User talk:Extremecarver

Kommentiert die Openmtbmap [2] hier

Der Steftsteig am Hohen Göll erscheint in der MTB-Karte vom 13.05.2011 einfacher als tatsächlich in OSM eingetragen. Es sieht so aus als ob bei einem highway=path das tag surface=gravel dem tag sac_scale=demanding_alpine_hiking vorgezogen wird. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.60407&lon=13.05562&zoom=15&layers=M Daneben gibt es noch weitere Wege, die sowohl ein surface= sowie ein sac_scale Tag haben. --Gerchla 22:11, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Da zu 90% Schrott im Sac_scale eingetragen ist (T4 bei Sachen die ich im Schlaf mit dem MTB rauffahr) - nehme ich die sac_scale bei OSM nicht mehr ernst. Dank JOSM und Presets ist die Sac_scale einfach großteils komplett falsch in OSM. Und ein Weg der gschottert ist, geht mir max als T2 durch. --Extremecarver 23:27, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Ich hab mir ein paar Wege angeschaut die ich kenne und leider hast du da zumindest recht daß die sac_scale nach meiner Einschätzung dort häufig daneben und manchmal deutlich daneben ist (wobei das beim Steftsteig schon eher in Ordnung zu sein scheint... der ist auch in keiner üblichen Wanderkarte drin). Ein paar Ideen hätte ich wie man die Situation verbessern könnte aber implementieren kann ich das nicht. z.B. Liste mit Pfaden (path) und sac_scale nach Gebirgsstock sortiert oder Karte mit eingeblendeten Daten und daß die Leute "abstimmen" können, incl. Begründung (z.B. kinderwagentauglich -> T1, stellenweise ausgesetzt -> T3). Auch in der Hoffnung daß sich jemand findet der im Klassifizieren nach sac_scale firm ist und ein paar ihm bekannte Wege in verschiedenen Gebieten "souverän" einordnet. Insgesamt sind die Mapper vermutlich zu vorsichtig irgendwas als einfacher zu taggen als es momentan getaggt ist. Vielleicht braucht es auch eine Bergsteiger-Liste? (oder hast du eine Idee wo ich das besser anbringen könnte?)--Gerchla 22:23, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Obwohl das noch ein Proposal ist: Es wäre schön, wenn auch Klettersteige die mit highway=via_ferrata getaggt sind erscheinen würden. --Gerchla 22:11, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Das ist ein Tagging Fehler. highway=path & sport=via_ferrata, plus die via_ferrata:scale gehören getagged. Werde es trotzdem berücksichtigen.--Extremecarver 23:27, 14 May 2011 (BST)

The island "Kogjespolder" on the Kagerplassen lakes in NL is not rendered on the OpenMTBMap, tried both with desktop TYP file on Garmin BaseCamp and with classic layout on Garmin Etrex Vista HCx, the island is simply not shown. By the way you cannot bike there, but was sailing the Kagerplassen lately with GPS and found the Island is not rendered, the windmill De Kok on the island is staying in the water. On OpenStreetMap it is shown, however, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=4.5383856201172&minlat=52.198518981934&maxlon=4.5583860969543&maxlat=52.218522796631. Maybe good to find/fix cause of this, have lack of knowledge on Potlach and so on.

Domain Names

Why do you think Cloudmade/Geofabrik has anything to do with domain names? I organised the transfer of the domain names OSM.org and openstreetmapS.org over to OpenStreetMap Foundation. OSMF own the domain names. There was a painful process to get SteveC to transfer the openstreetmap.[org|net|com] domains across to OSMF. Stop looking for evil where no such evil exists. -- Firefishy 20:38, 22 August 2010 (BST)

Just being carefull.... Dunno if Odbl supporters start blocking domains, easy to prevent...--Extremecarver 21:06, 22 August 2010 (BST)

But you cannot just claim that Cloudmade/Geofrabik can shut down these things, they are not OSMF and saying so is a lie. -- Firefishy 21:37, 22 August 2010 (BST)

I think he was referring to new domain names, not attributing power over existing domains to those. --amai 21:45, 22 August 2010 (BST)

The same point holds. Cloudmade/Geofrabik has NO control over domains belonging to the project. I fought long and hard for SteveC to hand over the domains to OSMF. --Firefishy 21:53, 22 August 2010 (BST)

I never said that Cloudmade/Geofabrik does have control over domains, but new domains can be registered by anyone, and it ain't expensive. No easier way for ODbl supporters (and the most hardcore are those related to Geofabrik/Cloudmade in my eyes) than to snatch away domains. Oh and I see enough evil around...--Extremecarver 22:14, 22 August 2010 (BST)

Bicycle

Hi, you changed recently quite a lot of the bicycle tagging rules on this wiki page. I fulfilled them almost one year ago after a discussion on the mailing list. Could you point me out the community discussion where it was decided to change it ? --Pieren 12:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I rather just harmonised it. The miscelleaneous section was simply done completly different from the top section. On the other hand I changed some stuff, that was not logical before - when you consider right hand vs left hand drive countries. I.e. cycleway:left=track, does not indicate that you are allowed to drive against the oneway direction - that could only be assumed for right hand drive countries, hence I added oneway:bicycle=no (or oneway:bicycle=yes where it was not clear due to this problem). (BTW if it is oneway:bicycle=no/yes or bicycle:oneway=no/yes I don't mind, oneway:bicycle seems to be documented more often, bicycle:oneway is used more often according to tagwatch). Besides I added some single line examples to simplyify the mapping - without removing the crazy (and without relations to make clear they belong togehter) 3 or 5 ways solutions. I think we should also still change the same as bullshit, as it is really stupid to look up the page for what tags to use. I also removed cycleway=opposite and exchanged it againt oneway:bicycle=no in S1, because if there is no explicit cycleway for opposite direction, I think it is much wiser to indicate oneway:bicycle=no instead of cycleway=opposite (mind that cycleway=opposite can have many meanings and in my eyes should not be used at all - it could mean bicycles travelling with the oneway direction have to use it) --Extremecarver 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks to the following specifications and your quick response.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle&action=historysubmit&diff=562779&oldid=562673

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle&action=historysubmit&diff=562781&oldid=562780

I used its specifications in this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6445163

(You can delete this comment).

