User talk:AndiG88

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

e-Mail Kontakt

Hallo, irgendwie habe ich das Gefühl, dass Dich e-Mails über die e-Mail-Funktion des Wikis und direkt an die hinterlegte Adresse nicht erreichen. Falls dem so sein sollte, würde es mich freuen, wenn Du den Erhalt der e-Mails sicherstellst oder die e-Mail-Funktion des Wikis deaktivierst. Danke. --LordOfMaps (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please make your changes more explicit

When you are deprecating tags and so on, please make it explicit (instead of simply adding a redirect, explain the change of tagging). Even when it's easy to guess what happened, it's better to add an warning. Also, please don't add redirects of pages in other languages to pages in english. --Jgpacker (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Umdefinierung

Hallo, du hast shop=money_lender nach shop=moneylender verschoben [1]. Wurde das irgendwo diskutiert? Ich halte das für etwas problematisch, das einfach um zu definieren, da ganz klar money_lender viel häufiger genutzt wird. 350 vs. 3 Verwendungen --Klumbumbus (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Mhhh... Stimmt, muss mich bei TagInfo verschaut haben, habe wohl das ohne _ gesehen. Sollte dann wohl wieder zurück... obwohl es falsch ist. Wikipedia hat es auch geändert. --AndiG88 (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Wenn es sprachlich falsch ist, kann man es prinzipiell schon ändern, aber nicht einfach so. Muss schon mit der Community abgestimmt sein und dann auch von den Editoren (JOSM, ID,...) unterstützt werden. Derzeit existieren beide Wikiseiten, sodass eine Rückverschiebung (sodass die Versionshistorie erhalten bleibt) soweit ich weiß für einen normalen User nicht mehr möglich ist. Kannst du dich bitte drum kümmern, dass das jemand mit entsprechenden Wiki-Rechten in Ordnung bringt? --Klumbumbus (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Tag:leisure=picnic table

Hi Andi, du hast es anscheinend nicht bemerkt – bitte schau mal in die Versionsgeschichte von Tag:leisure=picnic table. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Das einzige was ich dort finde ist ein Absatz "Why not an amenity" hinsichtlich Autobahnparkplätzen von 2012. Das hat aber nie jemand dokumentiert bzw. drauf geantwortet und auch die Verwendung (http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4s7 ; http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4s9) zeigt, dass es nicht so genutzt wird und sich viele bei Grünflächen befinden. Wenn du dort einen Bedarf für eine Unterscheidung siehst, dann leg bitte amenity=picnic_table an und dokumentiere es und mach es auch auf leisure=picnic_table deutlich bzw. diskutiere eventuel vorher. Aber bisher kann ich kein solches System hinter dem taggen erkennen und damit sind meiner Meinung nach viele, wenn nicht sogar alle tags nicht passend und können dann auch nicht von diversen Karten ausgwertet werden. Einige der amenity tags sind auf jedenfall eindeutig leisure --AndiG88 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Ganz unten auf Talk:Tag:leisure=picnic_table (genau, "Why not an amenity?") siehst du, dass es anscheinend Unklarheit gibt, was der key sein sollte. Daher finde ich es etwas vorschnell gewissermaßen hochoffiziell auf der Tag-Wikiseite zu schreiben, dass ein anderer Key ein "Fehler"(!) ist. Mir ist das Tag reichlich egal, mir geht es nur um deine Wortwahl (zusammen mit dem recht offensichtlichen Aufruf umzutaggen) – es gibt bei OSM ja nicht wirklich feste Taggingregeln. Da dich das Tag offensichtlich interessiert, wäre jetzt die Gelegenheit dem alten Talk-Beitrag mal zu antworten bzw. ihn zu kommentieren. ;-)
Wie auch immer, nach deiner Änderung finde ich es okay. Und, das sollte nicht zu kurz kommen, danke für deine Arbeit hier im Wiki und an den Daten! --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

