Talk:Key:owner

Verifiability of this property?

There seems to be a problem with the Verifiability of this tag. In most cases, only the operator=* of a feature is posted on a sign. The ownership of certain parcels of land can only be determined by visiting a government office or website. In general the Openstreetmap community has decided that mapping ownership of land parcels in Openstreetmap is not a good idea, because it cannot be maintained by local mappers in any better way than importing data directly from government databases, so it is better if database users download the government cadestral (land ownership) data directly when needed. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I see no problem with saying that a "state park" is owned by "the People of the state of California" or "the US Department of the Interior (National Park Service)" is the "owner" (in the name of the People of the United States of America) of, for example, a national park in these United States. If I visit a website (one way we "agree" upon the boundaries), so what? The representation of "what the people agree upon as boundaries" are a valuable "boundary" to place into OpenStreetMap. Why would leaving these data out be "better?" Because we must wait for somebody to need those data? That's a "chicken vs. egg" problem that #1, we (OSM) don't have and #2, hinders growth in our map. (Parks are as much mine as my neighbors, there are millions of us, we agree upon where the boundaries are). Verifiability works here. Stevea (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I see no difference between these and say, the line between Oregon and Idaho. Stevea (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is about the tag owner=*, not the verifiablity of protected areas or administrative boundaries mapped as area features. My concern is that a protected area such as a nature reserve will often have a sign at the entrance and boundary markers which specify the operator=* but the land owner is usually not clearly stated. For example the Nature Conservacy sometimes buys land and then presents it to the local government to be operated as a public nature reserve, yet the ownership may be partially private and partially public. I came to maek this comment because someone added owner=* to the aeroway=aerodrome page - some airports are owned by a different entity than the operator, but usually only the operator is going to be listed on the signs and website, while the owner of the land and buildings may be different and is not easy to confirm without a trip to the official archives. Mapping such ownership distinctions is not something that local mappers are going to be able to maintain to an acceptable level of data quality and should not be encouraged, since it is a waste of valueable mapper time. --Jeisenbe (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Considering there were two entries in Talk pages in the same day (one owner, the other ownership), I was a bit confused, both where to reply and in what the intent was. It is now much more clear to me; I appreciate your clarification and further background. FWIW, I do not strive to add owner=*, however, if it happens to be in curated data and logically maps to this tag, I have been known to include it. I'm not sure if there is such a thing as "ownership may be partially private and partially public" as (at least in my state and country), as there are only certain ways to "hold title" on property and this mixing up of that as you describe it is almost certainly an ownership -> operator relationship (one owner, a contract yields effective control to an operator for a limited period of time in what might be legally considered a lease). However, when an ownership is absolutely certain (and easy to identify, like a public agency, especially when it is held "in perpetuity"), I see little harm in including these data in OSM, as they will either virtually never change, or simply will never change. (So, there is no need to have local mappers "maintain ownership tagging to an acceptable level of data quality"). Other examples, as in the Nature Conservency example you give, do give rise to this difficulty, I agree. There is an evolving wiki (well, development has stalled), United_States/Public_lands, which begins to better characterize and shape future tagging into more consistent schemes in the USA (on federal, state, county and local levels, including non-profits and "land trust" sorts of arrangements). This is a difficult topic (the noted wiki does evolve, but slowly and with halting stop-and-start progress by at least three of us on two different state schemes). While the points you make about owner=* on an aerodrome are true, perhaps this rises to "at least the two of us" agree that adding to the Page that on many private parcels, "mapping ownership distinctions is not something local mappers are going to be able to maintain to an acceptable level of data quality and should not be encouraged." On that point, we certainly agree, so we could actively discourage usage of this tag for that purpose. Eliminating the entire tag? That seems a bit severe, at least for now. Stevea (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability, continued

I agree with Jeisenbe about the importance of Verifiability. However I do not agree with a specious conclusion reached by him regarding Verifiability: he says "This tag (owner) should only be added to a feature when the owner is verifiable: that is, a mapper can confirm who owns the feature by visiting the area in person. (Emphasis mine). Usually this means there is a public sign which confirm the owner of the feature. If ownership can only be confirmed by visiting a government land ownership database, this tag is should not be used."

