User talk:Dieterdreist

Hi Dieter, do you speak italian? --EdoM (lets talk about it) 21:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

si --dieterdreist

Ciao Dieterdreist, mi sono ricategorizzato sotto users in Sardegna, anche se nemmeno quella è una mia residenza stabile. Grazie comunque, a presto --Mr G 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

De:Road_Signs

Hi Dieter, du hast oben genannte Seite mit Warnhinweis versehen. Welche Tags hast du damit gemeint? Es wäre sicherlich sinnvoller die Seite zu verbessern, um dem User so eine konsistente Hilfe, bestehend aus Map Features, Germany Roads Tagging und den weiteren maßgeblichen Seiten zu geben, als eine Seite als "inkompetent" abzustempeln. Im übrigen habe ich versucht mich bei der Erstellung an Map Features usw. zu halten und lediglich alle Infos zusammen zu suchen, da die im Wiki doch recht verstreut sind.

Gruß --zorque 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ich habe die Seite nicht als inkompetent hingestellt sondern lediglich darauf hingewiesen, dass weltweit die englischen Definitionen diejenigen sind, die herangezogen werden sollten. Im einzelnen sind mir keine Fehler aufgefallen, wenn jemand jedoch nicht sicher ist, weil sich Definitionen widersprechen, so sollte er sich m.E. mit der englischen Version auseinandersetzen. Wenn ich mit dem Hinweis den Eindruck entstehen lassen habe, dass mir der Artikel nicht gefällt, so muss ich das ausdrücklich korrigieren, im Gegenteil, habe sogar ein paar Links auf diesen Artikel hinzugefügt weil er mir gut gefällt.

Dieterdreist 15:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, danke für die Stellungnahme. Ich war zunächst von dem verwendeten Symbol iritiert, da das gleiche auch für Out-of-Date Artikel verwendet wird, bzw. 'unbrauchbare' Artikel in Wikipedia ähnlich gekennzeichnet werden. MapFeatures, insbes. die englischer Version ist per Definition die höchste Instanz des Schemas. Hängt, bzw. hing in Einzelheiten aber auch ab und an hinter der Taggingrealität zurück. Meine Befürchtung ist nun, dass ein unerfahrener, hilfesuchender Mapper von der Warnung abgeschreckt wird und lieber die Finger von der Seite lässt. Vielleicht wäre ein deutlicher(!) Hinweis angebrachter, dass in Zweifelsfällen eher MapFeatures zu glauben ist, und er am Besten auf der Talk-Seite auf den Konflikt hinweisen soll, damit dieser bereinigt werden kann. Ist allerdings wie immer Ansichtssache. --zorque 19:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ich habe den Hinweis jetzt aufgrund Deiner Anmerkungen noch einmal deutlich weicher formuliert und vor allem das Symbol entfernt. Du kannst ihn aber natürlich gerne noch weiter nach Deinen Vorstellungen anpassen (gerade die Talk-Seiten-Geschichte hatte ich überlesen, ist aber durchaus sinnvoll). Dieterdreist 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, gefällt mir so sehr gut. Ich werde bei Gelegenheit noch was Richtung Talk ergänzen. Danke für die konstruktive Diskussion. --zorque 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Info on map of gps tracks

Hi, how can I make an image like this: Image:080418 density Roma OSM big.png for another place? --wiso 13:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This was quite stupid handwork. I stiched JOSM-screenshots. Not sure if there is a better way... Dieterdreist 19:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a second version with gnuplot. Worked fine. -- Dieterdreist 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Highway key voting importance

Hi Dieter, Could you please restart voting for Proposed features/Highway key voting importance, after adding link to this page to Proposed features. I thik we should make a second try, as the voting has shown that the majority suports the idea that highway tag should reflect importance, not physical attributes. --Zkir 20:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I think things are getting absurd: the OSM-Way is more or less to modify silently the wiki-page. This is also the way, this stupidity of physical criteria was inserted into the wiki/highway-definition. I tried another way instead and opened a discussion in talk (international ML) and pointed interested users in talk-de and talk-it (MLs I participate) to it. I believe that the modifications actually reflect the way we are already mapping, so it is not a "change" of some definition but it is an update to reality. Then I changed the page as the outcome of the discussion was to do it. Then some member of the community reverted the edit and asked for a vote. I reverted. The person rereverted. Someone else reverted. The person continued to ask for a vote. I agreed to fullfil this desire. There was another 2 weeks to discuss (almost nobody used it as the thing was already clear). Then there was another 2 weeks to vote. I'm sorry that the vote was maybe not listed on proposed features, but it is indeed not a proposed feature, and the begin of the voting was announced on talk, talk-de and talk-it and I also asked all readers to forward to their local Mailing-List. OSM communication works mainly with mailing lists. There was also a link on the highway-definition-page. In the end the outcome of the vote is quite clear. Why should we revote again? Why do you think that "proposed feature" is the right category? This is not about a newly proposed feature but simply about an update of the wrong definition to common best practise. -- Dieterdreist 20:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

width = narrow

Ich glaube Du hast Dich da beim Abstimmen vertan, jedenfalls ist Deine Begründung genau falsch rum. Das proposal fordert die Abschaffung von width=narrow. Lulu-Ann

barrier=gate as a way

Why you have added to the wiki-page barrier=gate information possibility tagging barrier=gate as a way ?

Because gates are not points but (almost) linear objects (viewed from above). By mapping them in a linear way, their width goes automatically in the database. This was debated on the german ML and there was consensus about this AFAIR. -- Dieterdreist 12:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Future of Areas

Ich weiss nicht, was Du mit Deinen Edits zur Future of Areas-Seite bezweckst, aber das ist total unklar geworden. Hab es reverted. Joto 15:22, 28 March 2011 (BST)

Antwort per PM. -- Dieterdreist 16:59, 28 March 2011 (BST)

orchard product confusion

Nein, ich werden diesen Vorschlag nicht entfernen und ich werde auch erläutern, warum:

Die tags produce und trees sind von französischen Initiator des Proposals, FrViPofm, eigenmächtig ohne Absprache und Diskussion mit der Community hinzugefügt worden. Der wichtige Kritikpunkt, dass der vorgeschlagene Plural notwendigerweise zu Verwechslungen führen muss, ist vom Initiator des Proposals kaltschnäuzig ignoriert worden. Daraufhin habe ich ebenso eigenmächtig wie FrViPofm sein produce=apples mein fruit=apple hinzugefügt, weil ich glaube, dass das gerade für Mapper aus anderen Kulturkreisen (z.B. Asien) verständlicher ist. Ein Blick in die Tagwatch-Statistik zeigt, dass mein Vorschlag selbst in Europa beliebter zu sein scheint:

fruit = cherry (14), apple (14), olives (11), orange (4), strawberry (3), pear (2), hazel (1), apples (1), fixme (1), kiwifruit (1), kiwi (1), sour_cherry (1)

fruits = apple (1)

fruit=apple liegt mit 14 Verwendungen vor fruit=appleS und fruitS=apple

Bei produce wird, anders als von FrViPofm vorgeschrieben, in jedem Fall der Singular bevorzugt:

plum (622), olive (194), cherry (76), damson (40), apple (21), almond (14), grape (13), blueberry (8), apples (6), rice (5), hop (4), blackcurrant (4), aspagarus (3), horse (3), sour cherry (2), grapes (2), livestock (2), olives (2), черешня (1), corn (1), christmas_tree (1), walnuts (1), fruit (1), yes (1), hazel (1), plums (1), cold (1), cone (1), berries (1), hay (1), avocado (1), wine (1), Ziegel (1), walnut (1)

• plum (622) > plumS (1)
• olive (194) > oliveS (2)
• cherry (76) > cherries (0)
• apple (21) > apples (6)

Nur 6 mal ist das Tag in der von FrViPofm vorgeschrieben Weise (produce=appleS) verwendet worden, aber 14 mal in der von mir vorgeschlagenen Weise (ftuit=apple).

Da es neben dem von FrViPofm vorgeschlagenen produce bereits das Tag product gibt, führt auch dies notwendigerweise zu Verwechslungen:

product = beer (5), salt, mineral fertilizer (3), christmas trees (3), flour (2), lumber (2), dairy (2), Bandstahl (1), juices (1), cabling_systems (1), armaments (1), gravel (1), instant_coffee (1), timber (1), fish (1), alcohol (1), car service (1), milk (1), industrial equipment (1), cleaning (1), peat (1), concrete (1), biodiesel (1), Räucherforellen (smoked trouts) (1), whisky (1), shoes (1), sugar (1), steel (1), Marzipan, chocolate coatings, sugar coatings, toppings (1), lock gates (1), enamels (1), Transformers (1), italian shoes (1)

Man merke: producE=rice, aber producT=sugar. Das passt irgendwie nicht zusammen!

Ebenso konfus ist das von FrViPofm vorgeschriebene Tag trees:

trees = broad-leaved (19448), coniferous (18981), olive_trees (10235), mixed (7166), apple_trees (361), olive (209), olives (104), apple (93), olive grove (83), orange_trees (55), hazels (45), cherry_trees (25), plum_trees (15), apple trees (13), cherry (9), blueberry_plants (7), olive tree (7), yes (6), olive_tree (5), blackcurrant_plants (4), pear_trees (4), olive trees (3), plum (3), scattered (3), *berry_plants (3), orange_tree (3), walnut trees (3), olive-trees (3), peach_trees (2), 8 (2), orange trees (2), small (2), olive_grove (2), oak for truffles (2), kiwi_trees (2), prunes (1), apples_tree (1), blackberry (1), peaches (1), raspberry (1), walnut_tree (1), hazel (1), chestnut trees (1), grade1 (1), pear (1), palm (1), plum tree (1), peach (1), almond (1), * (1)

Dass die Pluralform notwendigerweise zu Verwechslungen führt, sieht man am folgenden Beispiel:

olive_trees (10235), olive (209), olive grove (83), olives (104), olive tree (7), olive_tree (5), olive trees (3), olive-trees (3), olive_grove (2),

apple_trees (361), apple (93), apple trees (13), apples_tree (1),

Mein Kompromissvorschlag lautet:

Ich entferne mein fruit=*, wenn trees=* abgeschafft wird und ALLE tags (fruit, produce, trees) einheitlich auf product=* + SINGULAR umgestellt werden, also z.B. product=olive statt trees=olive_trees. Voraussetzung ist natürlich, dass FrViPofm sich nicht auf die Hinterbeine stellt, wenn sein von ihm geliebter, aber von vielen gehasster Plural verschwindet. Falls er diesen Kompromiss nicht akzeptiert, wird mein Kampf für verständliche und brauchbare Tags weitergehen. --FK270673 08:34, 17 April 2011 (BST)

Why http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_France/Serveurs&oldid=374802&diff=next

Everything is in the subject. Why that ? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_France/Serveurs&oldid=374802&diff=next

An error ?

Regards,

Marc marc@sibert.fr

yes, as you can see from the history, I undid this within 1 minute, it was an errateous edit. sorry.

Tag:highway=bridleway‎

Ich habe Deine Bearbeitung gesehen. Kannst Du mir mal Hinweise geben wie man suchen kann was es zu Network=horse schon alles gibt? Da gäb es bestimmt was zu ergänzen... Ich hatte mir auch schon mal Gedanken gemacht zu Network=Altstrassen ... Danke! (kannst mich auch anmailen direkt bei OSM, gleicher Username) --Taunide 12:41, 7 September 2011 (BST)

Der tag, der übrigens schon länger auf der route-relation Seite vorgeschlagen wird, ist route=horse. Der ist momentan 129 mal in Gebrauch: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/route=horse#wiki . Was genau man in network einträgt ist nicht komplett klar. Ein Vorschlag ist, das für die Ausdehnung zu verwenden mit den Werten: international, national, regional, urban und local. Es gibt eine Wikiseite, die auch auf andere Verwendungen hinweist: Key:network. Suchen kann man z.B. mit der XAPI, die würde einem bei Bedarf die kompletten Relationen mit Mitgliedern liefern können, genauso auch die Overpass-API. --Dieterdreist 00:35, 8 September 2011 (BST)

Comment on my user page. Thanks

Thanks for the comment of appreciation. I have done alot of work on the wiki over the past 3 days, you are the only person to comment! thanks. I will move the comment from my user page to my talk page which is a better place for it. PeterIto 17:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OSM e Google Earth (proiezione/trasformazione IGM Gauss-Boaga->WGS84)

Ciao, ho bisogno di aiuto sull'editing di Openstreetmap e spero tu mi possa aiutare. Ho georeferenziato delle mappe IGM tramite OziExplorer e poi perfezionando la suddetta operazione tramite Google Earth, creando dei files kmz utili per le custom maps dei Garmin. Sulla mappa di Google Earth ho tracciato i sentieri ricalcando le linee presente sulla carta IGM ed ho esportato il tutto su file GPX. Il file GPX è stato caricato nell'editor JOSM ma le tracce disegnate (e i waypoint che manualmente segnato in Google Earth) sono leggermente spostate di circa 11 secondo d'arco in LAT e 6 sec. in LON.

Mi puoi spiegare come mai ? Devo settare il sistema WGS84 anche in JOSM ? E' sufficiente ? Aspetto indicazioni utili.

Grazie mille. Diego.

