User talk:Skippern

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussão

Olá Skippern,

Criei uma lista de discussão para facilitar a comunicação entre os usuários do Brasil.

Para se cadastrar, entre aqui. -Vgeorge- 9 September 2008

Obrigado --Skippern 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Relações

So inicio trabalha com Relações no Brasil. --Skippern 13:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


Hires data for Brazil

When I see all the Y! hires data in Brazil I get the impression that you need more mappers ;-) --katpatuka 08:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right about that, I am trying my best to fill in data with a focus on Espírito Santo, but I also do other places (as now I do some Yahoo tracing in Niterói). Apriciate all the aid that we get here, please help spread the word. --Skippern 10:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

multipoligon

Hej!

Det verkar som om du har taggat relationer med type=multipoligon, är det meningen eller är det bara en Portugisisk felstavning?

http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/54019 http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/54026 http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/54027 http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/54242 http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/55524 http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/57142 http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/59886


Erik Johansson 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Den feilen stammer nok fra JOSM, jeg fikk opp en rekke multipolygoner merket som feil, og saa etter hvordan jeg kunne rette dem, det virket som om feilen forsvant ved aa stave multipoligon, vet ikke om det var en bug eller hva. --Skippern 14:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Kontakt...

Kan du kontakt meg via OSM talk-siden http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Gustav%20Foseid eller e-postadressen på http://www.foseid.priv.no/gustav/kontakt.html ? -- Gustavf 20:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

About the wetlands discussion

Thanks for pointing me to that page, I didn’t consider it as related at first, there are crosscutting concerns, right !

But «see natural=wetland» ? What is this supposed to mean for me ? Please discuss a little further. --Pshunter 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It did what it was supposed to do, enlighten you on the point of wetland. --Skippern 11:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Languages template

What's the idea of adding {{Languages|}} template to About, Help:Contents, Browsing, Editing etc ? Are you planning to remove the existing language links? At the moment there's two sets of links on these pages -- Harry Wood 09:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thats the idea, but it turned out to be a little more work than I had imagined, so until I get to do the same in the various translations of the pages I let the two languages templates stay. I am also doing this from work, so I can do some bulk work at times and than suddenly it can be a couple of days to next chance. --Skippern 11:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

OSM Diary links

Walking Papers

Walking Papers

power_rating

H Skippern, power_output is not a loose translation for what is wanted here - it's just physically incorrect. It's a bit like saying: my photovoltaic power plant had a power output of 5 kW today ... I can't say if that should mean 5 kWh this day or maybe the maximum power output was 5 kW or maybe the average power output of the sunshine hours was 5 kW, which may all fit to a photovoltaic plant of a size of about 1 kW rated power (which is mostly referenced as 1 kWp)--we want to replace power_output because the latter one is physically simply wrong. So I don't understand your denial ... -- Schusch 22:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal which may be iteresting for you

Please have a look at this proposal Relations/Proposed/Region. It has many elements which are similar to Relations/Proposed/Is In which you were interested in some time ago. Hava a nice day --Jakubt 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Relation:region discussion

I am not exactly sure if I got your proposal at Talk:Relations/Proposed/Region. Could you clarify it for me? (Sorry for my bad english). --Jakubt 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Vote for petting zoo

Hi there. Thanks for voting on my Proposed features/petting zoo proposal. You write that you oppose the proposal because you would like to see zoo=*. If you read through the other votes, you'll see that we all agree on that, and that this is actually what'll be resulting from the proposal.

With 7 out of 8 people voting to accept the proposal, your vote could mean acceptance of the proposal. Would you be so kind to change your vote to an "accept" if I promise to use zoo=*?

Cheers, sybren 09:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why Brasil to Brazil switching? It is wrong.

There was, as far as I could see, inconsistency among users of Template:Pt-br:Place in this parameter; there might be consistency among the WikiProject page set, but apparently not beyond this. I sought to standardize on 'Brazil'. The 'Brasil' value can be enforced at the template-mechanics level using a 'switch' parameter. I would suggest that value standards be included in the template documentation, or in cross-reference from the template to a section of 'internationalization' which addresses when, where and why to use "non-English" (if one wants to call them that) values. My goal was in standardization and not in imposing a personal preference.

Another word so we're on the same page. Folks sometimes assume that 'standardisation' is British/European and 'standardization' is American. My understanding is that this is a false distinction and 'standardization' is quite acceptable in the British/European spelling standard. I used to have a reference for this, but don't have it at hand right now.

(P.S. I tend not to watch user talk pages; please toss a response on my talk page, preferably with a thread cross-reference here. Thanks.)