There is nothing in Verifiability restricting contributors to confirming Verifiability ONLY by "visiting the area in person" or that there must be "a public sign which confirm (sic) the owner of the feature." In fact, sometimes the ONLY way to determine ownership is by "visiting a government land ownership database." This is true not only of ownership, but in many cases about boundaries and their exact location (because nothing is "on the ground" w.r.t. where a park boundary, for example, might actually be), as well as many other features in OSM. For example, where an ocean or sea has a name, but there is no sign anywhere saying what that name is, regardless of language, or at a named mountain range, where there are no signs proclaiming "The Alps" or "Rocky Mountains," OSM should not ignore naming these map features simply because there is no sign proclaiming ownership or name. We should enter these data and we have and do in many cases. This is analagously true of owner as it is of name.

I politely ask that this recent text requiring confirmation of a feature by visiting the area in person be removed and that "Usually this means that there is a public sign" be changed to "If there is a public sign which confirms the owner of the feature, you may be sure of the owner, but other public records which authoritatively declare the owner (and/or name) of a feature may be used in the absence of signage on-the-ground." The sentence "If ownership can only be confirmed by visiting a government land ownership database, this tag is should not be used" should be removed, as it isn't actually true. Again, in the cases where this is the ONLY method to determine ownership (or name) OSM should not shackle itself so strictly to "on-the-ground" verifiability in the form of signage as to prevent these data from entering our database when we ARE able to authoritatively determine these data otherwise. They both have entered and do enter our map and nothing has changed to prevent entry of these data going forward. Stevea (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: "sometimes the ONLY way to determine ownership is by "visiting a government land ownership database." - that is right, and in that case the tag should not be used, because it is impossible for an ordinary mapper to determine if the government database is correct or not. But if I can visit a school in person, and find out "is this school owned by the government, or a religious organization, or a private corporation?" then that information is verifiable. When the only source of information is another database, it is best for database users to query the other database directly, rather than trusting that the imported information in Openstreetmap is still up to date, especially when there is no way for local mappers to correct wrong information. Openstreetmap is not wikipedia: we map what is real and current, on-the-ground, and our gold standard is survey (though aerial imagery and streetside photos are very helpful too). In wikipedia you cannot add something if there is no published source which can be cited, but in Openstreetmap the real world is our citation. Wikidata and other databases are available for linking government records. Further reading: http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/ and Verifiability#What_is_Verifiability.3F - note that in the later the emphasis is on observations: searching a government database is not an observation. --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the very first example given after the Verifiability link offered above states "It is desirable to have objective criteria for a user's tagging to be verifiable. This principle applies to any observable characteristic, be it numerical or descriptive." I submit a government published GIS datum is BOTH numerical AND descriptive! Stevea (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Huh? I trust that the data my government publishes is correct as much as the route number or name of park (or owner or operator thereof, if stated) on a sign! From where does this specious argument arise that "published by a government" (on a website, printed on a pamphlet, downloadable as GIS data...) isn't as trustworthy as a sign on the ground? That "it is impossible for an ordinary mapper to determine if the government database is correct or not" is like saying "why should anybody believe this sign?" It isn't a position that I can get to unless I fundamentally mistrust the data my government publishes, and I don't do that. Why might you? Again, when a government database is the ONLY method for observing something, it most certainly IS an observation! Stevea (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I live in Indonesia. The government land ownership database is not reliable here, or in the majority of countries in the world (eg: Latin America, Africa, most of Asia, parts of Eastern Europe). Even in the USA, government databases often include errors.