Ciao Diego, mi dispiace ma non ti posso aiutare. Evidentemente si è introdotto qualche errore durante le trasformazioni/proiezioni ma non conosco la causa. Ti consiglio di chiedere in lista (talk-it), lì si trovano dei cartografi esperti. Probabilmente hai usato un metodo approsimativo o dei parametri sbagliati o insufficenti (oppure si tratta di un errore normale per quella trasformazione/proiezione). --Dieterdreist 20:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

arcade

bitte um antwort unter https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/building_passage#tunnel_vs._covered, da ich gern das proposal langsam zu einem vote führen möchte. danke, --Flaimo 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Erledigt. Habe auch die Beispiele im Proposal ergänzt und erläutert, damit klar wird, was die Unterschiede sind. --Dieterdreist 11:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposals Massenedit: Abandoned -> Proposed

Hallo Dieter, hast du die Massenedits bei den Proposals von Abandoned zurück zu Proposed irgendwo diskutiert? --Andi 07:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Zunächst mal habe ich keine "Massenedits" gemacht, weil ich mir alle tags angesehen habe und in Taginfo die Nutzung überprüft. Ich habe die Edits zumindest in den meisten Fällen begründet. Ich habe auch nicht alle seine edits zurückgenommen, sondern bin selektiv vorgegangen, von daher finde ich die Anklage etwas überzogen. Ausgangspunkt für die Aktion gestern Abend (nachdem mir das Ganze schon vor Monaten aufgefallen war), die mich nebenbei erwähnt einige Stunden meiner Lebenszeit gekostet hat, waren diverse Mails von Newbies aus der letzten Zeit auf der italienischen Liste, die auch bei bereits etablierten Tags von der Nutzung zunächst zurückgeschreckt waren, weil das proposal auf "abandoned" gesetzt war. Wenn man dem Voting keine Entscheidungsfähigkeit zuspricht, aber trotzdem neue Tags dokumentieren will, dann sehe ich in den Proposals eine gute Möglichkeit dazu. Nur weil seit mehr als einem Jahr niemand mehr was neues auf eine Proposal-Seite geschrieben hat, und auch keine Abstimmung veranlasst hat, ist das noch lange kein Grund, von "abandoned" auszugehen, vielmehr sehe ich das so, dass nur der Ersteller eines Proposals - sofern er noch aktiv ist bei OSM - das Recht hat, sein Proposal auf abandoned zu setzen. Bei tags die 500.000 mal (!) in Verwendung sind (wood) ist das nur lächerliche Korinthenkackerei, und ich finde es auch bezeichnend, dass der entsprechende User sonst augenscheinlich überhaupt nichts zum Wiki beigetragen hat. --Dieterdreist (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Deine Änderungen auf Stolpersteine-Wiki Seite

Hallo Dieter,

nimm bitte Deine Vorschläge zu einem anderen Tagging von der Stolpersteinseite [1] weg und setze Sie auf die Diskussionsseite. Deine Vorgehensweise verunsichert OSM-ler, die das derzeitige Tagging ansehen möchten. --Okilimu (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC) [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stolpersteine

Hallo Okilimu,

habe den Beitrag erstmal rausgenommen, wobei ich die dort vorgeschlagenen tags nach wie vor problematisch halte, da es m.E. nur Nachteile bringt, übliche Standardtags wie ref und addr durch die Vorsilbe memorial: zu Spezialtags (mit derselben Bedeutung wie die Standardtags) zu machen. --Dieterdreist (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

maxheight

Deine Änderung an DE:maxheight suggeriert, dass maxheight=unsigned bzw. maxheight=default allgemeiner Konsens wäre. Dem ist zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt jedoch nicht so. Es gibt zwar eine deutliche erkennbare Tendenz, maxheight=none abzulösen. maxheight=unsigned wurde bisher nirgendwo diskutiert bzw. vorgeschlagen.

Der Diskussionsstand sieht m.E. aktuell so aus

1. Forum

maxheight=default für Straßen unter Brücken ohne Beschilderung aber ausreichender Durchfahrtshöhe

maxheight=unspecified für Wege mit zu geringer Durchfahrtshöhe aber ohne Beschilderungen (oft bei Hausdurchfahrten)

Quelle: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=377948#p377948

2. JOSM-Ticket

Skyper schlägt vor: The proper way in Germany to tag this would be: maxheight=4, source:maxheight=no sign, DE:law or similar

Edbert: The word "none" was choosen in accordance to the well established maxspeed=none. Anyway there must be a way to indicate, that a way is not limited through legal restriction. maxheight=4 doesn't make that clear, rather it implies that there is a legal limit.

Quelle: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/8687

3. RadioOSM-Beitrag (Nr 25)

maxheight=none ergibt keinen Sinn, Podcast macht aber keine Alternativvorschläge. Du schlägst maxheight=default bzw. maxheight=unsigned vor (+Änderung an DE:maxheight).

4. Osmose.fr

Siehe Diskussion zu einem weiteren Test für maxheight.

Zusammenfassend gibt es also durchaus einen Trend zu maxheight=default. Die feinere Differenzierung, die von slhh/EvanE im Forum mit maxheight=default/unspecified vorgeschlagen wurden, bleiben bisher aber unberücksichtigt.

Weiterhin bleibt natürlich die Position von skyper, der partout keine nicht-numerischen Werte für maxheight akzeptieren möchte. Wie willst Du damit umgehen? Wenn Du maxheight=default vorschlägst, wird JOSM beim Hochladen weiterhin Warnmeldungen für diesen Wert erzeugen.

Ebenso stellt sich die Frage, was mit den bisherigen maxheight=none Tags passieren soll, die ja semantisch dem maxheight=default entsprechen würden (siehe dazu auch meinen Kommentar beim RadioOSM-Beitrag, der auf diesen Punkt näher eingeht).

