[Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 23 20:57:23 UTC 2020


On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 21:24, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

The term "hostile architecture" is too vague.
>

However, it is a "term of the art."  It's what it's called out in the real
world, so
is likely to be used in the media.  As with many phrases in colloquial
English, the sum is greater than the parts.  Most people in the UK
understand what is meant by "Listed Building" even though it is
impossible to discern the meaning from the component words.

Yes, the media does matter.  The first a mapper may know that benches
in a particular location have been replaced is a local newspaper saying
they've been replaced by hostile architecture.  After a survey to find out
where they are, the mapper then has to figure out how to map hostile
architecture.  It makes life simpler if we use that term.

As an alternative "anti-homeless" is also not precise enough.
>

I agree.  The intention may be to deter the homeless but it has an effect
upon everyone.  Those things are not just uncomfortable to sleep on,
most designs are uncomfortable to sit on.  They are hostile to everyone.


> So it would be better to change the order of words in the tags, e.g.
> "no_lying=" and "no_sitting=" , or just simplify to "sitting=prohibited"
> and "lying_down=prohibited" or similar. But I admit that none of those
> options are perfectly clear.
>

They are perfectly unclear.  Normal benches can have a sign saying "lying
down is prohibited" without being designed to make it difficult or
impossible.
Those phrases apply to legal usage, not to physical possibility.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200823/cd81dfde/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list