But let us assume for a second that the government database is perfect. In this case, why add the information to Openstreetmap, where it can be accidentally edited or intentionally vandalized by anyone, and where mistake will be hard to find? If the government database is authoritative, then users should use it directly, rather than getting their data filtered through Openstreetmap. The process: government database -> Openstreetmap -> end user only adds errors and no improvements compared to government database -> end user, if the Openstreetmap community cannot be expected to improve the information compared to that contained in the database. --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I accept your assumption of "perfect" government data, knowing it isn't, but in my experience, I find it (in California and USA) to be 99.5% to 99.9% accurate — your mileage may vary — often much more accurate than OSM itself! Your question "why add (accurate data) to OSM..." doesn't need to have its sentence completed beyond that for me to effectively ignore it as nonsensical. Apologies if that sounds harsh, I don't mean to be rude or impolite, but what you are saying is that everybody ought to be fearful of imperfections of data we add to OSM, unless it is personally sourced or on-the-ground. I most sincerely disagree. When data are missing (of parks, nature reserves, national parks...) from OSM, you seem to be saying we should be fearful to add them to our map data if there is a slight chance that the data are slightly wrong. That ignores vast contributions, which might enter as "rough," then are improved and corrected for accuracy — this is how our map is really built. Our Contributors do not arrest their entry of data because it is rough, knowing it will be improved. To wit: I have spoken with DOZENS of contributors over a decade+ of OSM volunteering who say "I might enter a first draft into OSM, perhaps at an 85% or 90% accurate state, knowing I and others can, do and will come along later and take it to 95%, then 99%, and perhaps 100% accuracy later on." Again, this really is how our map is built.

And saying that such data "can be accidentally edited or intentionally vandalized by anyone" is also specious: it is not data of government-origin this is true about, it is true about ALL data entered into OSM! I (and others) will safely ignore that as a wholly broken conclusion. I reject the false conclusion that "The process: government database -> Openstreetmap -> end user only adds errors and no improvements compared to government database -> end user, if the Openstreetmap community cannot be expected to improve the information compared to that contained in the database." Here is why: a perfect curation of such data absolutely does NOT "add errors." Full stop. The later if-clause in that statement seems like it is coming out of nowhere: why would anybody believe that is true? (That the OSM community can't improve the information). We can! I have! Many do! For example, if I find that a fence-line which slightly differs from government data "better" defines the edge of a park, I'll change the government data from a previously entered boundary=* to a much-more-obvious (as it is on-the-ground) barrier=fence — rarely if ever does this happen, but if it did, I would. Therefore, the OSM community both CAN (and likely does) "be expected to improve" the data (which happened to enter from government data). The "if clause being false" (though cleverly placed at the end of this if-then statement) makes for the provably logical truth: "when the antecedent in an if-then statement is false, you can prove anything is true." Unless and until such false assumptions are challenged, as they are here.

(Government) data are not "filtered through OSM," they are experienced directly through OSM. In some cases (the circumstances of which i speak about here: government data describing areas not determinable any other way) they wouldn't be experienced at all in OSM, as these data cannot be found "on the ground" or because of signage. Are you serious that these data should be excluded? That seems ridiculous, and I can only speak for myself, but I suspect among a great many other Contributors to our database as well.

You are welcome to your reluctance to not use government data because you don't trust the quality of Indonesia's GIS bureaucrats to publish accurate data. But please don't ask me to do the same when my / our data are (often, even nearly always) highly accurate. To do so imposes your local willingness to defer to degradation (which I respect) and insists that I follow along, when I have little or no reason to do so, as my local willingness is not only towards improvement, it has actually been proven to do so. If what I enter into our map doesn't improve it, I won't add it. If it does, I might, and likely will. I suppose we are simply different that way, and as I respect your determination of low quality data not entering OSM, I ask you to respect that my determination of high quality data entering our map is little or no concern of yours. If you can say or prove that data I enter are low quality, I invite you to say so (and where) and I will consider to and likely redact them. But you haven't: you have simply stated that "they might" or "they could." That doesn't rise to the level of serious consideration on my part, although I have offered you a good listen to your viewpoint / perspective. Your arguments, as they are, fail to convince me I am doing anything wrong in our project.

My state (California) is the aggregated authoritative source for saying where certain things are here — often codified in statute or GIS data and absolutely nowhere else. This is how we "sign" such things, denoting them and their ownership as the collective People (of the state). Insisting that there be a sign or strict on-the-ground evidence of such things is as foolish as insisting that we can't name "The Alps" or "The Pacific Ocean" in OSM because there are no signs or strict on-the-ground evidence of mountain ranges or oceans. OSM does denote these things without strict verifiability as OSM might define it, rather, the verifiability is less strict, because the people of the planet have come to accept the status quo about them. OSM can (and does), too.