Könntest Du auf der Wiki-Seite zumindest kenntlich machen, dass es hier noch Diskussionsbedarf gibt? Vielen Dank! Mmd (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

ja, Du hast Recht, dass dazu noch diskutiert wird. Prinzipiell sollte allerdings die deutsche Seite eine Übersetzung der englischen Seite sein, da letztere die offizielle Version ist. maxheight=none ist in jedem Fall kein guter tag und sollte ggf. gelöscht werden, bzw. wenn man die Bedeutung kennt umgewandelt in einen stimmigen Wert. Vermutlich wird man auch skyper bzw. das JOSM-Team von der Sinnhaftigkeit eines maxheight=default oder ähnlich überzeugen können.--Dieterdreist (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft of proposal drinkable=

Hallo Martin, könntest du mal einen Blick auf meinen Proposalentwurf Proposed_features/drinkable werfen? Vielleicht könnte ich noch das eine oder andere verbessern bevor ich den RFC starte. --Rudolf (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sieht auf den ersten Blick gut aus, finde ich, der tag ist ja auch schon in Benutzung. Nur zu. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Danke. Ich warte noch ein paar Tage ab. Manchmal fällt einem doch noch was auf. Gruß --Rudolf (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ich habe am 14.2. eine RFC-Meldung an die tagging-mailingliste gesandt. Ich bekam eine Rückmeldung, dass dies erst von einem Moderator geprüft wird, da ich kein Mitglied bin. Heute ist die Meldung immer noch nicht veröffentlicht. Vielleicht kannst du dies nochmals versenden, oder wie lange muss man normal warten? Gruß --Rudolf (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, nun habe ich am 19.2. nochmals eine RFC-Meldung an die tagging-mailingliste gesandt. Aber scheinbar kommt da nichts an. Hast du eine Idee, was das Problem ist? Gruß --Rudolf (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Rudolf, sorry, habe Deine Nachrichten jetzt erst gesehen (besser direkte Mail schicken). Prinzipiell musst Du bei den Mailinglisten angemeldet sein, um was posten zu dürfen. Entweder Du meldest Dich an, oder Du findest jemanden, der für Dich (in Deinem Namen) postet. Wenn Du niemanden kennst und Dich nicht anmelden willst, kann ich es gerne machen. --Dieterdreist (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Garden specification proposal

Hi Dieterdreist

I saw that you wanted to reopen the vote for that proposal, and I am looking forward to it.

However, I was wondering if you could discuss my idea in its discussion page.

Cheers! Chtfn (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for replying late, I have only now seen this. If you want to reopen the vote, go ahead, fine for me. I currently don't have the time to pursue this. Regarding your suggestiong garden:type=community I suggest you write to the tagging mailing list. Even if we won't probably get full support still there might be valuable comments on this. Anyway, you can use (now!) every tag you like, also without voting, but some discussion before is often not bad to individuate potential problems and alternative tagging methods. --Dieterdreist (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for thatǃ I'll let you know how I go. Cheers Chtfn (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Path

@ Dieter, wenn du schon auf das originale Proposal verweist, wäre es nett, wenn du auch den Count nachzählst, wie ich es für die deutsche Version gemacht habe.

Der "offizielle" Auszähler gehörte (nach der Formulierung des Kommentars) anscheinend zu derjenigen Fraktion, die gerne Cycyleway, Footway und Bridleway abgeschafft hätte.

Ganz eindeutig haben mehr Leute deren Beibehaltung befürwortet als die Einführung von Path (das als spezifisches Tag ja durchaus sinnvoll ist.)

Trotzdem finden es immer noch ein paar Mapper legitim, die befestigte Wege mit eindeutiger Zweckbestimmung mittels highway=path + access-Tags zu klassifizieren.--Ulamm (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

ich finde, das Proposal gehört prinzipiell verlinkt von der Tag-Seite, die einzelnen Votes kann man da ja dann sehen, wenn einen das interessiert. --Dieterdreist (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Um nicht selber in den Geruch zu kommen, außer intensiver Überarbeitung der deutschen Versionen auch noch das halbe englische Wiki zu überarbeiten, würde ich mich freuen, wenn du (auch wenn du es nicht nochmal nachzählst) diese Verlinkung mit einem kleinen Einführungssatz in den englischen Artikel einzufügen.--Ulamm (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ich halte das nicht für zielführend, der tag ist eingeführt seit er vor mehr als 6 Jahren per Abstimmung angenommen wurde und von sehr vielen Mappern weltweit verwendet wird, da interessieren die einzelnen Gegenstimmen zum ursprünglichen Proposal m.E. für die aktuelle tag-Definitionsseite nicht. Je länger die Seiten werden, um so weniger werden sie gelesen. Ich bin dafür, nur relevante Informationen auf den Definitionsseiten zu haben. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Es ist M.E. legitim, jegliche einspurige Wege, also auch befestigte Wege mit eindeutiger Zweckbestimmung, mit path und access-tags (z.B. foot=designated) zu taggen, das wird seit vielen Jahren so gehandhabt und übliche Applikationen wie der offizielle Mapnikrenderstil oder OSRM behandeln solche Wege auch gleich wie solche mit highway=footway. Finde Dich einfach damit ab, dass es 2 Varianten gibt, um dasselbe zu taggen, ein Kampf gegen Windmühlen sorgt auf Dauer nur für Frust ;-) Übrigens: Persönlich wähle ich die kürzere Form highway=cycleway/footway in den angesprochenen Fällen (ausser bei gemischten Fuß-/Radwegen), es geht mir nicht darum, mein eigenes Mappen zu verteidigen.--Dieterdreist (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"da interessieren die einzelnen Gegenstimmen zum ursprünglichen Proposal für die aktuelle tag-Definitionsseite nicht" ist eben sachlich falsch, auch wenn es die Verfechter des Universal-Tags gerne so darstellen. Richtig ist:

• Das Proposal war nur in sofern erfolgreich, als das Tag highway=path als Werkzeug mit 22 von 34 Stimmen etabliert wurde.
• Das Proposal war aber insofern erfolglos, als sich 26 der 34 Abstimmenden nicht für die Abschaffung von highway=footway, highway=cycleway und highway=bridleway aussprachen, 23 davon unbedingt für deren Bevorzugung.

