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

Phake Nick
I feel like it is a cherry-picked list of comment.

在 2020年10月19日週一 22:42,Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> 寫道:

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

_______________________________________________
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

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico


Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]>:
Some great points here. Good to hear the points of views of all of you. Look forward to hearing more feedback.

Kind regards,

Rob


I am delighted to read you like the idea of switching to German language for tagging.

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

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 15:04 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]>:
I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural. 


if we push this forward, humans are part of the natural world as well. Lets get rid of these dichotomies, and strive for a unified vision of the world, where human and nature aren't opposing poles but where the humans live in and with the nature, as part of it.

And yes, if we are moving away from "man made" we can at this point also have a look how the objects under this key could be organized better. I agree that "artificial" would not be beneficial in this context, but rather a renaming with the same issues (or even worse, think of things like "man_made=works", wouldn't it be horrible to have "artificial=works"?)


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

Peter Elderson
Or, let's acknowledge that many distinctions are pointless because an awful lot of primary keys just mean "thing", so the key does not really matter, only the value counts. Who cares what the *  in *=bus_stop says, it's a bus stop.

Peter Elderson

Op 19 okt. 2020 om 19:43 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:


Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 15:04 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]>:
I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural. 


if we push this forward, humans are part of the natural world as well. Lets get rid of these dichotomies, and strive for a unified vision of the world, where human and nature aren't opposing poles but where the humans live in and with the nature, as part of it.

And yes, if we are moving away from "man made" we can at this point also have a look how the objects under this key could be organized better. I agree that "artificial" would not be beneficial in this context, but rather a renaming with the same issues (or even worse, think of things like "man_made=works", wouldn't it be horrible to have "artificial=works"?)


Cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
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

Justin Tracey
In reply to this post by Shawn K. Quinn
On 2020-10-19 4:13 a.m., Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

> 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.
>

I don't feel particularly strongly about this change either way, but to
say it has "zero actual benefit" seems like a pretty obvious exaggeration.

A lot of this thread has been on the ramifications on the database, on
data consumers, and on people being offended or misinformed, but these
seem to be missing the point changes like this are supposed to have. The
reason changes like this are useful is they serve as cultural markers
for community openness and understanding. 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. 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), even if those hints were just a result of change
in zeitgeist or popular language norms, then that has an impact on the
sort of people we attract as a community. (As an extreme example, it was
mentioned elsewhere that tags are nearly arbitrary identifiers, but if
all tags were randomly selected bits of profanity, I'm guessing everyone
here would agree, the community would be a lot smaller, and leave out a
lot of the more professional-oriented contributors.)

Now, whether the impact this specific tag has is of sufficient weight to
accept the costs others have mentioned (most notable IMHO being the
impact on current data consumers), well that's the discussion we should
be having. But hyperbole like "[this] makes zero sense and smacks of
change for the sake of change" is not a helpful part of that discussion.

Thanks,
 - Justin

_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico
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
[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 Justin Tracey
On 10/19/20 15:01, Justin Tracey wrote:
> I don't feel particularly strongly about this change either way, but
> to say it has "zero actual benefit" seems like a pretty obvious
> exaggeration.

How about naming the benefits this has, from your point of view, then?
It's a lot of work to change all 4 million of these tags, and we lose
the last edited date when we do this (i.e. if something hasn't been
touched for 5 years, and we make this frivolous change from man_made=*
to human_made=*, the object then shows as last edited that day, not 5
years ago).

> A lot of this thread has been on the ramifications on the database, on
> data consumers, and on people being offended or misinformed, but these
> seem to be missing the point changes like this are supposed to have. The
> reason changes like this are useful is they serve as cultural markers
> for community openness and understanding.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here.

> Now, whether the impact this specific tag has is of sufficient
> weight to accept the costs others have mentioned (most notable IMHO
> being the impact on current data consumers), well that's the
> discussion we should be having. But hyperbole like "[this] makes zero > sense and smacks of change for the sake of change" is not a helpful>
part of that discussion.