My bottom line in this discussion? I will continue to enter into OSM owner=* values which I find in government databases, as I trust them to be accurate enough to do so (As accurate as signage or on-the-ground evidence). If you don't in your locality, I respect that you will not. It seems certain to me we can find mutual respect in each other's perspectives. Stevea (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Just chiming in to STRONGLY agree that this premise feels very backward: specifically, the questionable proposal that for some reason ownership data from government databases should be discouraged from being entered into OSM. This ownership data is often hidden behind layers of indirection, or requires onerous visits in-person or pay-per-page access (notable NOT due to copyright, but simply archaic access fees to systems mostly patronized by wealthy professionals), etc. etc. And it is for this very reason of OBSTACLES that this data _belongs_ in OSM, which liberates it and makes it available more generally. I frankly can't understand why anyone would advocate so adamantly for anything otherwise.

I have history and adjacency to social mission projects involving anti-eviction mapping and gentrification mapping 123. These often attempt to counter the tremendous power and wealth of local land developers, in large part by making ownership data legible to neighbourhood citizens, especially community organizers. The strongest reason I can think of for dissuading this information from entering OSM, is that its absence massively serves the interest of those powerful parties. Knowing what I do of their methods, deep pockets and proclivity for intense lobbying... I am concerned of the potential for mis-use of such a policy -- which seemingly gives cover to anyone who wishes to wipe ownership data from OSM if someone makes the mistake of properly attributing it to a government database.

Please, allow me to remove this "controversy" from the Key:owner page. I believe the current text flies in the face of OSM values. Specifically, OSM's mission statement core value "to map the things you care about and ensure that you have the freedom to do so [which] safeguards the accessibility of our map to diverse users with differing needs." If there is still some outstanding concern, I am happy to bolster support and understanding for that reversion (ideally after the fact, if there is but one critic) with testimonial on the importance of this public data from long-time housing justice advocates. --Patcon (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Main problem here is that often this hard to access government resource is sole thing allowing to check it, making it unverifiable to a regular mapper. In addition representing ownership data often would require extreme splitting of landuse polygons. I agree that mapping this is controversial. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I also believe it is time to remove the sentence "If ownership can only be confirmed by visiting a government land ownership database, this tag is should not be used." This is far too strict a criterion to use owner=*. Ownership can be "confirmed" plenty of ways (e.g. the photographically-realized example of a plate on a wall), a government land ownership database is simply one method among many. The statement is misleading, overly restrictive and should be removed. Plus, nobody is saying this tag MUST be applied, for example, TO a landuse polygon (though, that might be possible and even correct and/or a good idea in some cases), rather, some landuse polygons could simply be left as-is, without this tag. The tag (like all tags) is useful in certain circumstances, not all of them. As I believe Jeisenbe added this sentence, I think it would be best if he were to remove it. He has "failed to sustain his argument" in the face of significant and valid opposition (me, others here). Stevea (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I suggest at least different wording for the sentence, though I believe removal in its entirety is best. If it is not removed entirely, how about "If ownership can only be confirmed by visiting a government land ownership database, this tag should only be used to the extent those data are trustworthy and reliably accurate." Either removal of it altogether and/or together with my recently-added "It is recommended not to add this tag to landuse polygons where it would be required to split that polygon into many smaller ones solely for the reason of applying many different owner=* tags to the smaller polygons." and I think we have what is emerging as wider agreement. Stevea (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, getting wild with the indentation. "We are both correct" in that sometimes government land-ownership databases are "too" low quality / untrustworthy (Indonesia in certain circumstances, by at least one seasoned, august, respected OSM Contributor) and sometimes they are high quality / trustworthy "enough" (California, in the opinion of another). Making this clear that we've reached that "edge" seems like it does a lot to solve things; "here's what we've learned about this amongst ourselves already." Allowing that judgement call by a Contributor is correct, telling them that judgement call is up to them is correct. This seems like a place where people are and will be "best training myself" to make these judgement calls. If/as we have to talk about them and say "do your best here," that's OK and "good for us." The concept of ownership as it overlaps with government land (use, whatever) databases happens frequently, especially in a shared map (which makes it all the more important to say "be careful here"). OSM can do this. Stevea (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Government land ownership databases are not acceptable as the only source of information for a tag in Openstreetmap

