User talk:CarrotManMatt

paving_stones:pattern=stack_bond

Responding to your e-mail here. I indeed changed paving_stones:pattern=stack_bond to paving_stones:pattern=stack_bound by mistake. I fixed the wiki and also the elements on the map. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:37, 2 August 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:Random Course Paving.png ?

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|CarrotManMatt}} 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)

--MissingImageInfoBot (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hiya! It's not a bother. I'll add this now, I was unaware I had to as it was my first upload soley for a single wiki page. I did create the image myself using Powerpoint!

--CarrotManMatt ({{User talk:CarrotManMatt|talk]]) 12:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

building:part=column

Hi CarrotManMatt,

in the Tag:building:part=column page history I read "redirected to man_made=column, this tag is invalid". Who decided so? Was there a discussion somewhere? --Ivanbranco (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hiya Ivanbranco! Sorry that I never provided any sources for this. It was discussed in some detail on the tagging channel in the OSMWorld Discord server which had a number of people agreeing that the key building:part=* should never be used on a node (which a column should be mapped as). This aligns with the Key:building:part wiki page description box showing that it should not be used on nodes. Because of the already greater usage of the man_made=column tag (found from taginfo) than the building:part=column tag, as well as the fact that Key:man_made=column wiki page already existed (possibly indicating an existing preference of interested mappers towards using this tag) I thought it seemed logical to implement the redirect. I have to admit that it wasnt from some great formal discussion/put to vote so would understand if it would be better for the wiki to show no preference (by removing the redirect) until a consensus is made by mappers. Cheers! -- CarrotManMatt (talk) 02:48, 10 Nov 2022 (UTC)

Hi CarrotManMatt, thanks for the reply. I don't agree tho, building:part=columns can be mapped as areas also, and I don't see this greater usage of man_made column than building:part=column (1555 vs 3508, building:part=column has more than x2 usage). But is great you discussed it. I posted it also in the new OSM forum to have other opinions, this is the link if you want to participate as well: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/deprecation-of-building-part-column/5253 if the consensus will still be the same we can add the discussion as source reference for the edit so other people will have some context --Ivanbranco (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure! Getting the consensus is the most important. If most people agree that building:part=column is valid the wiki page for the building:part=* key should be updated to reflect the allowance of that key on nodes. -- CarrotManMatt (talk) 17:41, 11 Nov 2022 (UTC)