Das bedeutet, wer auf der Verwendung von highway=path als Universal-Tag beharrt, verstößt gegen den Beschluss von 2008.--Ulamm (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Es gibt in OSM keine "Beschlüsse", die man so durchsetzen kann wie ein Gesetz. Es gibt keine Revision und keine Berufung. Du solltest den Proposal Prozess nicht verwechseln mit Gesetzgebung. Im Prinzip gilt bei OSM: die Masse hat Recht. Wenn nun "die Masse" den tag "path" so einsetzt, wie es nunmal geschieht, dann ist das so. Man kann versuchen, die anderen zu überzeugen, aber zwingen kann man sie nicht. Wenig Relevanz hat das genaue Ergebnis, weil da lediglich eine Handvoll Leute abgestimmt haben, in einer Zeit, als es sowieso noch wenige tags gab (das System also noch deutlich weniger ausgereift war als heute), und in der es insgesamt nur ca. 25000 registrierte User gab. Am ehesten entspricht der Proposal Prozess einer unverbindlichen Umfrage, ob Interesse an einem bestimmten tag besteht, und ob Probleme gesehen werden. So eine Art Meinungsbild. Das Meinungsbild von 2008 ist aber heute in 2014 nicht mehr relevant (meiner Meinung nach), weil sich mittlerweile eine Nutzung für den tag path etabliert hat (unter anderem auch durch Diskussionen im Forum, face-to-face und auf den diversen Mailinglisten, im IRC etc.), und dieser Konsens Niederschlag im Wiki gefunden hat. Von daher sehe ich "intensive Überarbeitungen" grundsätzlich ziemlich kritisch. Es schreiben viel zu viele Leute im Wiki, die kaum über den eigenen Tellerrand hinaussehen, und ohne dass sie sich mit anderen abstimmen (m.E. am besten auf der Mailingliste). Solche Themen, die das Gesamtprojekt betreffen, sollte man am besten auf der internationalen Tagging-Mailingliste besprechen, bevor man Änderungen im Wiki durchführt. Das deutsche Wiki ist grundsätzlich eine Übersetzung des englischen (mindestens was die tag-Definitionen angeht), und sollte von daher diesem nicht widersprechen. --Dieterdreist (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Dass 34 von damals vielleicht 25000 Mappern lächerlich wenig sind, steht außer Zweifel. Es ist aber legitim und sinnvoll, darauf hinzuweisen, dass es keine Mehrheit dafür gab, „Footway“, „cycleway“ und „bridleway“ durch „path“ zu ersetzen.
• Wenn eine Praxis verbreitet ist, bedeutet das nicht, dass sie deswege richtig wäre. Und teilweise werden ja langzeitig mehrere Schemata parallel zu einander verwendet.
• Im Zweifel ist eine fundierte und logische Begründung mehr wert als die Tagging-Statistik.
  • Eine mehrdeutige Verwendung eines Tags nachzuweisen ist sinnvoll, aber dafür eignet sich die Statistik wohl leider nur selten.
• Problematisch ist, wenn einzelne Mapper wohlbegründete Notierungen revertieren, weil sie nicht verbreitet sind, oder auch nur, weil sie ihrer Vorliebe widersprechen.
• Problematisch ist vor Allem, wenn im Wiki an verschiedenen Stellen im Wiki unterschiedliche Regeln als die jeweils wahre dargestellt werden. Da besteht (bzw. bestand) Überarbeitungsbedarf: Einigermaßen sinnvolle Notierungsschemata sind an jeder dieser Stellen zu erwähnen und ihre Vor- und Nachteile einander gegenüberzustellen. Wo bisher völlig unseriöse Schemata vorgeschlagen wurden, ist deren Unseriosität darzulegen und auf seriöse Schemata hinzuweisen.
• Für viele Features fehlen Möglichkeiten zur unmissverständlichen genauen Darstellung.
  • Da schwebt mir vor, mit einer Diskussionsphase von mehreren Monaten für das eine oder andere Thema ein set of unequivocal tools zu vereinbaren.
  • Bisher benutzte Tags sollen sich dann durch gezieltere ersetzen lassen, aber nicht obsolet werden, "rough but not wrong".--Ulamm (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Dass die deutschen Anleitungen den englischen und damit internationalen nicht wiedersprechen dürfen, ist klar.
  • Bei meinen bisherigen Bearbeitungen habe ich derartige Widersprüche entfernt.
  • Es ist aber legitim, Zusammenhänge zu verdeutlichen.
  • Es ist erforderlich Dinge zu erklären, die in den englischne Anleitungen in der Regel nicht erwähnt werden, etwa die Bestimmungen der deutschen StVO und VwV.--Ulamm (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: Wie du wohl merkst, habe ich das Diskussionslayout in einer Weise verändert, die für längere Diskussionen den Vorteil hat, dass nicht die Zeilen immer kürzer werden: Abgesehen vom Eingangs-Statement hat jeder Diskutant seine typische Einrückung, wie eine Wellenlänge. (Das heißt nicht, dass wir diese Diskussion in die Länge ziehen sollten, wenn schon alles Wichtige gesagt ist. Ich habe aber Wikipedia-Erfahrung:)--Ulamm (talk)

Jewellery/Jewelry

Hi Dieter,

I have reverted your undiscussed change on the jewellery wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Djewelry&diff=next&oldid=1114081

As far as I know using British English is a guideline but no official policy. We use more AE tags, such as sport=soccer. Also, the singular is currently the widely supported tag, so I don't think it's helpful to recommend mappers to use a different tag.

If you think this line should be included, I think it would be best to first discuss this with the community, for example on the tagging mailing list. If there is a consensus that it would be good if this line is added, I won't of course further object.

Thank you otherwise for your work on OSM!

Math1985 (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

information=trail blaze?

Hi,

do you really think it is a good idea to add to the Map Features the tag information=trail_blaze which has absolutely no documentation? I suppose that just a well documented and used tags should be place there.

Chrabros (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

well,it got documented by adding it, no? it doesn't have less documentation than the synonymous information=route_marker which has less uses --Dieterdreist (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would create pages for information=trail_blaze and information=route_marker and elaborate on its use. Chrabros (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have different priorities at the moment, if you want I would really appreciate if you created them. Basically a route_marker is any sign to mark a route. A trail blaze similarly is a sign to mark a route, likely these are competing tags with the same or a very similar meaning. As far as I understand it, you can use either of these tags. While trail_blaze has more usage than route_marker, the latter might be easier to understand for non-natives. I'm not sure which tag to recommend, and in the end it doesn't matter. Better document them now, then having even more variants in the future. --Dieterdreist (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

memorial:type

Hi Dieterdreist,

I didn't mention it at first, but memorial:type is mainly used with stolperstein, in Germany (18 395 out of 21 911 uses). Probably because the Stolpersteine project has used it and didn't change it. But memorial is mostly used for everything else, including in Germany. One may actually think about mass replacing memorial:type by memorial to simply the keys. Happy mapping! The RedBurn (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Condominium

Hi, du hast ja kürzlich building=condominium im Wiki dokumentiert. Ich bin mir allerdings nicht sicher, ob das im building-Schlüssel gut aufgehoben ist. Wo siehst du dort (außer der rechtlichen Situation) der Unterschied zu anderen building-Typen wie building=apartments? --Tordanik 19:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, grad erst gesehen dass diesbezüglich schon eine Diskussion läuft. Hoffe wir finden eine einvernehmliche Lösung! :) --Tordanik 20:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, habe dazu auch schon was auf der talk-Seite des tags geschrieben. Es gibt da sicherlich Überschneidungen, die gibt es allerdings allgemein im building tag, house und apartments sind z.B. beides auch Werte, die zu 100% von residential abgedeckt sind, ähnlich sind zwar nicht alle apartment buildings condominiums, aber evtl alle condominiums apartment buildings (ganz sicher bin ich mir allerdings nicht, an einer Stelle habe ich gelesen apartments müssten auf einem Stockwerk sein, (was nicht unbedingt zutreffen muss) während bei condominiums definitiv Einheiten über mehrere Etagen vorkommen). Der Unterschied besteht auch in der Ausstattung, ein condominium ist ein gehobenes bis Luxus-Appartementgebäude. Eine Villa und ein Haus haben ja auch viele Gemeinsamkeiten und doch ganz andere Konnotationen.--Dieterdreist (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on access

Hello, can you please read my discussion with VerdyP here: User_talk:Verdy_p#.28disapproved.29_for_access.3Ddesignated and weigh in with your opinion? Thanks. Chrabros (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you fix what you have broken?

