[OSM-newbies] 10. Re: Fwd: OSM (James Ewen)

[Aspen Swartz]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM, James Ewen <ve6srv at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> No matter what we end up doing, someone will find a reason to object.
> >> It's a never ending battle to try and make something that is
> >> everything to everyone.
> >
> > Maybe. But that's not a reason to continue using a blatantly Christian
> > symbol and pissing off *every* other religion.
>
> I'm going |o |ry and refrain from using |he le||er  |ha|  comes af|er
> "s" so I don'| offend anyone...
>
> You don't get it do you? No matter what you do, someone won't like
> it...


None the less, open street map uses symbols, and conventions have changed
over time.  Sometimes the first idea that a group comes up with is not the
best.

Yes, I understand that the cross is a Christian symbol. So you
> remove the symbol, and just fill with green... then someone complains
> because green symbolizes something special to them, and it's an
> affront to their sensibilities, or it clashes with their eyes or
> whatever.
>

It would be helpful if you waited for others to react hysterically before
you attribute it to them in advance.  Each one of the changes is discussed
beforehand, and those who don't like green have the chance to explain why it
wouldn't work for them.


>
> So, let's say we choose a "generic" tombstone as the symbol... look
> what I found with a quick search.
>
>
> http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/284,1972149/What-is-the-origin-of-erecting-a-tombstone-over-a-grave.html
> <quote>
> The custom of placing a monument over the grave of a departed person
> is an ancient Jewish tradition. The Book of Genesis records that Jacob
> erected a tombstone over the grave of his wife Rachel.
> <unquote>
>
> So, now the tombstone symbol can be attributed as a Jewish symbol, an
> affront to every other religion besides Judaism.
>

It is obviously not an affront to every other religion; if it were an
affront to Christians, Christians would not put them in their cemetaries.
Yes, you can make a silly argument that the tombstone has potential to
offend.  That is not interesting to me.  It would be interesting if someone
had some real objection to it.  The idea that it's hard to figure out what
it means is a real objection.

>
> I am in no way trying to promote one religion over another, and I have
> no affiliation with any religion myself. Nor do I intend to disrespect
> anyone's religion, although just discussing the matter has surely
> offended some. For that I apologize.


Starting with "You don't get it do you?" isn't the best way to avoid
offense, in my opinion.

All of these symbols are just
> that to me, just ideograms or pictographs... that's probably my
> problem, as I don't ascribe any special religious meaning to these
> symbols. I know that some symbols are affiliated with specific
> religions, but that's about it.
>
> People in general tend to associate specific ideas and concepts to
> symbols, and no matter how hard we try, someone somewhere will find a
> way to object to whatever is done.
>

But surely that doesn't mean that all objections are equal. The widely
shared objections and the deeply felt objections are more important.  It may
not be science to determine which objections are more important than others;
but it is quite doable.  No need to throw up our hands.


> While we are making symbols generic, let's make sure that a bank
> doesn't use a dollar sign in the icon... that doesn't represent all
> the world currencies... it would be an affront to Pounds Sterling,
> Yen, Dinars, the Euro, etc.
>
> I doubt that the monetary symbol would elicit as passionate a
> debate... religion is a very personal thing, and is probably one of
> the most common reasons behind wars. (I would think money being a
> close second)
>
> Everyone has the right to believe in whatever they like, but everyone
> also needs to remember to be tolerant of the fact that not everyone
> believes what you believe.
>

And I'd like to point that I don't share your (apparent) belief that all
objections are equally unworthy of our consideration.

>
> I agree that the Christian cross is inappropriate to represent grave
> sites of every religion. But it's going to be extremely difficult to
> try and come up with a non-denominational non-confrontational way of
> depicting the area on a map.
>
> Would having just a plain fill colour be acceptable, and if a religion
> is specified, and a symbol is available, fill with that? Would there
> then be a problem because some religions get symbols of their faith
> while other religions just get a generic fill?
>
> This is a very complex issue, not easily solved. That's all I'm trying
> to point out.
>
> James
> VE6SRV
>
>
Despite the ambiguity of a gravestone image, I think it would still be an
improvement over the cross- not just because the cross is not the right
symbol for a Jewish cemetery, but because the cross is itself ambiguous.  To
me it looks like "Christian spot".  It could be a cemetery or a church or a
holy spot. The star of David has the same problem- to this non-Christian,
non-Jewish map reader, it would mean "Jewish thing here".  Maybe it's more
obvious to others.

It's true that many cemeteries don't allow standing tombstones anymore, but
it is common practice to use the image of an old tradition as an icon for
the thing, even though the form has moved on- for example "school" is marked
as a blackboard on a tripod, though most schools in the US don't use
blackboards anymore, and certainly wouldn't use them on a wooden tripod (too
heavy and tippy).  But it looks like an iconic school image to me even
though I've never used one. The nightclub symbol is a record player, the
courthouse is a beam scale of a sort that no one I know has ever used or
seen.  But I've seen many images of that scale to represent the justice
system.  I could go on...

I think the rectangle with a semicircular top reads more clearly as a
tombstone if it has a few lines (representing text) across it.  And to my
eye, a couple of recangles-with-round tops, one in front of the other, is
clearer yet.

-Aspen (eulochon)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/attachments/20100311/c8d97f38/attachment.html>