Maybe it's not helpful to you. But I would like to think that the
opinion of someone who has contributed to the project for eight years
actually counts for something.

I'll repeat it: Making this change will destroy data on 4 million
objects for zero actual benefit, and for a primary reason that make zero
sense besides change for the sake of change. It should not be made for
at least these reasons, if not others as well. In fact, looking at it
again, the more I think this is likely a frivolous or joke proposal, and
should not even go as far as a vote. Something tells me if this was a
tag like highway=* we were talking about, we wouldn't even be having
this discussion.

--
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

Robert Delmenico
In reply to this post by Niels Elgaard Larsen
Please read this article:





'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'



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? 





'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, <[hidden email]> 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
[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
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

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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please read this article:





'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'



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? 





'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, <[hidden email]> 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
[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

Walker Bradley-2
I certainly support Rob’s view on *=yes

Or if we want something similar to man_made=*, we have natural= we could also have unnatural=

On Oct 19, 2020, at 22:55, Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:


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

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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please read this article:





'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'



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? 





'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, <[hidden email]> 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
[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
Bridge=yes is used as a complementary tag on highway and railway objects.

I was thinking of construction=bridge, but that already has another meaning in OSM context.

I really don't like artificial as a tag. Maybe constructed_by_people... Can't say that I like that either.

Polyglot

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 00:55 Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:
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

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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please read this article:





'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'



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? 





'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, <[hidden email]> 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
[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

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico



On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 20:14, nathan case <[hidden email]> wrote:

Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and constructed" as options instead of man-made.

Out of those options, I personally think either "MANufactured" :-), or "constructed" would be good choices.

Of course, as mentioned, what do we do with beaver dams & wasp (& any other type of) nests, animal burrows & so on?

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 00:42, Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide that as I am a adult male. 

But I note that, despite there being at least a few ladies who subscribe to this list (at least going by their user names!), none of them have yet weighed into the discussion?

Thanks

Graeme



_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Walker Bradley-2
I like that!

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:59 am Walker Bradley, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I certainly support Rob’s view on *=yes

Or if we want something similar to man_made=*, we have natural= we could also have unnatural=

On Oct 19, 2020, at 22:55, Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:


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

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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please read this article:





'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'



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? 





'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, <[hidden email]> 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
[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

Robert Delmenico
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
|   Of course, as mentioned, what do we do with beaver dams & wasp (& any other type of) nests, animal burrows & so on? 

Would they be considered natural? a definition is "existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind." https://www.lexico.com/definition/natural

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 20:14, nathan case <[hidden email]> wrote:

Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and constructed" as options instead of man-made.

Out of those options, I personally think either "MANufactured" :-), or "constructed" would be good choices.

Of course, as mentioned, what do we do with beaver dams & wasp (& any other type of) nests, animal burrows & so on?

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 00:42, Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide that as I am a adult male. 

But I note that, despite there being at least a few ladies who subscribe to this list (at least going by their user names!), none of them have yet weighed into the discussion?

Thanks

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

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico


sent from a phone

> On 20. Oct 2020, at 00:55, Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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


clearly not, we are already using both. man_made=bridge is a feature, and every instance of this tag is representing a bridge.
bridge=yes is a property, we add it to highways and railways, and many instances of this tag can point to the very same bridge.

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

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico



On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 09:12, Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:

Using your own source to disprove your arguments!


"Made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made naturally)"

So nothing to do with men, as opposed to women!

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
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 10/19/20 09:39, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> 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

What's so wrong with #4 here? What exact problem are we solving by
changing 4 million objects in the database to some other key?

--
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

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico



20 paź 2020, 00:52 od [hidden email]:
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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please read this article:





'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'



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? 





'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, <[hidden email]> 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 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
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, <[hidden email]> wrote:



20 paź 2020, 00:52 od [hidden email]:
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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please read this article:





'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'



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? 





'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, <[hidden email]> 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 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
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 <[hidden email]> 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, <[hidden email]> wrote:



20 paź 2020, 00:52 od [hidden email]:
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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please read this article:





'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'



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? 





'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, <[hidden email]> 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 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
1234