Hi, could you please review your change and fix it again? Thanks. Chrabroš (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Really sorry, something went wrong. I have fixed it now, please verify if you want. Shouldn't edit the wiki from the phone ;-) --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks OK now. Thanks. Chrabroš (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

tree_stump

Hallo, im Artikel zu Tag:natural=tree_stump fehlt ein Unterstrich im Lemma - kannst du den Artikel zu einer korrekten Überschrift verändern/verschieben? (siehe auch Disku dort). Liebe Grüße, --Supaplex030 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Supaplex030, danke für den Hinweis, ich weiss auch nicht genau, wie man es macht, aber ich werde mich drum kümmern. Gruß, --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: rural residential roads with 55mph maxspeed

As strange as it may seem, Ohio state law sets the default speed limit for all rural roads to 55 mph, unless otherwise posted. This includes indisputably residential roads outside of village limits, as well as unimproved (gravel) roads. [1] On the other hand, there are plenty of examples where township officials have successfully petitioned the state to lower the speed limit on these roads to 25 or 35 mph, and those would probably be the majority of cases where the speed limit would be posted (rather than implied) on a residential road. So I'm OK with revising Key:maxspeed to say unclassified instead of residential, since that would still make the point about highway=* being a poor proxy for maxspeed=* on its own. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The wiki says, highway=residential is for roads in a residential area, and it further explains: "This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highways.", so if the roads were classified as unclassified highways, it would work with the wiki definition. I'm a bit unsure if there can be "residential areas" outside of settlement limits, wouldn't these either be inside some sort of settlement (like a hamlet or village) or part of a settlement (like suburb, neighbourhood), or be residences inside a non-residential area (like agricultural area)? WRT to inferring maxspeed from the highway class, I completely agree with you that even with good knowledge about every jurisdiction in the world it would not be working well. I am advocating setting always explicit maxspeed values together with a qualifier to distinguish implicit from explicit values (source:maxspeed=*, but in the relative recent past there have been popping up alternative tagging proposals from some comunities). --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, a residential road can be within a residential area. However, there's a difference between being inside a residential area and being inside an incorporated city or village (boundary=administrative admin_level=8), which is the criteria for lower default speed limits in Ohio. In suburban areas, there are plenty of planned residential subdivisions in unincorporated townships [2], but the township often posts lower speed limits within those subdivisions. In rural areas, unplanned residential areas are the norm, and townships are less likely to post speed limits, so the default applies. (This is the case in other states besides Ohio, by the way.)

As an aside, whenever a village dissolves, its roads are transferred to the surrounding (unincorporated) township and all speed limits immediately increase from 15–35 mph to 55 mph. The township trustees can pass a resolution that lowers speed limits within commercial and residential subdivisions back down to 25 mph, but otherwise even those roads go up to 55 mph.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Crazy world. I admit I am almost completely unfamiliar with US jurisdiction and administration. From an OSM tagging point of view (how I understood the distinction between unclassified and residential), residential roads are roads that a router would prefer to avoid, if possibile, while "unclassified" are other less important roads. The actual distinction in rural settings is almost moot, at most there's a subtle difference. I agree this is generally much clearer inside settlements, and becomes kind of fuzzy in not centrally planned rural context. With respect to this, the situation depends a lot on the regional conditions, for example in Germany you cannot live outside a settlement (you won't get a building permit), unless it is some special case (like a farmer, or someone living in a historic house like a castle or a mill). In Italy, apparently from looking at the countryside, you can build your house on any patch of land that is yours (in the countryside, if you are in a village or town, stricter regulations might apply), so in Germany it is easy to map residential roads, in Italy there's often the question between residential, unclassified and track. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you look at this and reply?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden#umaintained.2Fabandoned_areas_tagged_as_leisure.3Dgarden Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"currently" is evil

Whenever possible word current should be a avoided, "as of -date-" is not getting wrong and it is immediately clear whatever it is outdated or not. I think that changes like this improve situation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ashop%3Ddiscount&type=revision&diff=1622412&oldid=1622410 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

yes you are right. I didn’t expect the page to remain for longer, but who knows... —Dieterdreist (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The Definition of highway=toll_gantry

First off, thanks for the feedback on the toll gantry proposal. The proposal passed, but I wanted to incorporate your suggestion into the definition on the wiki page for the new tag. However, I wasn't quite sure if the type of gantry you described differed from the already established tag in the enforcement relation and which is further explained in this Wikipedia page. From what I could gather it is a system used to enforce toll collection rather than actually collecting a toll. The system you described seemed different enough from that and also seemed to fit with the intent of the proposal enough that broadening the definition wouldn't cause any issues. Just wanted to get some thoughts from you. For now, I will be using the original proposal definition at this link. The page will probably be a work in progress over the next few days, but please let me know your thoughts.

I am not sure I can add more than what I already wrote in the comment. Could you phrase a more concrete question, please? --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Embassy proposal

amenity=embassy key is in heavy use and is described on Tag:amenity=embassy. This specific proposal is abandoned - "status" field on a proposal page describes status of the proposal, not of a proposed tag Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I have missed it, would you mind illustrating with an example or 2 why you believe this proposal is not the foundation for the current tagging practice (including subtags like country and target)? I agree that the proposal status is for the proposal, and in this case I’d expect it to be de facto.—Dieterdreist (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Key:Highway

Re [3] - every other language other than EN link to the old Wikidata item. I think putting a wikidata ID that represents absolutely nothing (it is not tied to any other wikidata entities, nor does it have any statements - thus nearly useless for any kind usages). The Q34442 (road) seems to be a perfect match - it covers everything. --Yurik (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It‘s a partial match, the wikidata item that represents the osm tag is a perfect match. It may be true that there aren’t yet more relationships and properties, but that may change. —Dieterdreist (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dieterdreist:, this is exactly what i am not clear about - how is it a partial match? What parts are missing on either side? Also, please note that OSM highway tag is not a wikidata concept in of itself, and I think should be deleted there - it is more of a "external ID" concept - e.g. Q34442 might have a "external OSM ID = key:highway". --Yurik (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The wikidata description says “highway key in OpenStreetMap (any kind of road, street or path or related features)” and that’s completely true, as the highway key is used for roads, paths, service areas, bus stops, etc. —-Dieterdreist (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk edit

Was all of [4] an intentional edit?

