Template talk:OSMCycleMap

Mark this as advertisement?

I think we should somewhat mark this as an advertisement or at least make clear that this is a commercial closed-source project. I think the people deserve to know that there is Gravitystorm Limited standing behind it. https://www.thunderforest.com/pricing/ lists all the prices if you want to use this project on a bigger scale and https://www.thunderforest.com/contact/ lists the contacts.

I guess it is also unfortunate that the template mentions two projects only. I am sure there are more cycle maps, but they do not get mentioned. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

From what place of bitterness (cynicism? jealousy?) do these sentiments arise? OCM (and later, the Lonvia route renderings) are an integral part of the history of OSM, beloved and used by many. They are written and maintained by two august members of OSM (important custodians of osm2pgsql and Carto) and (imo) it seems cynical to characterize OCM as "a commercial closed-source project" (a certain number of tile requests per month are free). Sarah's waymarkedtrails doesn't seem to have any commercial component whatsoever. This template is merely a convenient way to embed in cycling-related pages that there are (at least two) cycling-related renderers which can facilitate our data in cycling-related endeavors and they have distinct technical differences (one renders tiles and route relations, another "only" route relations — though it is quite useful nonetheless). If you believe that the template would benefit by containing more comprehensive lists of other cycling renderers, I encourage you to add them. (Richard Fairhurst's cycle.travel/map?) If you believe that a more "full disclosure" of Gravitystorm is warranted, I'd be curious to read what your proposed language might be. As you state your position above, it comes across to me as skeptical and/or pessimistic that these resources are anything besides helpful aids for mappers interested in cycling-related end-products. (Why else would OSM choose to include OCM as one of its "front door" layers with a radio button?) "Advertisement?" Maybe, but that seems quite strong language. Besides, if anybody who might consider including this template doesn't like the language, they can edit it (as I have, full disclosure, to include Lonvia and how there are fundamental differences) or simply choose not to embed it in their wiki page. Stevea (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry if I made you think that there were some negative feelings on my side. I can assure you there are none. I personally do not link the term "advertisement" to something negative. I would say about myself for instance, "I advertise the use of OpenStreetMap" or "I advertise the use of open-source software". I can not find a negative connotation in these statements. I would prefer if we discuss about the content instead of potentially non-existing negative feelings.

From a reader's perspective, I think it is just fair to mention multiple relevant maps and present them equally instead of mainly mentioning one product, because they can not choose what template they will be presented on a page. In an open-source environment like OSM, I think that a side note about licensing should be included. Hopefully, this clarifies my suggestion. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your clarifications. My point is that this does not seem like an "advertisement" for Thunderforest's services, not even close to that. You seem like you want to not only use that word but to make it explicit that this is an advertisement. I wouldn't use that word, I am a native English speaker and "advertisement" doesn't seem like that is the right word to describe what this template does. If you feel a side-note that further or extensive use of OCM is available as a commercially-licensed product, I agree with you that would clarify additional options about OCM besides what this template now appears to do. (Offer at least two rendering options to display cycling related OSM data, while clarifying some crucial differences between them). Also, you didn't reply with any additional cycling renderers you think would be appropriate to include. It is possible the template could benefit by "richening up" with those, although it would blur the point of it distinctly identifying OCM specifically if it got too comprehensive to be a "list them all" resource. After all, "mentioning one product" is what the original point of this template was (hence its name). However, now it appears we wish to 1) repurpose it by listing more cycling-related renderers and 2) explicitly add a side note that additional (further, extensive) OCM usage is available commercially. I better understand and am OK with 2), although I think that 1) actually does "repurpose" the template a bit too much. Perhaps briefly mentioning that there are additional cycling-related renderers without attempting to exhaustively list them all will suffice? Another suggestion to solve what appears to be "there is a lack of other cycle-related renderers mentioned here" is for their authors (or anybody else) to recognize this template is about OSMCycleMap, so create a similar template for them, letting wiki authors choose which (among newly many) to embed in their pages. That avoids blurring what this aptly-named template does and "levels the playing field" for others who wish to be included in the same context. Stevea (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I still think that it is advertisement for a specific service if it is placed on a page like Cycle routes. Reasons include the appearance (green box with a border drawn around which makes it stand out of the otherwise black and white page), the two links (usually, there is just one on a wiki page), and the detailed feature list. I would like to point out again, there is nothing bad about promoting your map/OSM service in this wiki, but I think in this specific page the template is not a good match. Following your suggestion, I will remove the template from that page and replace it with a list of available renderings including other services as well (like https://www.velomap.org/, https://extract.bbbike.org/, https://www.wanderreitkarte.de/, and https://opentopomap.org/). --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 08:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

