Disambiguation between statue and sculptural group

General talk Tagging general discussion
25

The proposal was approved in 2007 and did not include relations. There is a discussion on the wiki about this topic.

26

Well, there is your answer. OSM tags (As defined by their wiki pages) are not the same thing as similar-looking English words. While almost always at least somewhat related, often they do not mean exactly the same thing.

examples (click to expand)

For example shop=farm is not a commercial establishment where you would buy a piece of agricultural land.
Nor is highway=bus_stop some strange type of highway.
Neither can you buy specialized slaves at shop=hairdresser.

There are many more examples at e.g. Counterintuitive keys and values - OpenStreetMap Wiki

Wiki says (and has been saying for many years) that artwork_type=statue “is a sculpture representing one or more people or animals”. So it is how it has been used, and thus, how it should continue to be used (lest we unleash massive problems on ourselves - see below).

So even if everyone agreed that artwork_type=statue definition is wrong and must be changed (which is unlikely to happen), there is still the issue of existing 50k+ uses. They would all become ambiguous (as one would no longer know if they depict one or more persons), and thus one would have to invent both artwork_type=single_statue and artwork_type=multiple_statues and then deprecate all existing artwork_type=statue and then proceed to re-resuvey all of them and tag them with new values.

It would be (hopefully needless to say) too much work for very little gain; i.e. a bad idea.

So, if we agree that people have been mapping artwork_type=statue as it was defined in the OSM wiki all this time (meaning: both for single and for multiple statues), and you find a difference important to be mechanically processed (i.e. just description=* intended for human consumption isn’t good enough for you), an useful tagging instead might be:

  • a new tag like statue:count=3 that would get added to existing artwork_type=statue in order to better describe it. Then all existing artwork_type=statue would continue to work as they did before, and you and other interested parties could add more detail (i.e. how many statues are shown) at a tempo that suits you.
1 Like
27

Nor is it appropriate to solve the difficulty I find in mapping these artworks as statues. I have repeated several times in this thread that a sculptural group is not a number of statues. A sculptural group is a singular artwork. Example 2 is not four statues, it is a singular sculpture depicting 4 people. Example 3, although someone may mistakenly think it is four artworks, it is not: it is a single artwork, a sculptural group, formed in this case by four statues each representing a person.

Reducing the difference between a statue and a sculptural group to the number of statues is a conceptual error. Sculptural groups are not just sculptures representing more than one person/animal. They are also the composition or action represented, the interaction between the figures. They are not a random number of statues placed together in one place. They are a singular artwork in their own right, different from a statue.

michelangelos-pieta
Example 4. PietĂ  by Michelangelo, an example of sculptural group. Source: image by Torbjorn Toby Jorgensen (CC BY-SA 2.0) available on Wikimedia Commons.

28

And I agree with you that “sculptural group is not a number of statues”.

What you seem not to understand is my point that OSM tag artwork_type=statue which (albeit similar to the English word “statue”) does not represent “a statue”.

Instead, it represents something else, which is a category (or a set of possibilities, if you will) which includes “statue”, “statues”, “sculptural group” (and quite probably few other things too).
It is clearly and explicitly defined in such a way. We may dislike its “OSM wiki definition” and its divergence from English dictionary definition of a word “statue”, but we can’t change what it means at this point in time - it is what it is, and people use it like it is defined (and was defined for many years).

We may however use additional tags to clarify more precisely what that artwork_type=statue actually is. We may provide that clarification in several ways:

  • by popular human-readable tag description=This sculptural group depicts dead Jesus in a lap of Virgin Mary (advantage: popular and very well supported)
  • by using structural wikidata tags: wikidata=Q107338575 (sculptural set) + subject:wikidata=Q302 (Jesus)
  • by inventing machine-readable OSM-specific refinement tags like statue:people_count=2 or artwork_type:animal_count=0 (or some other scheme which you find less ambiguous and more to the point). Disadvantage of this method is that ATYL will be mostly ignored by editors and other data consumers unless it becomes very popular and/or significant effort is put into its advertisement.
  • combination of above

If I was interested mostly in human consumption, I’d likely stick only with first point of using description=* and call it a day. If I however really cared about a subject and thought machine-readable e.g. querying is warranted, I might combine it with second point. (I’d probably also be more invested in wikipedia, wikimedia_commons and wikidata by that point!)