--Andrew (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

oops, excuse me, I have no idea how this happened, I only wanted to add a comment, —Dieterdreist (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

maybe it was a conflict? Strange I did not get aware of it, but your post was 5 minutes before mine, so it seems a possible explanation. Anyway, I have restored the paragraph now, please excuse me. --Dieterdreist (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please be careful not to delete others' comments

Hi - looks like you accidentally deleted my comment, while moving some text - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dbicycle_rental&diff=next&oldid=1822048 - I'm just writing to make sure you notice the mixup. I'll reinstate it now --Danstowell (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Dear Dieterdreist,

We would like to invite you to voting in the case of the proposed Deletion policy for wiki pages and files. Based on the input of several contributors, we drafted a deletion policy over the span of two and a half months. Among other things, the policy proposes a centralised discussion page for all cases which are not mentioned explicitly.

Kind regards, EzekielT

PS: I wrote this message on your talk page, because you were involved in a long dispute about deleting in 2018 and 2019 which now led to this policy draft. — EzekielT (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edit on Key:crossing

Hi! After your edit, the definition of crossing=marked now reads as though this tag could also mean a crosswalk with traffic signals. Was this intentional? The last time it was suggested to extend the meaning of crossing=marked to also include (marked) crosswalks with traffic signals, the feedback was mostly negative. I also doubt that this is how crossing=marked is generally used. (The alternative tag to crossing=traffic_signals, crossing:signals, is almost only used in this town in the USA and almost only by one user.) May i revert your edit? Regards --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

yes, although I am not completely sure what it excludes, because it was never discussed and only came into significant use after iD started to propose automatic “tagging upgrades”. Definitely it includes marked crossings that aren’t legally zebra crossings, but for traffic light controlled crossings one might think they are excluded because otherwise the more specific traffic_signals should be used. But the same could also be said for zebra crossings. I believe it is safe to assume that it describes any kind of marked crossing. When checking current use in my area I have also found a traffic signals controlled tagging with this tag. —Dieterdreist (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Which of my questions does your yes refer to? crossing=uncontrolled also includes non-zebra crossings but excludes marked crossings with traffic signals, thus crossing=marked is a duplicate of crossing=uncontrolled. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

both. ;-) I would suggest to make a proposal for crossing=marked in order to find a common agreement. —Dieterdreist (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! :-) I've reverted it.

I currently have other priorities than writing a proposal for crossing=marked, besides crossing=uncontrolled works for me (and OsmAnd). It would be nice if those who introduce new tags did propose or at least document them (especially if they introduce them in one of the most used editors). --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I never like crossing=uncontrolled, because road markings are a kind of control, that's why I have happily adopted crossing=zebra, works for me (in the case of zebra crossings), and I dislike the idea that these are now reduced to crossing=marked by bots (kind of). --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have named the value "uncontrolled" either, but at least it has a clear definition and is widely supported. As far as the "tagging upgrades" of a certain editor are concerned, i agree that they are problematical. If anything, then crossing=zebra should be upgraded to crossing=marked + crossing_ref=zebra. Regards --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

OSM-4D

Hallo Dieter, habe "Deine" Seite" OSM-4D gesehen. Ich suche nach einer Möglichkeit Nottreppen/Feuerleitern in 3D zu modellieren. Hast Du dafür einen Vorschlag parat? --Plennert (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ich habe mich schon länger nicht mehr mit 3D beschäftigt (bzw. 4D), das englische Wort wäre "fire escape", also emergency=fire_escape. Als Details interessieren vermutlich die Anzahl der Stufen und wieviel Abstand von der Bodenfläche zur ersten Stufe ist sowie ähnlich auch der obere Abschluss, ob es Handläufe gibt, etc. (das meiste dürfte für 2D auch schon definiert sein). --Dieterdreist (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Mich interessiert eher die Moddellierung in die Höhe, d. h. Zuweisung der Level etc. Stufen sind eher uninteressant. Was die Übersetzung angeht, sehe ich eher emergency=fire_stairs als passend an.--Plennert (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Die Höhe ergibt sich aus den Abständen des jeweiligen Bodens. Mehr als hier steht kann ich dazu nicht bieten: Stairs_modelling --Dieterdreist (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

New vote explanation

Thanks for a vote! As it turns out that bundling all vote changes in one was a clear mistake, I stopped the ongoing vote after you already participated. If you want you can participate in a new vote that was started at Proposed features/change vote counting rules - remove no show paradox. It includes only one of proposed changes. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Your proposals

I notice you have reverted all of your proposals back to the status of Proposed. Proposed indicates that the proposal is being actively promoted to the community and complete (see Proposal_process#Propose). Most of your proposals have not had an edit since 2018 and are not done or being promoted to the community. I would recommend changing their status to Draft if you want to retain a relevant status.

--Lectrician1 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

thank you for your comment. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback

I'm sorry. I accidentally damage text. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tag:shop%3Dagrarian&diff=next&oldid=2141763) P.s.:There is no need to reconstruct my comment. Because the issue has already been resolved. --Илья (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

no problem, thank you for coming back to me, I reverted because I was on mobile and editing all of it in a more sensible way was not feasible. —-Dieterdreist (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright unfun

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Are you author of images https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:16052010022.JPG https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Addr-housename.JPG  ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

Would you be OK with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement) ?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:CC-BY-SA-4.0 ?

I see that most of your uploads are marked as public domain releases and your own work, but at least this two appear to be missed :)

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mateusz, I have contributed these pictures by the terms of the wiki, AFAIK it is cc-by-sa 2.0? I was not aware that the pictures had to state an explicit license, because the wiki already has a license. Of course I am the author of these pictures, otherwise I would have stated license and author. See also Wiki_content_license --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I have noticed that the cc-by-4.0 template is not yet available for the OSM Wiki, while it is documented on commons. The cc-by-3.0 is available for osm. Can you add it? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags/Free_Creative_Commons_licenses

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/CC-BY-4.0Creative Commons Attribution 4.0truetrue

↑ This template should only be used on file pages.

--Dieterdreist (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Me again. I have tried to create the template, but maybe I did it not do in the right way. Would you mind having a look? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:CC-BY-4.0 --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

{{CC-BY-4.0}} seems to be working now - is it the same for you? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"otherwise I would have stated license and author" sadly many people upload images without stating that and pictures are not theirs. In this case I was basically certain that everything is fine, but it was nicer to confirm that to have clear situation to make further reuse easier.

"I was not aware that the pictures had to state an explicit license" - due to licensing complexity and that people commonly upload pictures without being copyright holders it is better to have it explicitly. (with text it is less problematic as basically everything is written specially for OSM Wiki) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, CC-BY-4.0 is working now, but I think it should be renamed, because the page that is linked from the missing license template suggests it to be: "Cc-by-4.0" (different capitalization), see here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags/Free_Creative_Commons_licenses --Dieterdreist (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Status of a proposal

Note that status of proposal describes status of a proposal, NOT status of a tag.

