I have no additional comments. As I said, it could be an alternative solution (maybe the best), but the current use of the sculpture or sculpture_type tag is ambiguous. It can be verified in Taginfo and also on the wiki.
Current usage is ambiguous, as some tags describe the material (,), others describe the subject (e.g., dolphin) and others describe something more akin to a traditional typology of sculpture (e.g., bust, frieze, bas-relief)
On the other hand, this alternative tagging does not solve the main problem. These sculptural groups should be mapped as artwork_type=statue according to the wiki. IMHO any alternative solution that does not clarify this point first would not be appropriate (see artwork_type=statue).
A statue is a sculpture representing one or more people or animals (including abstract concepts allegorically represented as people or animals), normally full-length, as opposed to a bust, and at least close to life-size, or larger.
OSM contributors are mapping individual statues as artwork_type=statue, and non-individual statues (sculptural groups) as artwork_type=statue because that is what the wiki says. I also do it and will continue to do it to avoid discussions on the map. At least, as long as there is no more appropriate tagging.
What if you use an area tagged artwork_type=multi-part to show that a group of artistic objects should be treated as a single artistic work. This would then allow for multiple works to be included artwork_type=collection
Iâm not sure if I understood it correctly. The tourism=arwork tag does not allow the use of relations, although an area could be used.
As for the use of collection as a value, it does not seem appropriate. A sculptural group is not a collection of artworks or statues as can be seen in a gallery or museum. It is a single artwork.
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.
Wiki says (and has been saying for many years) that artwork_type=statueâis a sculpture representing one or more people or animalsâ. 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_statueandartwork_type=multiple_statuesand then deprecate all existing artwork_type=statueand 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 isnât 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.
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.
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.
And I agree with you that âsculptural group is not a number of statuesâ.
What you seem not to understand is my point that OSM tagartwork_type=statue which (albeit similar to the English word âstatueâ) does not represent âa statueâ.
Instead, it represents something else, which is a category (or a set of possibilities, if you will) which includesâstatueâ, âstatuesâ, âsculptural groupâ (and quite probably few other things too).
It is clearly and explicitly defined in such a way. We may dislike its âOSM wiki definitionâ and its divergence from English dictionary definition of a word âstatueâ, but we canât 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=statueactually 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 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, Iâd 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. (Iâd probably also be more invested in wikipedia, wikimedia_commons and wikidata by that point!)
Donât 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 canât do anything to change it. I donât think thatâs 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).
That come across needlessly abrasive 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 youâve got sidetracked and missed it completely. Thus my attempt to clarify and draw your attention to it.
⌠like it happens again here - Iâve 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 didnât even see second and third suggestion. So Iâm tempted to call your attention to them again. But judging by your tone, it not seems possible the alternatively explanation, that youâre intentionally avoiding acknowledging them for some reason, which I donât understand? (why would someone ask for suggestions, and then intentionally ignore them? It doesnât make sense to me - it seems more prudent to assume the best - that youâve 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 âspirit of OpenStreetMap communityâ) very clearly states âAnd of course, unilaterally changing the definition of existing tags or keys is not OKâ.
And yet, that seems to be what youâre 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 âyou canât do anything to change itâ. Itâs just that extraordinary changes require extraordinary amount of preparation and work â and changing a meaning of so popular key is extraordinary change.
There exists Proposal process (especially âDue diligenceâ section and part about depreciation) if there were a huge need for such destructive change - but I donât 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 Iâve suggested in my previous post, and @Kovoschiz in theirs).
The fact that I donât comment point by point everything others suggest doesnât mean that I donât 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.
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).
Please, donât 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, thatâs your problem.
I am not (nor I was) âinsistingâ, 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 wouldnât. I even explicitly (and redundantly) stated that âyou are by no means obliged to do itâ so it wouldnât be misunderstood as âorderâ. In vain, it seems
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. That "And of course, unilaterally changing the definition of existing tags or keys is not OKâ was literal quote from âAny tag you likeâ wiki (which is why it has that implied âyouâ / âunilaterallyâ) - 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 theyâre 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 âunilaterally changing anythingâ, 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.
Anyway, if you still want to discuss that interpersonal misunderstandings further, Iâd prefer if we move it to private messages; I doubt it is useful to others in the thread.
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 âone or moreâ to âone (only)â?
Do you agree with my interpretation? (Or, if Iâm misunderstanding what you meant there, would you care to clarify what you meant exactly?)
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.
I would appreciate @dcapillae if you would stop repeatedly putting in my mouth things that I never said of you (âunilaterally proposing to change somethingâ), and which I in fact have explained several times by now (last time in much detail in the very post youâre 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.
Then donât. While it is unfortunate that you donât want to participate in discussion and clarify what you meant, it is your prerogative. Iâll then have to continue assuming that youâre 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 youâd 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?
I would appreciate it if you would stop assuming what is not. I am not proposing âunilaterally changing the definition of existing tags or keysâ.
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. Iâve 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 weâll discuss them. In the meantime, please, stop assuming bad faith where there is none about things that havenât happened.
And, for the hundreth time, Iâm NOT saying that you are.
And, for the hundreth time, Iâm NOT saying that you are.
And, for the hundreth time, Iâm 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 didnât 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.
Iâll repeat my question which you (again) seem to have ignored:
Can I bother you to answer that question with simple âYESâ or âNOâ? Do you agree to that, or not? Itâs 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).
Wiki says (and has been saying for many years) that artwork_type=statueâis a sculpture representing one or more people or animalsâ. 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 They have fixed it in the meantime in WP, but not in OSM
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 Iâm wrong. Not sure if people typically choose the value âstatueâ 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_statueandartwork_type=multiple_statuesand then deprecate all existing artwork_type=statueand 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 doesnât 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.
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.
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 youâve got sidetracked and missed it completely. Thus my attempt to clarify and draw your attention to it.
That "And of course, unilaterally changing the definition of existing tags or keys is not OKâ was literal quote from 
| 
They have fixed it in the meantime in WP, but not in OSM 
.jpg){kind=link}