User talk:Candid Dauth

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:Sos.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}} 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) 09:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

OSMHV

Hi there! Sorry for having reverted your edit. I hadn't realized you were the author of both tools, but I nevertheless stand by my position that they should be documented separately, because the experience is indeed quite different. In fact, considering the edit you made afterwards announcing that the tool will be decommissioned, I would like to make a pledge for keeping OSMHV online — it's actually the history lookup tool I use the most among all the ones I've tried, because it's simple and intuitive when it comes to comparing tag changes.

Would you consider, instead of making it a redirect to the new FacilMap tool, adding a deprecation banner but keeping it online as-is? I'd actually love to contribute some frontend improvements if that would be acceptable (I'd like to address this issue, in particular). Let me know if you'd be open to that! Cheers, Waldyrious (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately keeping the tool running is not an option. It has been consuming 100% CPU power on a shared server for several years. The queue was always so full that using the tool was basically never usable. I don’t even want to know what load the tool caused on the OSM API. Probably some changes could be made to improve things (I suspect that one problem is that that crawlers are following links to changesets and relations, causing them to be recalculated over and over again). But the problem is that the code is written in Java, and first of all I am not really fluent in Java anymore, and second of all the code is really over-engineered and much more complicated than necessary, making changes more difficult.

You can still host the software yourself (I would suggest non-publicly) or even run it locally. However, I would be much more interested to know what exactly you find more difficult to achieve with the new FacilMap implementation. Maybe it can be adjusted to fit your needs? --Candid Dauth (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and explanation! Your reasoning makes sense. Unfortunately, the UI of FacilMap is simply more complex: it shows a list of changed elements, but there's no way to see all tag changes at once (which technically OSMHV also didn't, but at least it was easy to fix with a small bit of custom CSS as mentioned in the link above), so one needs to move back and forth to check the changes in different elements, with no ability to assess the overall picture in a single view.

If there was a feature to expand the tag change details inline, in the main list of changed elements —and even better, a button or user preference to expand all of them at once— then this would have the same utility as OSMHV did to me.

Also, I honestly preferred OSMHV's before/after table design and colors, and I'd rather the changes panel was an actual sidebar that could be shown/hidden instead of overlaying the map and becoming slightly transparent when not hovered — but those, unlike the all-in-one view, are more aesthetic preferences than actual functionality limitations :)

Cheers, and btw, thank you for developing these tools! --Waldyrious (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)