[Tagging] 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, <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> 20 paź 2020, 00:52 od robert at rtbk.com.au:
>
> 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, <robert at rtbk.com.au> wrote:
>
> Please read this article:
>
>
> https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra&page=usage_7_gender_neutral_writing_questions_usage
>
>
>
>
> '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'
>
>
>
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/not-everything-is-man-made-13-amazing-inventions-you-can-thank-women-for/
>
> 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?
> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/man-made
>
>
>
>
>
> '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, <elgaard at agol.dk>
> 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 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/20201020/7444de89/attachment-0001.htm>