User talk:Chillly
Contact because of a future OSM-school in your region
Hi Chris, we http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comenius_OSM_and_Tourism have in mind to apply for a new Comenius project.
In the new Comenius project we will include a school from you region. ;-) - http://www.sentamu.com/ , - http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.76005&lon=-0.27636&zoom=16&layers=M
Do you have some hints, on what we should have a "mapping focus" for the kids from that school?
Best regards
Manfred
Manfred, sorry for the delay in answering, I haven't been into the wiki recently.
that part of Hull under a lot of development change, so the first step would be to confirm that the area is well mapped and hasn't changed since I mapped it in 2008. Then any POI details would be useful. There are not a lot of tourism features near sentamu college, but there are shops, etc which could all be added. Details of sports grounds and other recreation need expansion too. In general all of the roads in Hull are present, named and correctly graded, but some need extensions such as turning circles. Another local feature which are missing are ten-foots (only a Hullite would know what they are). They get tagged highway=service, service=alley.
Contact me by my OSM message for more info, my OSM user is chillly. Look at my blog for 2008 onwards for how Hull was mapped.
Chris
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:Beverley.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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.
--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi I did create the render using a style based on the default (Mapnik) render. I have added {{CC0-self}}. HTH, Chris
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:Studio.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 (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|Chillly}} 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) 14:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)