Regards, Ceyockey 14:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The inconsistency you refere to in the portuguese pages is probably that many/some of these pages was created in english and translated to portuguese when adding the pt-br template. In this case, all usages of Brazil should be assumed wrong and changed to Brasil. --Skippern 16:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. I will go back and reverse my prior edits and take a look at other instances of the Pt-br:Place transclusion. I've added to the suggested template revisions @ Template talk:Pt-br:Place based on this exchange. --Ceyockey 01:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've also removed the soft-redirect template from Category:Brasil which referred to Category:Brazil as the 'correct' category. --Ceyockey 01:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section to Template talk:Pt-br:Place which speaks to a broader namespace question underlying the 'Brasil' vs. 'Brazil' choice. --Ceyockey 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Stubs

Check Category:Tag stubs and Category:Key stubs to find lists of stubs that need filling in. Translate them to your own languages while you at it.

Are all of them long enough to be considered stubs? Why not wikipedia:WP:STUB? "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information." --goldfndr 11:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Well I started a process where my plan was to add Template:ValueDescription and Template:KeyDescription on all pages, and give a brief description where I am able, and at the same time ask for assistance on describing the pages where they existed in other languages than English. I managed 13 pages translated to English this way (from Finnish, German and Italian). I am also in the same process trying to translate important features to Portuguese.
This entire process took more time and effort than I had planned, and now also are very busy preparing the Vitória import, but I will continue with the stubs until as many as possible of them are described. IMO all keys and tags should be described in English, so that they can be translated to any language. --Skippern 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I'm elated to read that you are planning to follow through with ValueDescription, as linking to OSMdoc/Tagstat/Tagwatch seemed to be the only possibly worthwhile improvement over relying on their Key pages if the description was identical and their Key pages were translated. Any possibility I could persuade you not to create more tag stubs if they don't have this template? That is, if you aren't already persuaded of that. Was there a published deadline for creating tag stubs? --goldfndr 13:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I have created all the necessary pages, I now just need time to get all those ValueDescription and KeyDescription in place. If we say that no more stubs will be created until this bulk edit is completed? That means that all stubs should have at least the description template in place. --Skippern 11:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

{{tag|key|yes}} vs {{tag|key||yes}}

Your input desired at Talk:Wiki guidelines. --goldfndr 11:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

shop=travel_agency -> shop=travel

Looks shop=travel_agency as a shop selling travel agency. I think it is better change to shop=travel. --Calibrator 08:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

cep=*

Expect of using cep=* please use postal_code=*... Like your work on OSM anyway, keep it up! Obrigado :-) --Deltabrasil 22:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My JOSM preset

I am working on a draft JOSM preset based on INT-1. It might be full of errors, but if you would like to test it out, check it here. I'll look into having it included in JOSM's list of presets when I have a more agile and complete version. [1] Check it out --Skippern 23:26, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Keep an eye on OpenSeaMap/Buoyage Systems --Skippern 08:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

MapCSS

I have started experimenting with MapCSS, firstly as a paintstyle/renderer for JOSM, but also in time see if I can have my own map rendering rules for creating tiles. [2] --Skippern 23:58, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Tag:geological=outcrop

Hi, your prose in Tag:geological=outcrop is not clear: maybe an accidental cut/paste? Could you reformulate please? Thanks! Damouns 09:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It is cut/paste from Key:geological, and I would love to see someone document this tag further. IMO red links should not occur on Map features, especially not on tags that might require specialist knowledge within a field. --Skippern 17:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Alv seems to have corrected your sentence, it was just a matter of formulation, because the sentence in Key:geological is correct. As I said you had perhaps made an error in your copy/paste. Thanks anyway. Damouns 08:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Translations

Hello, as you're part of the Wiki team you should be interested: I think that translation on this wiki would use some improvement and I've proposed a new system at Talk:Wiki Translation#Translate extension. I hope you can provide some feedback and thoughts (and help if we decide to go that way). Thanks, Nemo 10:37, 16 August 2012 (BST)

Map Projections

Main Projection

Brazilian Projections

Resources

Easier to remember is https://epsg.io/ followed by the EPSG code, for instance EPSG:4979, https://epsg.io/4979. By the way, this is NOT a projection but the ellipsoid reference CRS84. The main projections are rather IMHO:
* EPSG:4326 (Equirectangular projection, 'WGS 84 -- WGS84 - World Geodetic System 1984, used in GPS', using CRS84),
* EPSG:3857 (Web Mercator projection, 'WGS 84 / Pseudo-Mercator -- Spherical Mercator, Google Maps, OpenStreetMap, Bing, ArcGIS, ESRI', using CRS84),
* EPSG:3395 (Mercator projection, 'WGS 84 / World Mercator', using CRS84).

SkipperGuide

Check out SkipperGuide.com, an English language version of SkipperGuide.de, linked from OpenSeaMap --Skippern 22:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Search in Prefixes

Special:PrefixIndex to search in specific prefixes :D --Skippern (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation of Navit

Olá Skippern, I saw that you are interested in translations. So I like to ask, if you might have time/interest in helping us at Navit to update our translations[3]?

Brazilian portuguese

Hi there. I see you've done some translations to Brazilian Portuguese. Please refrain from using automatic translation or in general translating when you're unsure of what you're writing, as the result may be not at all what you intended.

