User talk:Hawke
I realize that for responding on your tagging schema I miss information on the tagging architecture of osm. Neverteless I will respond, but please correct me if my remarks are not in line with the architecture of osm.
- As far as I can oversee osm now, I think your schema is great, at least for recreational users of 'ways' (hiking,cycling,canoing,....). They can choose there route-tag (road/path/water/rail) and every route-value can have it's own accompanying keys.
- I don't expect you will convince the cardrivers to change there highway-family at this moment. Even the cyclist tend to oppose. I didn't see water- en railusers in osm sofar. So I should suggest start with the hikers. I think hikers love a schmema like this:
- -mapping hiking-trails/routes is still new in osm. Hikers are asking questions about how to tag them. So it's the right time to serve hikers wordwide with an easy, clear, well-defined tagging schema.
- -hikers use all kind of trails/pathes/small roads and are use to share them with other users. So they don't tend to put everything in highway=footway like f.i. cyclists.
- -hikers avoid hiking on ordinary roads. If they are using them, it's just as a shortcut to the next trail/path. I myself stop mapping as soon as I am on an ordinary road. So there is little chance on interfering with the highway-family taggers.
- As you noticed yourself 'route' is taken already. Maybe it's an idea to take a meaningless keyname to stimulate people to use the definition of keys, not the (supposed) meaning of the key, what about 'yakey' ?--rvanderh 12:15, 16 August 2007 (BST)
Sanitary Station and Pumpout
I want to try and persuade you that Sanitary Station and Pumpout should not use the same tag.
The reason for using the same tag for something would be if some lower-detail maps would render the two things the same, and some more specialised or more detailed maps would render them differently. E.g. we have bridge=yes, bridge=viaduct etc. Some maps would just render these all the same; a dedicated railway map would render them differently.
However, Sanitary Station and Pumpout should never be rendered the same. Someone who needs one type can never use the other type, and vice versa. So if they ever ended up being rendered the same on any map, that would lead to a lot of unhappy map users. A second argument is the argument from usage. If you find any map on which these items are marked (normally dedicated canal maps only), I guarantee you they will use different symbols. This implies that they should be tagged as different things.
They also look very different. I would provide you with photos, but they aren't normally things people like taking photos of! A pumpout is like a large petrol pump which sucks instead of blows. A sanitary station is like a large stainless-steel funnel or sink. They are as different in function and form as a bus stop and a level crossing. Their only common feature is that they deal with human waste. But so does a public toilet, and we are using a different sign for that!
Gerv 09:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your point, that they're different enough that it's important to distinguish. However, they're at heart the same thing: a method for removing human waste from a boat.
- You say, "Sanitary Station and Pumpout should never be rendered the same" but that's clearly not true. For the purposes of *most* map users, the difference is academic at best. Only a canal-centric map would need to render them differently.
- For that reason I suggested a separate tag to indicate which type it is. That way the normal/official map can simply mark it with a more generic "waste processing" icon, while specialised canal maps which need to, can differentiate. And then the generic tag can also be applied to the facilities which RVs/Caravans(?) use on land/roads (consider http://www.sanidumps.com/ and http://www.marinepumpouts.com/ ), and any map which cares about the difference can render them differently, while maps which don't can use a generic icon.
- Hawke 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sanitary_Dump_Station Brycenesbitt (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleting templates
I was just looking at deleting some wiki pages from Category:Labelled for deletion. I notice there's a family of templates:
- Template:Map feature
- Template:Map feature linear
- Template:Map feature node
- Template:Map feature primitive
... created by you, but not being used. OK to delete these? -- Harry Wood 23:54, 6 April 2008 (BST)
- Go for it. --Hawke 17:02, 7 April 2008 (BST)
access=designated
maybe you can help here: Talk:OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions. Thx :) --Cbm 19:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit war about smoothness
Please try to find an agreement on how to find a solution on this edit war. Use the mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org where I raised a thread about your conflict which happens since 7 days now (title is "Edit war on the wiki "map features"". -- Pieren 16:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Would you agree with the suggestion of User:Sletuffe on the ML ([1]) to re-open the proposal discussions/vote which seems to be the best compromise after the long discussion in the ML ([2]) ? Personnally I could see a good point if we move it out from the Map Features page and give a second chance for people who dislike this tag to argue de pros and cons between adults. -- Pieren 12:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Smoothness Seems to be a Wiki past-time learning tag :) I like the edit of using the word Verifiability on the map feature page. Can we use 'smoothness' as the prime example?
