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
They mean the same thing, we tag different aspects of a bridge with different tags.

All bridges are man_made and all bridges are bridges.

Therefore if the tag for man_made=bridge was changed to bridge=yes, and bridge=yes was used for both ways and areas then this would simplify the tagging of bridges.

One would then use bridge=construction instead of construction=bridge to match the standards used in buildings (building=construction).

If you take the buildings for example:
buildings=yes (area) is equivalent to man_made=building (not used) as all buildings are man_made, yet we don't tag it as man_made rather just building=yes for areas.

If building=yes applies to areas, why doesn't bridge=yes apply to areas?

The same stands for all other man_made tags. 

Most common man_made tags:
man_made=pier could become pier=yes
man_made=storage_tank could become storage_tank=yes or storage_tank=(content)

Perhaps I'll drop the gender argument and go with man_made is actually not required and perhaps we should tackle these one-by-one therefore reducing the immediate changes required.

Regards,

Rob.


On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 17:01, Jo <[hidden email]> wrote:
They do NOT mean the same thing. How they differ has already been mentioned 2 or 3 times in this thread.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 06:59 Robert Delmenico <[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

_______________________________________________
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

Andrew Harvey-3


On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:34 pm Robert Delmenico, <[hidden email]> wrote:
They mean the same thing, we tag different aspects of a bridge with different tags.

Not quite if I want to count how many bridges there are you'd count man_made=bridge. Counting bridge=yes would give you an overcount as it's only road segments on a bridge not a bridge.

_______________________________________________
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
But you could count the bridge=yes (areas) for number of bridges, and bridge=yes (ways) for number of bridges with roads crossing them.

Rob

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:52 pm Andrew Harvey, <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:34 pm Robert Delmenico, <[hidden email]> wrote:
They mean the same thing, we tag different aspects of a bridge with different tags.

Not quite if I want to count how many bridges there are you'd count man_made=bridge. Counting bridge=yes would give you an overcount as it's only road segments on a bridge not a bridge.
_______________________________________________
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 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.


they do not mean the same thing, one is a tag for a bridge, the other is a tag for highways, railways, waterways etc. to state they are on a 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

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico


sent from a phone

> On 20. Oct 2020, at 09:02, Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> But you could count the bridge=yes (areas) for number of bridges, and bridge=yes (ways) for number of bridges with roads crossing them.


no, bridge=yes areas could still be properties of polygon objects on bridges.

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

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico
On 19/10/2020 15:39, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to
> identify adult males.

That's your misinterpretation.

You think you're being original with your proposal, but it's not the
case. Every couple of years someone come along with the same argument.
The results are always the same - Nothing happens, because almost
everybody else comprehends the basics of the English language.

Option 4 is always the outcome.

DaveF




_______________________________________________
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
No.
In the context of OSM, think of man_made=bridge akin to a noun. The
actual bridge object.
bridge=* is akin to an adjective/attribute of an object.

DaveF

On 20/10/2020 05:56, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> Essentially though, they mean the same thing:
> man_made=bridge is for areas
> yes is for ways


_______________________________________________
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

Matthew Woehlke
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico
On 19/10/2020 18.46, Robert Delmenico wrote:
>> 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.'
>
> Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made?

Because someone with a PC stick up their <redacted> decided to declare
that "man made" meant "made by men" rather than "made by males" as used
to be the case.

<tongue position="in cheek">
Besides, the correct solution is clearly to restore the original meaning
of "man" to be gender neutral and to (re)introduce something else to
mean "an adult male".
</tongue>

--
Matthew

_______________________________________________
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

Matthew Woehlke
In reply to this post by Justin Tracey
On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:
> It's the same reason we want
> discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
> be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
> participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
> joining in.

...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to
polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as
encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of
being inimically opposed to "conservatives").

> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
> English-speaking men)

So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh,
wait, that would *still* be biased.

<soapbox>
The idea that you can make everyone happy is a delusion (source: John
Lydgate (disputed)). All we're seeing right now is that the SJW crowd
are making the most noise. The real issue is groups — *ANY* groups —
trying to force their ideology down other's throats and decide what
opinions are "allowed" and what aren't.

What needs to stop isn't "intolerance" (the SJW agenda isn't about
eliminating intolerance — quite the opposite! — but about replacing one
flavor with another), it's the inability to agree to disagree. Groups
should feel welcoming even to people with different opinions, rather
than vilifying anyone who disagrees with the group.
</soapbox>

--
Matthew

_______________________________________________
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


sent from a phone

> On 20. Oct 2020, at 13:20, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> You think you're being original with your proposal, but it's not the case. Every couple of years someone come along with the same argument.


but it’s fair to discuss every proposal on its own.