1 Like
29

Don’t worry about what I understand. That is my business. Comment on what you wish to comment on.

This point of view does not seem constructive to me: things are the way they are and you can’t do anything to change it. I don’t think that’s the spirit of the OpenStreetMap community.

I already understand your position. Thanks anyway.

P.S.: I know how to use the description key. It is not the best solution for me on this topic. I am using it anyway to describe artworks, fountains and memorials (in progress).

30

That come across needlessly abrasive :slightly_frowning_face: It was not my intention to say something bad, it just seemed like you missed the main point of my post, as you replied to it, but did not comment at main point at all, so it seemed possible you’ve got sidetracked and missed it completely. Thus my attempt to clarify and draw your attention to it.


 like it happens again here - I’ve mentioned three different tagging strategies, and you again comment that you know one of them, but find it lacking. What about other two? To me it seems like you didn’t even see second and third suggestion. So I’m tempted to call your attention to them again. But judging by your tone, it not seems possible the alternatively explanation, that you’re intentionally avoiding acknowledging them for some reason, which I don’t understand? (why would someone ask for suggestions, and then intentionally ignore them? It doesn’t make sense to me - it seems more prudent to assume the best - that you’ve simply got carried away at first point and missed the rest of them)

Any Tag You Like (Which is what I assume you mean by “spirit of OpenStreetMap community”) very clearly states “And of course, unilaterally changing the definition of existing tags or keys is not OK”.

And yet, that seems to be what you’re proposing in this thread: changing the meaning of existing artwork_type=statue to mean single statue (and supplementing it by new artwork_type=sculptural_group which is to mean what was previously also meant by artwork_type=statue). Even your poll is a fake choice between 4 equally bad options.

If one were to do that, it would create ambiguity where situation was clear previously. Anyone looking at artwork_type=statue would no longer know what it means (previous definition which includes sculptural group, or new one which excludes it) because of that change. It would thus be highly unwanted - for hopefully obvious reasons.

Also, it is not that “you can’t do anything to change it”. It’s just that extraordinary changes require extraordinary amount of preparation and work – and changing a meaning of so popular key is extraordinary change.
There exists Proposal process (especially “Due diligence” section and part about depreciation) if there were a huge need for such destructive change - but I don’t see even a trace of such need in this specific case. Especially as there are other (immensely less destructive) methods to accomplish the same purpose (which I’ve suggested in my previous post, and @Kovoschiz in theirs).

1 Like
31

The fact that I don’t comment point by point everything others suggest doesn’t mean that I don’t understand them. The fact that some solutions do not seem satisfactory to me should not lead them to judge my tone (?).

I created this thread to share my experience, my desire to improve the tagging (if possible) and to know the opinion of the community. I already understood your position on this topic.

32

You are by no means obliged to do it, but it contributes to discussion greatly if you evaluate suggestions given by others and detail why are they unsuitable for your purposes (i.e. what is your end goal, and which part of such suggestions fall short of that goal, and why some other solutions are contributing to that goal).

33

Please, don’t insist. You have completely misunderstood the scope and purpose of this thread.

I wanted to avoid having to defend myself against personal accusations and open a discussion in which I am not interested. I did not propose to unilaterally change anything. If you think that, that’s your problem.

34
Apologies and misunderstandings (click to expand)

I am not (nor I was) “insisting”, I only did suggest that it would be nice if you would share your thoughts on why you think some suggested schemes would work, and other wouldn’t. I even explicitly (and redundantly) stated that “you are by no means obliged to do it” so it wouldn’t be misunderstood as “order”. In vain, it seems :cry:
And yes, if you do not wish to explain, that is your choice and I respect it.