Here's an example: in Pt-br:Tag:natural=fell, you translated "Bare upper lying uncultivated land on high ground, principally covered with grass and often grazed" as "Nua deitada superior terras não cultivadas em terreno alto, principalmente cobertos com grama e muitas vezes pastavam". That actually means someting like "Naked [female] lying superior [singular] uncultivated lands [plural] on high ground, principally covered with grass and often [they] grazed." – there are lots of subtleties that machine translation can't capture. For instance "naked" in English is the same for male and female subjects; in Portuguese there's a difference between "nua" (female) and "nu" (male), and both refer to people. For land, one could use, "descoberto" for instance. "Upper" also works in English as an adjective for both singular and plural nouns, but in Portuguese adjectives have the plural mark to match the noun (and they come after the noun, not before). Then there's "grazed" a form which can be interpreted as both an adjective and a verb in the past tense, and in this case the automatic translator chose the wrong one. All of these small details combine to make the final sentence rather nonsensical.

If you prefer continuing to do such translations, at least mark them as such with a template (e.g. Template:In Progress or a notice of some kind so readers will be aware that it's not meant to be a final, correct version, and other editors can chip in and fix the translation. Cheers, Waldir (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It is quite some time since I did bulk translations, and the period I did, my portuguese wasn't good enough to detect such errors. Most of my wiki edits now are of a more polishing nature, a few "google translates" might still be done, but the volume of text to be passed through will definitely be less, and the control stronger. My portuguese is still not good enough for manual translation, I still need translation tools at hand. A help now is that my new web browser highlight typing errors and suggests correction of many words, so that helps greatly when writing/translating to Portuguese. --Skippern (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Unificação no prefixo Pt — Você é a favor ou contra?

Olá Skippern!

Você usa português neste wiki e por isso está sendo convocado para a importante discussão sobre a unificação no prefixo Pt.

Alexandre Magno (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Tava indo aí para votar apôs do vendo no lista talk, obrigado :) --Skippern (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

reorganisation of this wiki's navigation

Hello, I write to you because you are part of the Wiki Team. I would like to establish a navigation concept for this wiki, lead by use cases. I wrote an example main page and an example navigation page (for the use case 'contribute map data'). In January, I wrote a correspendent proposal on Talk:Wiki_organisation, with some but not much feedback. I would be happy if you could add your feedback in order to decide either to refuse the proposal or to proceed. In the latter case I will incorporate all feedback, write the two missing navigation pages ('about' and 'use') and finally I would like to change the main page. Best wishes, --Cantho (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Now I proposed to apply the proposed changes to the main page. Your feedback/ vote is welcome. If you want to respond but don't have the time right now, please give a notice about when you think you can respond. Have a nice day --Cantho (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Gibraltar

I see you have been involved in the Gibraltar map. Currently is showing a fictitious representation of the territorial waters based on the Treaty or Utrecht (1713) rather than UNCLOS(82) and the Admiralty charts. The correct situation is shown on http://www.geoportal.gov.gi

I haven't a clue how to edit the dataset but the current lines shown need to at least be removed as they are missleading. 

-- Unsigned User:Tarik
I might have contributed something in/near Gibraltar, but have little knowledge of the area, and are not able to contribute further. I also have more priority other places. --Skippern (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Favicon no wiki

A quem pedir? — Alexandre Magno (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Harry Wood#Suggestion: Favicon for the wiki — Alexandre Magno (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible WMS + TMS layers for JOSM

  • DER-ES: *forgotten*

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:A-27.gif ?

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.

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) 15:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't remember the exact site or the exact license of the source, but it came from a Brazilian site explaining traffic signes and what part of Brazilian transit law they applies to. The filename itself refers to the sign definition in Brazilian transit laws at the time I did the upload. Unfortienately I am not able to search up the actual license now. --Skippern (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
In this case we anyway can directly reference higher quality https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Brasil_A-27.svg that I later found during rescue attempt (I have doubts is it really too simple to be copyrighted, but apparently it was kept there) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a similar problem with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:INT-1-M-20.png - what is the source and its license? 10:51, 30 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:Guarapari.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.

This photo can be found on:
* https://www.tripadvisor.com.br/LocationPhotos-g941641-Guarapari_State_of_Espirito_Santo.html#17517693: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/0b/4c/7d/downtown.jpg
* https://1feiraliterariabrasilafricaes.wordpress.com/vitoria-es/
I would suggest using QUARAPARI5 - panoramio.jpg from commons Category:Guarapari as replacement. --Nospam2005 (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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|Skippern}} 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) 09:24, 16 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:Blue1.gif ?

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|Skippern}} 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) 07:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There are so long since I did these signs, that I cannot corectly recall the sources, as far as I remember they where all under PD, CC0, or other similar free to use licenses, but reverse searching them to find the correct sources are too much work for me at the moment. Since they all refer to sign standards I am sure that wikimedia commons do have the same illustrations, feel free to replace the links to wikimedia and remove my uploads. --Skippern (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I added note on file page and on similar ones. Sadly, it seems that in this case Wikimedia Commons is missing them or at least I failed to find them Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skippern&oldid=2450194"