New template

Hi, I created a new template based on the snippet of wiki code you have been adding on the wiki. It's Template:PossibleSynonym. You can see an example here. (note that it automatically adds the right category. --Jgpacker (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi you both! :-) A reaction on this new template/info box: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/36002/how-to-rename-in-bulk-a-specific-tag Please help if you can and tell the questioner what you intended by this template. I am pessimistic if this info box is a good idea as it easily leads to Automated Edits. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Recently I found out a user renamed all leisure=grass to landuse=grass and all leisure=sport_centre to leisure=sports_centre because of this (the latter is a trivial change, however the first not so much). At the very least the wording should be changed from "Help fix it!" to something else. --Jgpacker (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Update: I updated all english tag pages that was on the Category:Tagging Mistakes to use Template:PossibleSynonym. Now we can change the phrasing of that info box more easily. Feel free to do it --Jgpacker (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

color:#D8D8D8" and nonsense tags

Tag:craft=carpenter - about this tag page. I understand you, but Any tags you like. There nothing wiki team can do. Some mappers just use these tags already. If you really want to change tagging, you should use Proposal process. You need to speak with people at tagging@openstreetmap.org, not at wiki. Xxzme (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I never removed any documentation. I just made it clear that these tags were never approved in any way and as someone else pointed out before me were copy&paste from Wikipedia, with what looks like no discussion. Right now the page again looks like this is some elaborate agreed tagging scheme, when 50% of the tags are not used at all. If someone has to create a proposal then it's the person who wants this style of tagging. --AndiG88 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I do no not accuse you in content removal, I'm fine with that. Well problem is that proposal in not really required to create any tag page. User may create craziest tag combinations, map dozen of them, document on wiki and do nothing else. It will be perfectly valid. This is what Any tags you like means. It very flexible, since everybody can do anything with new tags, but there drawbacks. There may be even worse situations, when we have no documentation at wiki, but there crazies tags mapped everywhere. Because again, Any tags you like. You don't have to document any of your new tags at all. It saves time for mapper who start everything. We should not treat his possibly usefull job as crazy. Other mappers may improve existing (at least documented at wiki) tagging scheme, so will get more sane results. Not everybody have time to map/tag everything "exactly" or "precisely" or for every possible use-case on earth, things should be improved over time. This how OSM works. If you have better schema than copy&pasting from wikipedia. If you know how to make set of Verifiable tags, then you should contact tagging list. If you have good idea how to improve existing tagging scheme, you may send you proposal to tagging@openstreetmap.org. Again, you may read about proposal process here: Proposal process. Xxzme (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gym tagging situation

I did a lot of work yesterday to try to rearrange things so that the Gym / Fitness centre tagging problem is clear (The tagging is not clear, but the problem is now clear). I've copied text from your proposal, to include those arguments in favour of using the word "gym", but I noticed you wrote that a few days after also creating the page De:Tag:leisure=fitness_centre. So that seems weird. I think this is my favourite option. 'leisure=fitness_centre'. ...given the problems spelled out. What do you think? -- Harry Wood (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

KeyDescription template

Hi, I don't understand why you are rewriting the Template:KeyDescription in some of the pages you change, sometimes removing information already available (like combination=x, or in onXYZ=x parameters), and always adding the practically useless parameters "float", "class", "languagelinks" and so on. Thanks for adding images though. Also, although there isn't a consensus on that, personally I prefer that people don't change the normal space formatting of the template (one or zero spaces between between words) for one that only makes sense when using a monospace font. Cheers --Jgpacker (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I usually replace the whole template, because the templates used lack certain fields and this seems to be the fastes way to make sure I have the complete one everywhere. I also usually only remove usefull combination, because it seems pretty unnecessary to have that reapeated everywhere, if I removed more then mostly not intentional, often I even add see also. It's obvious a comany POI should have a name, address, phone, website etc. craft is the only place where I have seen this copy&pasted everywhere, on shop= or amenity= you don't find 10 tags like that anywhere, I think it's a distraction from important stuff like cuisine=, atm= etc.
As far as changing the spacing have I done that? I actually really like the spacing on the template which is another reason I replace the old one everywhere, because the new one gives a much better overview. --AndiG88 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you didn't add rarely used parameters to the keydescription template (especially lang, class, float, style and languagelinks). The documentation can be easily updated and is often necessary to be able to use these parameters. I also dislike your change in spacing because it only makes sense in a monospace font (which is not often the case). I don't ask you to change it back, but preferably do not change it from normal spacing to this other spacing. Also, two little things: (1) preferably use a unordered list inside the "seeAlso" and "combination" parameters (i.e. add asterisks to make it a list) and (2) I think it's better to put info boxes below the language bar (which is added by Template:Description). It seems to be easier on the eye. Cheers --Jgpacker (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

#REDIRECT instead of keeping pages with DISCOURAGED in the description?

If you browse Taginfo, for example for a list of values of the shop tag, the description column is automatically picked up from the description parameter in Template:ValueDescription.

For deprecated tags, there are some pages like shop=fishmonger, which have "DISCOURAGED - Use shop=seafood instead" as the description.