I apologize if you felt accused of something by me, that was certainly not my intention. :heart: That "And of course, unilaterally changing the definition of existing tags or keys is not OK” was literal quote from “Any tag you like” wiki (which is why it has that implied “you” / “unilaterally”) - not because I wanted to accuse you personally of secretly trying to do it, or anything like that!

If you look at it in the context, the point of copying that quote was to explain that in general redefinition of what tags mean after they’re widely used is bad idea. And the quote was there only because your previous wording seemed to indicate that you think that redefining it would be a good idea, and I wanted to point to general consensus that it would not be a good idea to do that.

And again, I did not accuse you of “unilaterally changing anything”, nor did I think that at any point, and now I feel wrongly accused too by your retort (like you seemingly was by my quoting!). There is no need for that.
It was just a literal quote. There was no cause to take it personally. I again apologize if you misread it in way that made you feel you need to defend yourself. It is likely a simple language barrier / cultural difference in how people talk. I do wish you well. :peace_symbol:

Anyway, if you still want to discuss that interpersonal misunderstandings further, I’d prefer if we move it to private messages; I doubt it is useful to others in the thread. :man_shrugging:

To get back to the topic; what this thread started with (at least how it looks to me) was (among other things) your proposition to change a meaning of existing tag from currently documented :

A statue is a sculpture representing one or more people or animals (including abstract concepts allegorically represented as people or animals)

to your proposed:

To me, it looks like a proposition to change a meaning of existing tag from “one or more” to “one (only)”?
Do you agree with my interpretation? (Or, if I’m misunderstanding what you meant there, would you care to clarify what you meant exactly?)

35

If you think that proposing a change to the wiki and commenting on the proposal in this forum to get community feedback before making any changes is the same as unilaterally proposing to change something, you have completely misunderstood the scope and purpose of this thread.

I have nothing further to add about your interpretation. It is yours and you have already explained it.

36

I would appreciate @dcapillae if you would stop repeatedly putting in my mouth things that I never said of you (“unilaterally proposing to change something”), and which I in fact have explained several times by now (last time in much detail in the very post you’re replying to!) that it was not what I was saying nor what I intended to imply you are trying to do! Such implied accusations are just coming off as rude, and do not add any value to the discussion. :frowning_face:

Then don’t. While it is unfortunate that you don’t want to participate in discussion and clarify what you meant, it is your prerogative. I’ll then have to continue assuming that you’re still standing by your proposal to retroactively change a meaning of well defined and popular tag artwork_type=statue against wiki recommendations, thus making that clear tag needlessly become ambiguous.

Sure. There are other people though, who care about that tag and would like to see it continue to work nicely as it did so far, instead of it being irreparably damaged. While I would prefer that you explain your position too (like I did mine) to remove any unclear assumptions, you seem to not be interested in that.
You are well within your rights to refuse to explain what you meant, but do note that it hugely increases the likelihood that people might be misinterpreting what you meant.

I would however appreciate if you’d agree to refrain from changing the meaning of that tag on the wiki without getting approval through more formal proposal process which would it give it wider scrutiny, especially given there is clear conflict of opinions, so status quo should be preserved until interested parties with opposing views can reach an amicable agreement. Would you agree to that?

37

I would appreciate it if you would stop assuming what is not. I am not proposing “unilaterally changing the definition of existing tags or keys”.

I created this thread to get feedback from the community. I sent a message to the tagging mailing list to get the opinion of the subscribers. I’ve commented it on the wiki for contributors interested in that tag. I even shared it on social media. That is not the attitude of someone who proposes to make unilateral changes without taking into account the opinion of the community.

I am not interested in your interpretation. I will no longer respond to your false insinuations. Enough is enough.

P.S.: When I make any unilateral changes to the wiki, post them here and we’ll discuss them. In the meantime, please, stop assuming bad faith where there is none about things that haven’t happened.

38

And, for the hundreth time, I’m NOT saying that you are.
And, for the hundreth time, I’m NOT saying that you are.
And, for the hundreth time, I’m NOT saying that you are. Can you hear me? Why do you keep bringing it up even after it was explained several times that you simply misunderstood it?