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

Justin Tracey
In reply to this post by Matthew Woehlke
On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:

> On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:
>> It's the same reason we want
>> discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
>> be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
>> participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
>> joining in.
>
> ...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to
> polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as
> encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of
> being inimically opposed to "conservatives").
>

I have no idea what "the SJW agenda" is, but it doesn't seem
relevant to the discussion anyway.

>> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
>> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
>> English-speaking men)
>
> So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh,
> wait, that would *still* be biased.

Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :)

>
> <soapbox>
> The idea that you can make everyone happy is a delusion (source: John
> Lydgate (disputed)). All we're seeing right now is that the SJW crowd
> are making the most noise. The real issue is groups — *ANY* groups —
> trying to force their ideology down other's throats and decide what
> opinions are "allowed" and what aren't.
>
> What needs to stop isn't "intolerance" (the SJW agenda isn't about
> eliminating intolerance — quite the opposite! — but about replacing one
> flavor with another), it's the inability to agree to disagree. Groups
> should feel welcoming even to people with different opinions, rather
> than vilifying anyone who disagrees with the group.
> </soapbox>
>

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to
grind with a strawman that hasn't come up in this discussion. Nobody
said anything about "intolerance", there is no vilifying here, and
nobody is "forcing" any opinions on anyone. If you have some specific
criticism of how someone is conducting themself, sure, bring it up, but
dragging the tagging mailing list into something that has no obvious
connection to tagging seems counterproductive.

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

Phake Nick


在 2020年10月21日週三 03:25,Justin Tracey <[hidden email]> 寫道:
On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
>> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
>> English-speaking men)
>
> So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh,
> wait, that would *still* be biased.

Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :)


At this point it's clear enough OP is just trolling?

_______________________________________________
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 dieterdreist
"Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting
Different Results"

On 20/10/2020 19:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> but it’s fair to discuss every proposal on its own.


_______________________________________________
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 Phake Nick
It appears so.

Pretending there is a bias, doesn't mean there is one.

DaveF

On 21/10/2020 02:34, Phake Nick wrote:
>
> At this point it's clear enough OP is just trolling?


_______________________________________________
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
Nope, not trolling - 

I have a genuine interest in what the OSM community thinks about the proposal. 

I for one though do think there is a bias - and I am entitled to hold that view. There are others that support my view so therefore it exists.

A proposal will still be put forward as planned. 

Kind regards,

Rob.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 12:48, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
It appears so.

Pretending there is a bias, doesn't mean there is one.

DaveF

On 21/10/2020 02:34, Phake Nick wrote:
>
> At this point it's clear enough OP is just trolling?


_______________________________________________
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

Matthew Woehlke
In reply to this post by Justin Tracey
On 20/10/2020 15.22, Justin Tracey wrote:

> On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:
>>> It's the same reason we want
>>> discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
>>> be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
>>> participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
>>> joining in.
>>
>> ...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to
>> polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as
>> encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of
>> being inimically opposed to "conservatives").
>
> I have no idea what "the SJW agenda" is, but it doesn't seem
> relevant to the discussion anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

If you don't see the relevance, I'm afraid I can't help you. The topic
under discussion is a prime facet of said agenda.

>>> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
>>> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
>>> English-speaking men)
>>
>> So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh,
>> wait, that would *still* be biased.
>
> Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :)

I don't mind discussing whether or not bias is present. I *do* mind
someone else assigning a bias to a group when no such bias exists.

> I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to
> grind [...]

True.

> [...] with a strawman that hasn't come up in this discussion. Nobody
> said anything about "intolerance", there is no vilifying here, and
> nobody is "forcing" any opinions on anyone.

Less true. This started as someone / some group deciding that our use of
a term that has been historically and widely recognized as
gender-neutral is biased.

Please note I'm not singling out the OP. In fact, I rather get the
impression he's just innocently exploring an idea that has been forced
on him. My objection isn't to this discussion as such, but to the groups
that ultimately caused us to be having it.

Ultimately, given the technical arguments against change, it's hard for
me to take a stance on the proposal *without* at least considering the
underlying reasons why such things come up in the first place. If I just
ignore those aspects, the obvious answer is that the proposal is
expensive and pointless... but ignoring SJWs is dangerous. (Again,
ironically; those people employ the exact same sorts of tactics they
vilify their opponents for using.)