However, some tags do not show any description in Taginfo. Sometimes this is due to a missing description parameter in the template tag, but other times it is because the entire wiki page has been replaced by a redirect. For example, shop=insurance is just an automatic redirect to office=insurance, so the description on Taginfo is blank. What's the rationale for creating an automatic redirect instead of retaining the page with "status = Deprecated" and a note about the preferred tag to use? --Dobratzp (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Namespaces

Documented Key:scuba_diving:rental as there are some strange subjects trying to avoid namespace documentaion in the wiki. Also documented usual namespaces here : Namespace_tag_overview. Seems you edited shop=scuba_diving in 2014, therefore wanted to let you know.

Lizenz zu den hochgeladenen Bildern

Hallo! Hast Du eine Lizenz-Information oder Quelle zu den von Dir hochgeladenen Bildern, die Du angeben könntest?

--Gruß, Chris2map (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the author of image File:24h Frozen & Live Bait - Vending Machine.jpg ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified January 2022}} from the file page.

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the author of image File:Fishing bait vending machine in Japan.jpeg ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified February 2022}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.

Help

Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the creator of image File:Pet Food-Vending Machine(small).jpg ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ" or "this is map generated from OpenStreetMap data and SRTM data" or "map generated from OSM data and only OSM data" or "This is my work based on file -link-to-page-with-that-file-and-its-licensing-info-" or "used file downloaded from internet to create it, no idea which one".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified March 2022}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.

Help

Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

(sorry if I missed something that already states license and source: I am looking through over 20 000 files and fixing obvious cases on my own, in other I ask people who upladed files, but it is possible that I missed something - in such case also please answer)

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the creator of image File:Fishing Tackle&Bait+Drink Vending.jpg ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ" or "this is map generated from OpenStreetMap data and SRTM data" or "map generated from OSM data and only OSM data" or "This is my work based on file -link-to-page-with-that-file-and-its-licensing-info-" or "used file downloaded from internet to create it, no idea which one".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self|AndiG88}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, May}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.

Help

Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

(sorry if I missed something that already states license and source: I am looking through over 20 000 files and fixing obvious cases on my own, in other I ask people who upladed files, but it is possible that I missed something - in such case also please answer)

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

license

Do you know what is the license of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Wheelmap.org_logo.svg file which you uploaded? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the creator of image File:Disney-ticket-vending-machines.jpg ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ" or "this is map generated from OpenStreetMap data and SRTM data" or "map generated from OSM data and only OSM data" or "This is my work based on file -link-to-page-with-that-file-and-its-licensing-info-" or "used file downloaded from internet to create it, no idea which one".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you have taken then you can make it available under a specific free license (except some cases, like photos of modern sculptures in coutries without freedom of panorama or taking photo of copyrighted artwork).

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self|AndiG88}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, August}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.

Help

Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

(sorry if I missed something that already states license and source: I am looking through over 20 000 files and fixing obvious cases on my own, in other I ask people who upladed files, but it is possible that I missed something - in such case also please answer)

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Attribution

Hello! And sorry for bothering you, but descriptions of files you uploaded need to be improved.

You have uploaded files which are licensed as requiring attribution. But right now attribution is not specified properly.

Please, ask for help if something is confusing or unclear in this message.

Please, fix that problem with this uploads - note that images with unclear licensing situation may be deleted.

Attribution may be missing completely or just be specified in nonstandard way, in either case it needs to be improved. Note that using CC-BY files without specifying attribution is a copyright violation, which is often unethical and unwanted. So clearly specifying required attribution is needed if license which makes attribution mandatory was used.

If it is applying to your own work which not based on work by others - then you can select own user name or some other preferred attribution or even change license to for example {{CC0-self}}

For files which are solely your own work: ensure that it is clearly stated at file page that you created image/took the photo/etc

For works by others - please ensure that there is link to the original source which confirms license and that you used proper attribution, or that source is clearly stated in some other way. This applies when you took screeshot, made map from OSM data and so on.

Especially for old OSM-baded maps, made from data before license change on 12 September 2012 you should use "map data © OpenStreetMap contributors" as at least part of attribution

For old OSM Carto maps, which predate license change on 12 September 2012 you can use a special template {{OSM Carto screenshot||old_license}}

Note: Maybe the current license on this file is wrong and a different one should be used! Wiki:Media file license chart may be helpful. If unsure, ask on Talk:Wiki

Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndiG88&oldid=2437511"