Here are some quotes and explanations of that which you systematically choose to ignore like they were never made (at least is so seems after so many attempts to clarify what was meant, and as many your refusals to even acknowledge they were even made, much less accept them. If you want to look for example of bad faith, you need look no further).
I try not to assume bad blood, but that does have all the symptoms of ad hominem attack. Yet, even after all that, I do not accuse you of it (but mention it so you may want to reconsider your approach to be more about tagging itself, and less about people who disagree with your proposed course of action. Would you agree that it is a worthy cause?)

Yet, you over and again choose to completely ignore and disregard all those explanations and attempts to clear up misunderstandings, even after they are explained to you multiple times, and instead seem to insist to clinging to some accusation that exist only in your mind, and not in reality (even as it has been clarified to you multiple times!).

Are those explanations why you misunderstood that quote unclear? Why do you systematically chose to avoid corrections people provide to you? How many times do you want me to try to explain that you completely misunderstood the reasoning behind that use of a ATYL quote?

That is not the attitude of someone who proposes to make unilateral changes without taking into account the opinion of the community.

And nobody ever claimed that you didn’t consult the forums/lists/etc, nor that you intend to unilateral changes. Yet even after it is explained multiple times to you, you still ignore those explanations. Why? Only you can tell, yet (so far) you to refuse to.

I’ll repeat my question which you (again) seem to have ignored:

Can I bother you to answer that question with simple “YES” or “NO”? Do you agree to that, or not? It’s a simple enough question, and if there is no bad blood, there is no reason to avoid answering it (or pretending like it was never asked).

39

| Matija_Nalis Croatia moderator
April 13 |

  • | - |

Wiki says (and has been saying for many years) that artwork_type=statue “is a sculpture representing one or more people or animals”. So it is how it has been used, and thus, how it should continue to be used (lest we unleash massive problems on ourselves - see below).

I would question this definition. Seems it has been copied over from wikipedia in 2018 and should be redacted :slight_smile: They have fixed it in the meantime in WP, but not in OSM :wink:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Statue&oldid=819976818

So even if everyone agreed that artwork_type=statue definition is wrong and must be changed (which is unlikely to happen), there is still the issue of existing 50k+ uses.

how many of them will likely be wrong sfter we change the definition? I would not expect so many, but maybe I’m wrong. Not sure if people typically choose the value “statue” from what they expect it to mean (a statue) or by reading the wiki definitions.

They would all become ambiguous (as one would no longer know if they depict one or more persons), and thus one would have to invent both artwork_type=single_statue and artwork_type=multiple_statues and then deprecate all existing artwork_type=statue and then proceed to re-resuvey all of them and tag them with new values.

Yes, they would generally become a little bit less reliable, at least for some time (because people keep fixing problems), but saying they would all be ambigous doesn’t feel correct because most of them will still fit the statue definition also after removing groups of statues from the tag, and you can also expect some outliers now, without any modification.

Cheers,

Martin

40

This has already been clarified: I am not obliged to answer everything, nor do I have to do so immediately. Not responding immediately to everything does not mean that I am ignoring the comments or that I do not understand them.

This was also clarified: I appreciate all comments even if the proposed solutions do not satisfy me. The fact that a solution does not seem satisfactory to me should not lead anyone to judge my tone (?) or think that I do not appreciate their comments.

This has also been clarified. Several times.

As you can see, everything has already been clarified.

41

I propose to abandon this discussion to return to the main topic of this thread. I’m going to try asking you directly about a question.

I am interested in knowing how a native English speaker would refer to a sculpture of the type I am here referring to as a “sculptural group”. @Kovoschiz proposed some alternative denominations: statue set, statue group, sculpture group. I understand that it would be most convenient to use the most common English denomination.

Assuming someone would use a tag to identify this type of sculptures (no one is proposing to create it unilaterally), what value would you use?