The page has been edited to suggest that visiting the area in person is not the gold standard, but rather "other verifiable methods of determining ownership do exist, such as trustable and accurate public records". However, if a mapper cannot confirm the public records by visiting the location in person and asking local people or checking local real-world objects, then it is not verifiable in the Openstreetmap sense. Verifiability means that "another mapper should be able to come to the same place and collect the same data". If that is not possible then it is not verifiable. This is different than the standard used by Wikipedia and other online projects which are based on citations rather than real-world observations.

For example, let's say you search a State of California database and find that there is a parcel of land that is claimed to be owned by the State as a future wildlife refuge. But you visit that location and find that there is a farm with fenced cattle pastures located there, and the local farmer claims that their family has owned and farmed that land for 3 generations. The neighbors agree. In this case, how is a mapper to verify the rightful owner of the land? Should we trust the on the ground evidence (you can see farm buildings and fields) or should you trust the online State database?

In another case, what if you go to a remote area in the desert where the State says it owns land, but there is nothing at all developed there: no fences, no signs, no roads. You check the Federal BLM database and it says there is BLM land there, not State land. How are you to confirm which database is right about the ownership? These sorts of things turn up all the time. --Jeisenbe (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Visiting the area in person is an absolutely acceptable verifiable method of determining ownership, IF it is obvious and/or available "on the ground." This is a de facto tenet of OSM truth since the inception of the project. I (personally, I don't know if I am the person being targetted in the passive voice of "has been edited" instead of saying "Stevea has edited") have always held that this is true. ("Gold standard," while I agree with the characterization / equivalent of "a highly cherished and valued comparison of quality," are somebody else's words, not mine). And land ownership databases, to the extent they can be trusted as precise enough to suffice for "OSM's accuracy standards" (somewhat subjective, I'll agree, but it is frequent that "we can see bad when data ARE bad") ARE acceptable as the only source: sometimes, they literally ARE the only source! (As I've mentioned a number of times: where codified legislative descriptions or a GIS is/are "all that there is").

That said, there ARE other methods to verify ownership. ONE (among many) is a government database, and in some cases, a legal description of something may be the ONLY such "documentation" that exists. When this is true, and it is reflected, in say, a property deed, or a government database (I am not necessarily talking about a cadestral, although something similar as a generic GIS, not necessarily reflecting taxation) AND I trust the precision and quality of data in such and similar databases (at the same or similar government level), I might trust these digital data as much as any other form of proof of ownership might exist. It IS verifiable in the OSM sense, as another mapper could come to the same place and collect the same data, which again, in some cases might be the ONLY place where such data are precisely articulated (codified in law and/or a GIS).

Your example of the farm and state government database SEEMING to conflict might be accurate, after all: you say the state "owns" it as a future wildlife refuge, yet you see an active farm. One does not necessarily preclude the other: how do or would you (and/or neighbors) know that the farm is simply a lease by the state, and when it runs out, the conversion to wildlife refuge will begin as the farmer (tenants) leave and the land is restored? You do not, and you CAN not if you do not "chase down" such legal underpinnings. And leases / rentals, easements, sub-holders, tenancies, complex arrangements with land trusts...and all kinds of legal and often subtle distinctions of what appear to be ownership are not actually ownership, but "land rights" distinct from ownership. These can be difficult to determine, as they are often private contracts.