---

Do you still need this image?

from Ceyockey Loaded in October 2008 and currently not used. Do you still need this image kept? → File:2008-10-30 150721.jpg 23:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

from Ceyockey Likewise, this image → File:2008-10-30 150845.jpg 23:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but I don't know how I can delete files/images.--Extremecarver 12:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You can use the 'delete' template; add {{delete|some explanation like 'image no longer needed'}} to the file page. I've now done this for the two noted above to illustrate. I typically put the items I've tagged for deletion on my watchlist so I know when they get deleted; I also typically use the 'summary' statement "tagged for deletion". It typically takes a handful of days before the items get deleted; deletion is a manual process requiring a user with elevated privileges to do the deletion. Regards --Ceyockey (14:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC))

I've deleted them. Have a nice day. --Uboot 16:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to sidewalk & co.

Hello,

could you please use the talk page to discuss changes before doing them? Thanks. --Hanska 16:04, 4 May 2011 (BST)

I did announce doing them on the talk page (well only footway=crossing, as I missed the other pages existest before).

.exe map files on non-Windows

Hi,

Regarding this you say "Velomap. .exe are lzma compressed files. So all platforms not windows only. Same should be true for nearly all .exe osm garmin maps.". What do you use to uncompress these .exe files on other platforms? I've tried unzip and p7zip but as far as I can see neither works. Thanks. ChrisB 16:03, 4 July 2011 (BST) On Linux you can use 7zip or p7zip-full. On MaxOsx Unarchiver. It is plain lzma compression, not lzma2 which is less known, even Linux Kernel is lzma compressed.... On Windows 7zip is the best bet.

MTB tracks with highway=cycleway

Hi, I've been tasked map the mtb tracks around Christchurch, NZ, and to do so I'll need to update the data e.g. around here. As you've noted before, many of these tracks are tagged highway=cycleway, and most of them do not have any mtb* tags, so it is difficult to select them by themselves a mtb tracks. With your experience in the field, what do you suggest I do to update these tracks? I can get detailed information about them from here but I'm not sure what tags to use. Do you suggest I change them to highway=track and add mtb:scale and mtb:scale:nz tags to each? And should they all have bicycle=yes (if allowed)? I appreciate any help. --Matt-in-a-hat (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Hi Matt - sorry for taking so long to reply. I did not login to the wiki for some months - hence did not notice your message. Well if the ways are really for mtbiking and not cycling - I would use highway=path or higwhay=track for them. bicycle=yes is not really needed IMHO. As for getting information about them - well I hope that this information is under an appropriate license. Otherwise better survey on ground... I know mtb:scale:nz exist - but have not much knowledge about it. I would assume use mtb:scale for normal trails, mtb:scale:nz for trails built especially for mtbiking (as in a bikepark sense) - because for DH/bikepark trails with obstacles mtb:scale is not well suited. P.S. funny I went mtbiking there in year 2000 sometimes too. lived for 6 months in Saint Martins--Extremecarver (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the license of this uploads?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2008-10-30_155606.png https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2008-10-30_154953.png https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2008-10-30_154752.jpg https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2008-10-30_151027.jpg https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2008-10-30_154626.jpg

Is it generated from OSM data? What is depicted there?

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I put them under CCBYSA 2.0 now - Guess that was my intention back then. Yes they were created from OSM data that was back then also CCBYSA 2.0. --Extremecarver (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Template:CC-BY-SA-2.0 OpenStreetMap would be more fitting? (current version is not mentioning author(s)). Optionally, edit pages to mention both data source and author of renderings Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:21, 15 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 author of image File:2008-10-30 155254.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".

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.

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.

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) 08:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

authorship

re https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mtb%3Dyes.png&curid=24501&diff=2288794&oldid=2283146 Note that when using license that requires attribution you need to clearly specify who is the author Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:19, 15 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:Me 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|Extremecarver}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified April 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) 13:54, 28 April 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 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.

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}}

• File:2008-10-30 151027.jpg
• File:2008-10-30 154626.jpg
• File:2008-10-30 154752.jpg
• File:2008-10-30 154953.png
• File:2008-10-30 155606.png

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:Drinking Water For Humans and Animals.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|Extremecarver}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, June}} 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) 16:08, 17 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:Drinking Water for Humans only.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|Extremecarver}} 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) 12:55, 9 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:Super easy ferrata.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|Extremecarver}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, September}} 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) 17:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Why you marked it as CC work?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:S0.jpg is claimed to be CC-BY-SA-3

Where it is indicated at the source page? I see only "© Carsten Schymik • Harald Philipp • David Werne" in footer and no indication of open licensing Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I remember contacting Carsten or David on their contact form and them giving me permission to upload them under CC-BY-SA 2.0 and 3.0. I don't have access to the email account I used back then however to find out if it was David or Carsten who replied. If you are unsure drop them a mail. I also remember one of them having read that article on the OSM wiki.--Extremecarver (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you then remove "Author Extremecarver" on the file description and add this info there? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I updated it to fix the Author and added the copyright notice.--Extremecarver (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)