User talk:Steve8
Editing Template:Place
Please do not edit Template:Place, but instead add your image to the relevent page, in this case London. By editing Template:Place, you added the congestion charge map to every page listed here.
- Sorry about that. I really don't know it happened. Can it be removed/reverted? User:Steve8
- It's fine now, I reverted it, I may have over-reacted by alerting you here. Bruce89 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Lolcat of awesomeness! - Tube Network Map
I grant you the Lolcat of awesomeness! ...for your Tube Network Map. Always fun to see new renderings as slippy maps, but I find this one has particular awesomeness, because I did some work on drawing in London's railway=subway network, and was wondering when I would get to see it. -- Harry Wood 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Must kind! Hope folk will take the opportunity to use it as proofing device and correct details in database and help improve it. For instance, would like to remove the confirming grey centre lines when happy with completeness -- steve8 16:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
highway=unsurface
Hi there, this tag suddenly appeared on Map Features with no discussion or voting and I feel it is confusing. I'd like to remove it but felt I should ask why first, may be there is some history behind it. Mike mike at ayeltd dot biz. MikeCollinson 14:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- There was discussion on list (late Sept-early Oct) to which you contributed and on IRC. There was justifiable criticism of of no voting having taken place. Because of the critical comments I withdrew from that particular arena. I was responding to a request to render a tag and was not aware at that time that it had not been voted in. It probably needs re-visiting and a concensus solution reached - with perhaps an auto change of the highway=unsurfaced tag to follow. steve8 16:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Mapnik stylesheet
Hi Steve, are you still maintaining the OSM Mapnik stylesheet? I noticed in one of my recent mapping trips that bridges for tracks are not rendered correctly in Mapnik, e.g. here in Steinbach 2 track bridges over the B457 road and one track bridge over the A5 motorway. They are rendered correctly in Osmarender. Perhaps this can be fixed. Greetings, Longbow4u 08:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I have only just seen this, and you are right. I will look into it, but am away at a conference next week so may have to wait till next weekend. steve8 22:54, 29 Aug 2008 (UTC)
- Thank You, Longbow4u 12:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Mapnik Stylesheet
i) Thank you for adding railway=stationdisused=yes .
However, this appears to create an issue with other renders, and so I've been advised to use railway:historic=station_site instead.
Would it be possible to consider making this tag render the same as a disused station, or perhaps even more faded out?
In addition, having 'old' stations outside of railway namespace will mean less confusion for routing engines that might assume railway=station was still active.
ii)I am in the process of converting my field mapping to a barrier=* boundary=* style. rather than overlaid landuse=field
Would it be possible to consider rendering boundary=land_parcel as a very thin solid line in the same color as currently used as the edge casing for landuse=field?
barrier=* will render for these but seems overkill, Also some land_boundaries do not have a clear 'barrier'. My thought was that barrier=* should render over the top of the boundary=land_parcel. boundary=land_parcel is intended for areas with fields (it's not intended for urban areas), and is intended be visible on zoom levels equivalent to the 1:25000 scale downward.
I have no objections to your raising these for further discussion on the wiki
Eventually, the hope is to create relations for land_parcels (the landuse=field) being applied to the area formed by the relation,
ShakespeareFan00 23:04, 18 May 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:2asector.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.
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) 19:13, 8 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 author of image File:Blackpool.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) 21:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Is it OSM Data?
What is the license of "PGS data"? Is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Iom.png made from OSM data at its time? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
What is the source of satellite imagery here?
What you mean by "OSM satellite data" in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Iomoversat.png ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:56, 30 May 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:FallDownWay.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|Steve8}} 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) 15:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)