That's funny. The template's creator even added this content to a page using the edit summary blatant self-advertisement!! in Special:Diff/50943/51029. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I never suggested that this template be removed from any page, as nowhere was that mentioned as the motivation for the discussion. It appears you took my suggestion to provide links to other renderers (simple text references, not templates) in one specific wiki context where this template was used (but you have deleted the template from there, replacing it with a simpler text reference, as are the other renderers). I suppose that "makes things more fair," but at the cost of simplifying ALL such references to other renderers with simple text references, regardless of whether there exists a template. The authors of additional renderers are certainly free to write their own templates so we might then use them, but it seems odd to penalize somebody who took the time to write a template to have it not be used in a context you deign "because I think it is an advertisement on a page like...". Something seems odd about what appear to be changing motivations on the part of Tigerfell, though I can't put my finger on it. My suggestion might have become that other renderers, too, have templates (similar to OSMCycleMap) but now it appears that your direction is to deprecate this template (all templates, perhaps?) from this particular wiki page. If, as you say, it isn't wrong to advertise, I don't see why a template is less correct than a similar simple text reference. Because somebody (Andy) took the time to make it, and/or it "stands out" with a green box? And that would be unfair or give greater advantage to somebody who crafted a template? That's like saying that "all ads in the newspaper must be plain text" when really, anybody can pay an artist (take the time to craft a template) and make a prettier, more informative "ad," but then somebody comes along and arbitrarily censors it because it is "too pretty." I'm still quite unclear on what the motivation is here. Stevea (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading

I never suggested that this template be removed from any page, as nowhere was that mentioned as the motivation for the discussion.

and

Besides, if anybody who might consider including this template doesn't like the language, they can ... simply choose not to embed it in their wiki page.

I apparently interpreted your words differently. This looked like a compromise for me instead of changing the template (= all pages). My motivation for removing the template from those pages are fairness and neutral point of view. While it is okay to advertise your project, I think the wiki should provide a NPOV on pages where multiple products are mentioned or as in this case where there is a headline Rendering implying either a general overview or a list/comparison of projects. Coloured boxes are used in this wiki to provide notes ({{Ambox}}, {{Imbox}}, {{Ombox}}, {{Category note}}), brief information in a column ({{ValueDescription}}, {{KeyDescription}}, {{Place}}), or structure different parts of the content ({{Documentation}}, {{Languages}}). None of the situations apply here. As I pointed out already, I think it is unfavourable to highlight one project using formatting like the template does and not even mention other projects (except for your addition). --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 09:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, again, thank you for your clarifications. I don't think it was the intent of the original author to do anything besides "promote" his own renderer (not necessarily his company) to the exclusion of all others. (I don't believe there WERE others when he did, but I might be mistaken about that). Yes, as other renderers developed over the years, you do make a point that the template as it was originally crafted became less neutral, and if that is what you attempt to correct, I now better understand your position. BTW, I have written a similar section Railways#Rendering which attempts to be helpfully comprehensive as it lists as many as I knew/know and how they differ slightly in an attempt to help the reader choose one vs. another, should they need to know what those are, so I am familiar with these issues. It was your approach here of how you were deprecating the specifically-local usage of a template which confused me, though, again, I now better understand. Stevea (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)