Joseph, your hyptotheticals are unhelpful, even as I do my best to understand, imagine and wrap my head around whatever it is that you seem to wish to restrict about (my, others') potential tagging behavior. If you have a real-world example of whatever it is you are attempting to explain here, let's read it. Otherwise, you seem to be "waving your hands that I can't do something" but you aren't exactly saying what "something" is. As I say, if a government GIS tells me where a nature reserve is, but fences on-the-ground do not delineate it, I'm OK with mapping that boundary from the GIS. If you are not, you should be able to explain why not. You can consult the same database that I have, wait (perhaps forever) for a fence to go up (and perhaps NEVER map the boundary), or find better, other data that delineate the boundary (if they exist, they might not). And I won't stop you from doing any of those. And, some of us, sometimes (myself included) will map such things. So, OSM's tenets are respected, your preference (not to map) is respected, my preference (to map) is respected. Win-win-win! Stevea (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If it helps, Joseph, I'll "pile on:" you appear to be saying "don't enter data from a government database because another government database might conflict with those data." Poppycock. (Nonsense). Failing to quote a reliable source because another might contradict it is not only a bad idea (it might give one pause, but it doesn't necessarily preclude), it isn't even OSM's problem. It's a hypothetical problem that doesn't exist (except with the publishers of bad data). I'm a citizen of the state of California, and about 40 million of us pay lots of people (in GIS departments of counties, for example, or non-profit NGO aggregators of California/Using_CPAD_data data like GreenInfo) to generate such data. I'm also an OSM volunteer, so I have legal nexus to enter into OSM what's mine (because I pay my state employees to generate them). When that's the best (or only) place to find such data, I'll (sometimes) perfectly reasonably curate them into OSM. (In collaborative spirit, I authored that CPAD page to be helpful to do so). If you don't partake of a similar activity, that's fine with me. But I still haven't heard you say why I shouldn't, and specifically where. I only read from you "you might be entering data claiming they are authoritative when another source also claims authority, but with different data." Honestly, that isn't the problem of the person quoting Encyclopedia B OR Encyclopedia A, it is a problem with (at least) one of them getting the data wrong. Not the (OSM) Contributor quoting them, or in many cases, using the data as one's own (as they are).

This is partly why we have "source" tags: so the value of that key can be "chased down" as the source of the data if such conflicts arise. The last part of that previous sentence is a big, big hypothetical, as are both example premises used in your argument. Failing presentation of an example, this seems a non-issue. Even if there were one, (rare or should be) it could be called to the Contributor's attention (e.g. in a changeset comment) and the conflict pointed out and likely resolved. Let's not imagine these when they don't (seem to) exist (in the instant case). Stevea (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

If government databases aren't valid OSM data sources, where did we get the detailed administrative boundaries? Balchen (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, government databases are valid OSM data sources. So, because you make a false assertion as your antecedent/hypothesis (the statement contained in the "if" clause of your conditional preposition), it doesn't make logical sense to follow through with the conclusion. When any conditional preposition has an incorrect / false hypothesis, it will always be false (incorrect). So it is likely safe to assume that OSM actually DID get detailed administrative boundaries from "government databases," (in some cases). OR, it is possible that some of these (e.g. along the USA/Canada border, where there are "marker stones" and some, even many of these stones, are in OSM), are "on the ground verifiable" data which delineate a boundary. I hope that helps. Stevea (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I'm in your corner. I'm sure an absolutely insignificant number of administrative boundary nodes are on-the-ground verifiable. They were (of course) imported from multiple government databases. My statement (to User:Jeisenbe) was meant to highlight the inconsistency in claiming that one government database is not valid as an OSM data source because the data is not on-the-ground verifiable, whereas another government database obviously is a valid data source even though the data is not on-the-ground verifiable. The same goes for government database conflicts (to which administrative region does that area in the Himalayas truly belong?). We deal with them and move on.Balchen (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Jens. I appreciate that; we seem to be reinforcing that each of us is in "each other's corner." (For the whole of OSM, I'd say). Yes, User:Jeisenbe never really addressed the inconsistencies that now both of us have pointed out. I'm watching your tagging-list discussion. It's interesting, correct and I think perhaps others are starting to get some clarity on these issues. They are not particularly easy topics to discuss, but I think if we are careful and polite enough, wider understanding can result: so far, so good. Stevea (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)