User talk:Lzhl

Энергетика

Здравствуйте. не могли бы вы мне помочь, как вынести на рассмотрение общественности о введении классификации объектов энергетики по напряжениям?

Дмитрий Спасибо.

• Лучше всего, если вы сначала обсудите своё предложение с рускоязычным сообществом на форуме. Lzhl 11:40, 13 April 2011 (BST).

natural=bedrock

Am I right, you added to the Template:Map Features:natural the tag bedrock? Where does the tag bedrock come from, e.g. proposal? I used times before always natural=rock. Don't we have with Proposed_features/bare_rock now a third tag for the same thing? Way don't we stay with rock. As for Tagwatch, bedrock is used 62 times and rock 4592 times. Please tell me your motives. Thanks, fireball2 13:00, 26 September 2011 (BST)

• Yes, you right. I added this tag. I didn't know that this tag not approved, page natural=bedrock hasn't any marks about. I should have to figure out before. But tags natural=bedrock and natural=rock designed for different features. natural=bedrock should be used only for nodes. Using natural=bedrock for mapping areas made of solid rocks is mistake made by French Corine Land Cover import (~1300 from 2227 uses with ways). Lzhl 13:13, 27 September 2011 (BST).

Power generation refinement

Hi,

I am the original writer of the proposal concerning Power generation refinement.

As you did see, I did not touch it for a long time as I was working on many other topics, essentialy license change activities in my area.

This is now finished and I finally can finish this proposal. But I see you changed its state to RFC/Voting, and people have even began to vote.

I thank you for the interest you give to this proposal, but I did not see anything on tagging mailing list. Did you discuss it on another mailing list ?

I'd like to make some minor changes (simplification) before starting again the process correctly (i.e. announce the RFC phase on tagging list).

--Don-vip 14:34, 5 May 2012 (BST)

Про natural=grassland спор возник потому что его меняли в английской версии

меняли текст с "Areas" "Natural areas". Изначально были у кого-то соображения что это только в дикой природе поля с травой? Или это более общее "поле с травой"? Это обсуждалось на рускоязычном форуме или в чатике? Xxzme (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2015 (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:Windbreak on IRS.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|Lzhl}} 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) 13:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)