yesterday, it means it's up to date:
If a typo in a road's name is amended, but the road is left incorrectly tagged as 'tertiary' instead of 'primary' it's not up to date.

Likewise an entity previously amended 10 years ago doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

DaveF
 


On 18/10/2020 22:04, Oliver Simmons wrote:
Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was changed was a tag key.


On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, 22:02 Graeme Fitzpatrick, <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
*definitely* not something one does auomatically.

But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be done!)

Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace in a Word document?

& no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities behind it all, so please be gentle with explaining that I'm an idiot! :-)

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list

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


_______________________________________________
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: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Phake Nick
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Breaking change come with a cost.
Whether it is worth is a question should be asked.

在 2020年10月19日週一 21:04,Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> 寫道:
Irrelevant of any implied meaning, 'man_made' always appeared to be a clunky, catch-all tag. OSM was being a bit lazy.
I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural.  We really should come up with more specific, accurate key tags.

DaveF

On 19/10/2020 12:45, Jo wrote:
It would be best to first consider the consequences of such a change. Weigh the benefits against what we lose in time (humanhours?) and resources/energy. And then there is still the point that many objects will get new timestamps for a change that's not really a change.

Anyway, artificial sounds like made up to me. artificial=dyke, not really a dyke, but it looks like it.

man_made has the advantage of being succinct. Most people will immediately understand what is meant by it. Almost nobody will think women were not involved in the creation of the feature.

Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nice investigating Nathan,

I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.


Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal?
Change man_made= to artificial=

Rob


On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and somewhat distracting.

A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used.

Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority (if not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not naturally occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.

Other sources:
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made

An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.

Best,

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

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

_______________________________________________
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: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

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.

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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> 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
[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: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Robert Delmenico
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, <[hidden email]> 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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1234