User talk:Regenpfeifer

Qualitätsicherung

Acces Tagging

Ryquaza hat mich auf ein Taggingfehler aufmerksam gemacht.

Mit access=agricultural (worauf du es jetzt geändert hattest) dürften z.B. Fussgänger und Radfahrer auch nur zu landwirtschaftlichen Zwecken dort entlang ;-)

Aufgestelltes Schild:

Verkehrszeichen: 260 Verbot für Kraftfahrzeuge (Krafträder, auch mit Beiwagen, Kleinkrafträder und Mofas sowie sonstige mehrspurige Kraftfahrzeuge) mit Zusatzzeichen 1026-36 landwirtschaftlicher Verkehr frei.

Tagging:

Das wäre dann motor_vehicle=agricultural (ohne weitere Access-Tags).

Das Zeichen 260 entspricht also unserem motor_vehicle=* (ohne Zusatzzeichen dann motor_vehicle=no) und das Zusatzzeichen 1026-36 "Landwirtschaftlicher Verkehr frei" *=agricultural, was dann zusammengesetzt motor_vehicle=agricultural ergibt.

Links

Landkreis Miltenberg Status Wanderwege

DE:OSMC_Reitkarte#Wandermarkierungen_direkt_per_Tag_steuern

DE:OSMC_Reitkarte#Tagging

http://www.wanderreitkarte.de/dir_de.php

Karte zeigt Internetlinks

Karte zeigt Briefkäste, Telefon und Post

Query-to-map zeigt hier z.B. ^{[ dead link ]}

Wanderwege

Relation	Ref	Name, Verlauf	Zeichen	Status	Länge	Bemerkungen
276065 276065		Einhardweg			km
181038 181038		Main-Taubertal Jakobsweg ?? Mapper: Rosty Jakobsweg von Miltenberg nach Rothenburg			km
33360 33360		Limeswanderweg Schwäbischer Albverein Anschluß an Odenwaldklub HW 37 in Osterburken			km
151286 151286		Panoramaweg Taubertal Rothenburg ob der Tauber - Freudenberg			129 km
Relation	Ref	Name		Status	Länge km	Bemerkung

Straßenliste für Hausnummernrelationen in Großheubach

Relation	Straßenname	Länge	Letzte Bearbeitung	Status	Bemerkung
156395	Beim Trieb
156751	Hauptstraße

wiki:sybole

	NW Rot	NW Blau	NW Schwarz

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/6/65/Symbol_RP_m1_kwr_blau.png

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/28/Symbol_RP_m1_kwr_gelb.png

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/a6/Symbol_RP_m1_kwr_gruen.png

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/a6/Symbol_RP_m1_kwr_pink.png

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/8/89/Symbol_RP_m1_kwr_rot.png

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/0/09/Symbol_RP_m1_kwr_schwarz.png

OSM Composer Wegfarben

Radwege in und um Großheubach

Name, Darstellung, Stand	Länge	Eingetragen	Relationsnummer
D5 Fahrradweg Saar-Mosel-Main		29.07.2009: 698,96 km / 42 Segmente	31973 31973
D9 Fahrradweg Weser-Romantische Straße		29.07.2009: 1164,48 km / 81 Segmente	16809 16809
R1 Landkreis Aschaffenburg		17.08.2009: 34,39 km / 8 Segmente	14337 14337
R3 Landkreis Aschaffenburg		17.08.2009: 51,7 km / 3 Segmente	7820 7820
R8 Landkreis Aschaffenburg		17.08.2009: 37 km / 2 Segmente / 11 km Lücke	9000 9000
R9 Landkreis Aschaffenburg		17.08.2009: 23,7 km / 1 Segmente	15327 15327
Limes Radweg		29.07.2009: 274,36 km / 32 Segmente	2944 2944
Liebliches Taubertal-Der"Klassiker" Fahrradweg		29.07.2009: 99,91 km / 10 Segmente	36228 36228
Name		..2009: , km / Segmente

Hintergrundfarbe
Grün
Gelb
Rot

Odenwaldklub

Hi, wie ich sehe bist Du auch mit Wanderwegen aktiv :-) Für den Odenwaldklub habe ich eine Übersichtsseite angelegt, vielleicht kannst Du ja was ergänzen. -- LosHawlos 20:26, 23 August 2009 (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:Symbol RP spb 96.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".

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) 23:01, 11 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:Foto RP NW schwarz 9.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|Regenpfeifer}} 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) 06:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)