Anyway, most of why I brought it up was in reply to "contributing and
participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and [anyone wishing to do so]
should feel welcome joining in." I wanted to express my agreement with
the goal, but *dis*agreement with the means of accomplishing that goal.

--
Matthew

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[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
Thank you all for the discussion around changing the tag man_made.

After careful consideration I have decided to abandon this proposal - mostly because the fact that the man_made tag is clearly a hodgepodge of tags that probably should be redefined as separate items.

Thanks for all your input, fair to say this process has been interesting at best.


Kind Regards,


Rob.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 00:50, Matthew Woehlke <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 20/10/2020 15.22, Justin Tracey wrote:
> On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:
>>> It's the same reason we want
>>> discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
>>> be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
>>> participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
>>> joining in.
>>
>> ...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to
>> polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as
>> encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of
>> being inimically opposed to "conservatives").
>
> I have no idea what "the SJW agenda" is, but it doesn't seem
> relevant to the discussion anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

If you don't see the relevance, I'm afraid I can't help you. The topic
under discussion is a prime facet of said agenda.

>>> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
>>> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
>>> English-speaking men)
>>
>> So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh,
>> wait, that would *still* be biased.
>
> Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :)

I don't mind discussing whether or not bias is present. I *do* mind
someone else assigning a bias to a group when no such bias exists.

> I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to
> grind [...]

True.

> [...] with a strawman that hasn't come up in this discussion. Nobody
> said anything about "intolerance", there is no vilifying here, and
> nobody is "forcing" any opinions on anyone.

Less true. This started as someone / some group deciding that our use of
a term that has been historically and widely recognized as
gender-neutral is biased.

Please note I'm not singling out the OP. In fact, I rather get the
impression he's just innocently exploring an idea that has been forced
on him. My objection isn't to this discussion as such, but to the groups
that ultimately caused us to be having it.

Ultimately, given the technical arguments against change, it's hard for
me to take a stance on the proposal *without* at least considering the
underlying reasons why such things come up in the first place. If I just
ignore those aspects, the obvious answer is that the proposal is
expensive and pointless... but ignoring SJWs is dangerous. (Again,
ironically; those people employ the exact same sorts of tactics they
vilify their opponents for using.)

Anyway, most of why I brought it up was in reply to "contributing and
participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and [anyone wishing to do so]
should feel welcome joining in." I wanted to express my agreement with
the goal, but *dis*agreement with the means of accomplishing that goal.

--
Matthew

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[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



On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 20:49, Robert Delmenico <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thank you all for the discussion around changing the tag man_made.

After careful consideration I have decided to abandon this proposal

Probably the best, because it tried to go too far in one go.

- mostly because the fact that the man_made tag is clearly a hodgepodge of tags that probably should be redefined as separate items.

Yes, as came out with the discussion that Anders raised about basic features, if we were starting them all off today, a lot of things in OSM would be done very differently!

Thanks for all your input, fair to say this process has been interesting at best.

Both of these discussions certainly have been! It will be interesting to see if anything comes of them in the long run?

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

Michael Patrick
In reply to this post by Robert Delmenico

> mostly because the fact that the man_made tag is clearly a hodgepodge of
> tags that probably should be redefined as separate items.

I pulled down some samples from various areas around the world, and loaded them into QGIS ( https://bit.ly/3ptp0AG  ).
A lot of the usage was very systematic, and obviously specific to projects, micro-communities or individuals. Some were seamarks, gauging stations, cell networks and other infrastructure components. The connotation in those specialized use contexts is much different than the very generic denotation one might find in the wiki, for example.
The difficulty is that the tag's meaning isn't isolated and stand alone, it contributes meaning along with the other tags on the object, so it can aid in categorization of that set.
For example, sometimes it seemed to refer to the placement base or foundation ( rock outcrop vs. a building that provides most of the elevation ), sometimes generalization of the particular material of the structure ( mounting of stream gauges ), other times as simply a very generic placeholder until more specific and detailed tagging could occur when compared to other objects in a set. So basically, there are potentially as many different specific meanings as features in various geographical regions it is applied to.- some seemed hyperlocal and others were sprinkled probably globally. If someone had OSM planet file super-powers, they could probably be able to roll through changesets to cluster and inventory the various collections by many iterations of queries,to assess the impact of a replacement change, but it would be impossible to know for sure if those results were correct.

Michael Patrick





Virus-free. www.avast.com

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