User talk:B-unicycling

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:2017-07-18 Lamoge Ogham Stones (4).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)?

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) 17:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No bother at all, I've added the license. B-unicycling (talk) 18:26, 6 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:Benchmark on Coolbricken Bridge painted.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)

Are you author of this file? In such case please use {{CC0-self}} or note it in the description. Also, once you add missing data - you can remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified March 2022}} from the file page. BTW, User:Mateusz Konieczny/notify uploaders/B-unicycling lists some other files you uploaded that need a similar review Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to confirm: are you author of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Prellstein-turmstra%C3%9Fe-berlin.jpg and other files you marked as CC0? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
My mother was, but she gave me permission to say it was my work. B-unicycling (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
To have things 100% fine - it would be better to have her transferring copyright to you (effectively it is the same, but the difference is that it is OK from legal side). Can you add notes on photos with either "my own work" or "work of family member, they agreed to such license" or "work of family member, they transferred copyright to me and I agreed to such license" on the file pages? (obviously only where it is true!) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:30, 16 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:Laundromat Castlecomer Road.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|B-unicycling}} 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) 20:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Notifying voters

It is fine to notify voters who participated in the previous vote - but it would be fair to notify all, not just ones who supported your proposal. Can you notify also remaining voters? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Consider yourself notified. The other previously against-voter with the same argument has already voted. B-unicycling (talk) 22:32, 9 April 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:2022-06-18 qr-code.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|B-unicycling}} 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) 13:46, 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:Steps stile Castlefield.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|B-unicycling}} 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) 19:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for upload - but source is missing

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Dog_tie-up.png - thanks for uploading and clearly licensing it!

But one more thing is missing: what is its source? If it is a photo you made then you can use {{CC0-self}} or add {{Information}} and fill fields as described at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Information

If it is upload of CC0-licensed files found elsewhere - please describe what is its source (typically link is enough)

You can also upload such files to https://commons.wikimedia.org/ which has much more resources for proper file handling, and also files will be usable to wider group of people. File uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are directly usable on OSM Wiki.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to use the wikicommons uploader in the future, because the one here is useless. I had added a description, and I always tick "my own work" thing, yet I always have to go in afterwards and add it manually. B-unicycling (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I really, really recommend this. Wikimedia Commons has some usability issues and that is with putting very significant resources into this. While file uploader on OSM Wiki is basically unmaintained. I actually thought about proposing on Talk:Wiki to suggest more strongly on upload page to just use Wikimedia Commons. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, if you marked "my own work" thing and it got lost - consider reporting it on Talk:Wiki Maybe it is fixable? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Historic proposal

I think it's unlikely that all values of historic=* will get approved in one proposal. An alternative idea would be:

From there on, we could shortcut to propose historic=settlement + settlement=crannog.

What do you think about this?

This strategy would ignore historic=archaeological_site and keep it unapproved. Is this tag important for your purposes?

--Martianfreeloader (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read the proposal for historic=*; I overlooked that you're seeking to approve all unapproved values in one go. I doubt that will happen.
I suppose the short-cut would be an option, but I we need to figure out the definition for historic=archaeological_site first, I'm afraid. Do we include sites with remains above ground/ water level? Do we include or exclude sites of experimental archaeology like heritage parks (Freiluftmuseum) and crannog centres (there are at least three in the UK and Ireland) or places like Newgrange? I would like to define it as "a place where archaeologists (could) carry out/ have carried out research on site which are at least ruins". Stonehenge is an archaeological site imho, even though most of it is above ground. Other places are completely leveled like hundreds of Irish ringforts (another rabbit hole to be followed up on) or crannogs, but you can still see cropmarks or whatever the equivalent in water is (I've reported 3 possible crannogs to the National Monuments Service within the last week and I have 3 more to report, just from satellite imagery). Obviously, we don't need to map every excavation site either, only what's relevant for local or national or international history (rather vague again, I'm afraid). I've read a couple of excavation reports recently for a job, and some don't yield anything anyway, and some are "just in someone's back garden". They might be of relevance for that specific town's history, but I don't think they should be mapped. Kilkenny's map would turn brown with little amphoras, for example. If they find parts of the town wall, say, we should map that, but if they only found pottery sherds or the ever present clay pipes, that's not relevant enough.
My short-term purpose is to make videos about crannogs, so my video production is somewhat delayed into the winter months now, unfortunately. Not great for site visits, but that's only my problem. B-unicycling (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I've reduced the proposal to only focus on the historical=* key itself.
I'm really sorry about your filming project! Just out of interest: Why can't you do this without unapproved tags?
Anyways, which are the tags that you need approved for the project? Will historic=settlement + settlement=crannog suffice or do you rely on a tagging scheme with an additional level like historic=archaeological_site + site=settlement + settlement=crannog?
Please note, I'm not an archaeologist, nor do I map anything related to archaeology. I'm super uninformed on this topic. :-)
--Martianfreeloader (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
It depends on how we define historic=archaeological_site whether I can skip it and just use historic=settlement or not.
The videos are about how to map historic things, so I'd like to get the tags right before I tell other people how to do use them.B-unicycling (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's totally understandable. --Martianfreeloader (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you author of that image?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Jostle-stones-kilkenny-02.png ? Or is it found somewhere on the internet?

Can you maybe find a replacement for it? Note that currently its licensing status is unclear and it needs to be removed (or its status clarified)

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

fortification_type=motte

Hello, do you know what is the description of fortification_type=motte is? There is no wiki page yet. You can get an overview with overpass. With your interest, perhaps a short description comes to mind. Or it is a duplicate from another tag.--geozeisig (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I can do that. I think it's kind of a "Burggraben" in German in a motte-and-bailey castle. I think for transparency, we should stick to communicating in English here. B-unicycling (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Done: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:fortification_type%3Dmotte in English and German. And I learned something. B-unicycling (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:B-unicycling&oldid=2447890"