42

Hm, I don’t see that change neither on ID you’ve quoted, nor near it, not in latest revision. The current revision seems to say:

A statue is a free-standing sculpture in which the realistic, full-length figures of persons or animals are carved or cast in a durable material such as wood, metal or stone

That “s” in “figures”, “persons”, “animals” denotes plural, and not singular. Also, many of the example pictures in that wikipedia article clearly show multiple persons and animals (e.g. “Hermes and the Infant Dionysus”, “Laocoön and his Sons”, “Moai of Easter Island”, “The Burghers of Calais”, " Marcus Aurelius" etc.)

But that is not even the point how the OSM wiki historically got its definition. What is important is that OSM wiki has been used as a reference in all that years since. So people and editors have been using it by that (plural) definition.

For example, StreetComplete memorial quest picture for “statue” does not show “single person/animal” but two of them, so practically anybody who solved that quest (at last several thousands of changesets last time I looked) were guided by that picture.

I don’t know even how to estimate. Maybe 20-30%? Perhaps more in older countries. Most statues that comes to mind here are persons on horses, or persons slaying dragons, or religious or historical events ones which are mostly multiple persons. Single persons are way more likely to be artwork_type=bust instead (over here).

Yes, but the point of proposal to change things should be to make things better, and not worse (even if damage done could’ve been much worse if even worse idea was implemented, it’s not an excuse to deliberately go damaging data with excuse “yeah, but I could’ve damaged it much worse, so it is OK”) :smiley:

Especially as there are several available alternatives (mentioned before, so I won’t copy, unless you can’t find them) that avoid that problem completely, and only improve by adding such details to the data. Some of them are even currently being used (by just adding extra details, instead of damaging existing data and making it more ambiguous)

43

Very well, as a sign of goodwill, I will for now close my eyes to non-answers of that last monologue of yours (even if my fingers itch to respond :smiling_face:). Thanks for choosing to invest time on actual tagging proposition.

Searching for that knowledge is well and fine (although “sculptural group” and the like would likely only be used by art majors, not random English-speaking person on the street, nor OSM mapper).

This however, is false dichtomy. There are way more than 4 ways to “disambiguate between statue and sculptural group”, and you should’ve included at least “something else entirely” option in your poll. This way, vote is rigged as all the answers modify artwork_type=* values in some way (which is your desired outcome).

I’ll create a less problematic poll.

44

Here is better poll, which compiles (hopefully all) currently suggested options:

Note: statue_group value may be replaced by any of the preferred alternatives (like sculpture_group, statue_set, sculptural_group etc) – this poll is only about what method is most acceptable, not what exact name of key/value pair should be. After the method is decided, most fitting value can be decided later.

  • artwork_type=statue + statue=statue_group (preserves current meaning of artwork_type=statue meaning both single and multiple people/animals, and only adds details indicating there are multiple of them depicted. statue=* is already used 706 times)
  • artwork_type=sculpture + sculpture_type=statue_group (Sculpture is more generic term which includes both single statue and statue groups. This only adds details indicating there are multiple people and/or animals depicted. sculpture_type=* is already used 102 times)
  • artwork_type=statue + description=sculpture group depicting xxxx and yyyy (advantage: does not make current tagging ambiguous, description key is wildly supported, can add even more data then just single person / multiple persons qualification)
  • artwork_type=statue_group (Warning: makes all existing artwork_type=statue ambiguous! Advantage: only invents new value, not a new key)
  • artwork_type=statue + sculpture_group=yes (advantage: does not make current tagging ambiguous, adds machine-readable detail)
  • artwork_type=statue + statue:people_count=2 + statue:animal_count=1 (advantage: does not make current tagging ambiguous, adds machine-readable detail in even more detail)
  • artwork_type=statue + wikidata=Q107338575 (Q107338575=sculptural set. Advantage: wikidata is already used, adding it does not make current tagging ambiguous, adds more or less detail as wanted via both human-readable and machine queryable structured wikidata)
  • Something completely different is needed (please add post describing your idea)

0 voters