--acrosscanadatrails 01:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
footway equivalency
Please stop re-adding the statement about equivalency of footway and foot=designated. In practice this is just not true. Actually, this sort of statement ist the reason for the chaotic tagging that renders these tags rather useless. In short, footway has been used very loosely, being added to footways, cycleways, paths and tracks rather indiscriminately and I encountered people who wholeheartedly defend this as the traditional way to do it. Designated on the other hand would have been a way to describe the designation rather accurately - if it wasn't for the claim that the fuzzy footway was equivalent to the precise designated which leads to greatly differing use of the tag. Please rather help to solve the problem. --Nop 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that footway and cycleway tags have been used loosely in many ways that are not equivalent with designated, which is supposedly rather precise. There is a significant number of mappers who want to keep tagging everything that they perceive as footway or as cycleway that way and they just do. So their footway may actually be a path with no designation, their cycleway may even be a track with vehicle=no. Now if you claim this sort of tagging was equivalent to "designated" you invalidate "designated" as a reliable tag, it becomes just as nondescript as footway and cycleway. So far there was no indication that the people who want to tag footway and cycleway by suitability rather than designation could be convinced to do it differently. But they don't care about designated. Therefore I figure the best way is to separate the old, fuzzy way of tagging and the new, precise one. But this means accepting that in real usage it is not the same, even if it was originally intended to be. Unfortunately I can't show you a statistic to proof my point as you need knowledge of the real situation to see which footways and cycleways are off. I can show you two heated discussions on the matter on talk-de, but they are in Germna. But in the backcountry area I am mapping I keep encountering many tracks and paths that are either tagged as footway or as cycleway and I was very surprised that some of the original mappers insist that they are not to be corrected.
The problem does not exist for bridleway because there are few riders and simply nobody cares about that tag, so there is no conflict betewen an old or new way of tagging.
unclassified
Cheers for the inputs. However I'm going to undo the "in the UK" and "in the US" bit. The aim is to get something that's close to the (UK-centric) original, since that's what we've been living with up to now, but express is in terms that can be used anywhere (ie are not jurisdiction-dependent).
I was thinking of introducing some country-specific notes at the end; add country specific stuff there - but it's got to be prescriptive - "the US we do XXX instead", not "this doesn't apply in the US".
--RichardMann 11:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've updated it to allow unpaved as an alternative to narrow as a cause for vehicles having to slow down. This was my experience in NZ - widish road but if you passed at speed you'd be effing and blinding.
--RichardMann 11:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Effing & blinding is swearing. I don't think I'm allowed to specify the precise swear words implied.
Look in the wiki at the teritiary definition - in the green box it clearly states that in the UK tertiary should be used for roads wider than 4m (which is the distance for two cars to pass reasonably comfortably on tarmac). Yes there are a lot of tertiaries in the UK. In practice, a certain amount of leeway is used, so that the question of whether the road is primarily used to access properties (or is a through route to somewhere) is taken into account. That's why "primarily used to access properties" is in the top line, unqualified, and the narrow bit is qualified by "likely"
--RichardMann 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Could focus it even more on the "primarily used to access properties" / "not significantly used as a through road", and push the narrow / unpaved / slowing down stuff to be an illustration of something that applies "in some countries", and in others you just have to guess based on what it connects. I'm afraid I can't bring myself to look at it again until the morning!
