[Tagging] 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 <robert at rtbk.com.au> 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, <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging <
>> tagging at openstreetmap.org> 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
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201019/7cf8d2ad/attachment.htm>