--RichardMann 01:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I've expanded the rural bit to give a list of alternative definitions (including the if-all-else-fails, does-it-go-anywhere question). Does that cover it better?
--RichardMann 12:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Counterproductive uploads of Commons images
If you take a look at Image:I-blank_wide.svg, you'll see that it wasn't uploaded here; it's instead linked from Commons. (Check its properties and you'll see it's coming from upload.wikimedia.org, which has more bandwidth and space and possibly better connectivity than here.) For any Commons image, simply use [[Image:whatever]], and it'll be automatically created (er, inherited) here, with full copyrights/history/documentation intact. In fact, since you aren't pasting the required author and license fields or taking advantage of any translations on Commons, I'm tempted to say they're not only a waste of time but counterproductive; they also will lose any updates from Commons.
Compounding the issue, some of the images you're duplicating are the wrong images! For example, the uploaded Image:Shield state generic blank.svg has "blank" in the name, but it has zeros so it can't be used as a generic shield on the Custom Highway Shields page. Image:Circle_sign_blank.svg is the one that should be used. And, upon previewing this comment, it's suddenly here! See Talk:Wiki/Archive01#Allow use of images from wikimedia commons for a bit more info. LMKWYT. --goldfndr 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I see that you put in an explanation that digits could be substituted. While that could work well for the identical digit placeholders, converting 2 digits to 1 or 1 to 2 might be an obstacle, but maybe that will be easy. --goldfndr 10:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
oneway=yes
As far as I know, on none of the common renderers or editors does highway=motorway imply oneway=yes. Unless this is changed, we should not state that it does. (There are two-way single-carraigeway motorways, by the way.) --NE2 18:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Of course there are. And for those few, we can put oneway=no. It has been documented that it’s implied for quite a long time. --Hawke 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Documented where, and has said documentation been followed? --NE2 19:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, added by you when the text about using oneway=yes was already present. Therefore you introduced the contradiction. As for whether it's been followed, do any renderers or editors show motorways without oneway=yes as one-way? --NE2 19:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, May 2008. I admit, I forgot to update the text at the time; someone else caught that in July 2009. For routing, assuming it is one way is the only sane (safe) choice if there is no oneway=* at all. You do not want to accidentally route someone the wrong direction on a motorway. --Hawke 19:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do any renderers or editors show motorways without oneway=yes as one-way? --NE2 20:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea. --Hawke 23:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- So think about it: how would you check if the motorways in an area are pointing in the correct direction? --NE2 00:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I’d look at the direction of the ways, and see if they were pointing in the correct direction. --Hawke 02:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- And how would you look at the direction of the ways if they don't show up without clicking on them? --NE2 11:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- They do, so that’s irrelevant. --Hawke 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- They do in which renderer or editor? --NE2 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- JOSM shows the direction of ways. --Hawke 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- They do in which renderer or editor? --NE2 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- They do, so that’s irrelevant. --Hawke 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- And how would you look at the direction of the ways if they don't show up without clicking on them? --NE2 11:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I’d look at the direction of the ways, and see if they were pointing in the correct direction. --Hawke 02:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- So think about it: how would you check if the motorways in an area are pointing in the correct direction? --NE2 00:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea. --Hawke 23:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do any renderers or editors show motorways without oneway=yes as one-way? --NE2 20:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, May 2008. I admit, I forgot to update the text at the time; someone else caught that in July 2009. For routing, assuming it is one way is the only sane (safe) choice if there is no oneway=* at all. You do not want to accidentally route someone the wrong direction on a motorway. --Hawke 19:38, 15 January 2010 (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:Bikeroute-street.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)?
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.
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.
If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.
--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:31, 27 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 creator of image File:Hawke northwestportage.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 (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) 17:07, 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:Shared-use-trail-01.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|Hawke}} 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) 13:50, 3 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:Shared-use-trail-02.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|Hawke}} 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) 15:36, 1 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:Designatedsigns.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" 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|Hawke}} 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) 07:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)