Specifically approved proposal may deprecate tag, approved tag may be later deprecated, failed tag proposal may be for tag that is in use or de facto tag...

In this case I created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dhighway for the description of tag itself.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Key:operational status

Hi! Sorry if i did something wrong. Before my edit, the article already stated that "in many cases this tag is discouraged". Therefore i thought the status "draft" were outdated. --Dafadllyn (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, no need to excuse, it is kind of an edge case, a tag with 100.000+ uses though, and although I agree it would be nicer to have a single tag for the exact same thing, I guess not all values are really exactly the same as established lifecycle tags. Before it becomes "officially" deprecated, there should be a discussion. --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

crossing_ref is about road markings only?

In this edit you claim that crossing_ref=zebra is only about the road markings, not the type of crossing. This is currently not clear from the documentation of crossing=* and crossing_ref=* at all, where it is strongly suggested that this is a type of crossing. I'll be the first to admit that actual use of and documentation of crossing_ref=* are a mess, so if you have a solid reasoning for claiming that crossing_ref=* is only about the road markings please make that clear there or start a thread on the Tagging ML.

In the case of crossing_ref=zebra, the characteristic that pedestrians have priority over road users seems part of its definition. You removed that part from my version of crossing_ref=zebra, but you didn't edit crossing_ref=* where this is stated as well.

What makes you say crossing_ref=zebra documents only road markings rather than act as a classification for crossing=*? (The latter would also include a definition for the road markings used obviously, but is broader.) --JeroenHoek (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The tag was discussed several times, IIRR on the tagging ML and in Streetcomplete, e.g. here https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/1286. Common combination around here is crossing=zebra with crossing_ref=zebra or crossing=traffic_lights with crossing_ref=zebra. Globally, crossing_ref=zebra has generally highway=crossing (95,6%, or in other words, 37239 crossing_ref objects do not have highway=crossing) and vast majority also crossing=uncontrolled (62%) or crossing=marked (10,3%) or crossing=traffic_signals (9,9%). taginfo. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:17, 14 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:080418 Roma OSM.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".

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) 19:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

it is an osmarender image I produced in 2008, so I guess the only possible license is cc-by-sa 2.0 (c) OpenStreetMap Contributors. —Dieterdreist (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

sheela-na-gig, second round

Hi, you voted favourably on the sheela-na-gig proposal, unfortunately, it wasn't approved. Would you mind casting your vote again on the adapted proposal, please? B-unicycling (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

klar —-Dieterdreist (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Danke! B-unicycling (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you taken this photo?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File%3A16052010022.JPG ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

yes, it's mine --Dieterdreist (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Tagging verbessern

Hallo Dieter!

Ich versuche auch schon seit so ca. 2011 das Tagging zu verbessern. Better-Tagging-Howto ist eine noch nicht vollständige Kurzfassung (es fehlt zum Beispiel noch die Empfehlung, möglichst als Fläche zu mappen, weil es einfach am genausten und am besten zu erweitern ist (Flächenrouting habe ich gelöst (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Generisches_spurmodell.pdf), interessiert aber keinen wirklich bisher)) von Dingen, die man beachten sollte.

Was auch unbedingt eingeführt werden sollte sind Personenrollen (siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Fabi2/diary/399353 zum Hintergrund) am besten universell, Healthcare 2.0 ist der erste Versuch diesbezüglich gewesen. Bei den Anwaltskanzleien ist das Problem zum Glück nicht so akut, da die Anwälte meist nur einen Arbeitsbereich pro Person haben, aber es würde da auch die Realität besser wieder geben. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9813503521 ist ein erster Versuch, der mir heute früh dafür schnell einfiel. Fabi2 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Aerial imagery source

Do you remember which aerial imagery source was used for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Roma_OSM_History_607.gif ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure this is landsat. —-Dieterdreist (talk) 16:23, 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:Drinking water 32.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|Dieterdreist}} 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) 12:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

thank you, updated —-Dieterdreist (talk) 13:08, 30 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:It panciotto f.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|Dieterdreist}} 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) 20:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out, I have asked in the German forum (the picture originates in Germany), but this aside, Wymóg oryginalności? —Dieterdreist (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

According to what I know in almost all places, almost all photos taken by humans are considered to cross "threshold of originality". Except (in some, but not all places) 2D scans of objects not qualifying for copyright. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

meaning less type

I see you revert the change about type into model. what's the added value of that ? type is a meaningless word : big<>small ? known<>unkown ? is you dislike model (no idea why), try to find a better descriptive word Marc marc (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

type is not meaningless, the categories are given by the values. Model is about something more specific, a specific model. That’s why I reverted your change from type to model. —Dieterdreist (talk) 21:08, 15 October 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:It panciotto r.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|Dieterdreist}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, December}} 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) 13:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

And there is also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Post_box_roma.jpg Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

wetap ios apphttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution

I am reviewing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution - and there is "WeTap iOS app - https://wetap.org/ " that you reported and reminded developers so that they will fix it (thanks for that!)

Have they fixed it? Can you check it? (I own no apple device)

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me, I just checked their iOS app and it seems they have fixed it by removing the data from OSM. Blank map now (apple base map). --Dieterdreist (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Apple's iPhoto for OSX

You added Apple's iPhoto for OSX to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution years ago (thanks!)

Are they still using OSM data without a proper attribution?

I am asking as I have no access to Apple devices

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it is fixed now, just checked the maps in "Photo" (how it is called now), and there is the small "legal" link on the map which leads to attribution to tomtom, OpenStreetMap and a long list of other sources. --Dieterdreist (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not fully OK, ODBL requires attribution visible without tapping/clicking/going into menu - but nice to hear that it got better Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Images without clear copyright status

Hi, Dieterdreist!

I think that with alternatives from the Commons (without licensing issues), images with an unclear status are simply not worth keeping on the Wiki. Something B (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

See also Talk:Wiki#Designing_policy_for_handling_files_without_clear_license. Something B (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I didn’t see a conclusion on the linked document “designing a policy…” for this kind of files (type 5), while you were acting as if these were of type 1 (clear infringements). Generally the wiki content is cc-by-sa and it was always stated like this, so the natural thing to believe is that images uploaded to the wiki without stating a license are cc-by-sa self. I know the contributor of the 2 images in question and am sure he is the author of these pictures and had the rights to upload them. AFAIR in the discussion it was said that pictures in use on the pages were not removed, but people were encouraged to replace pictures with different ones with explicit licenses from commons. Nowhere did it say remove these pictures from wikipages without replacing them, as you did in the public transport page for Rome (and likely elsewhere). —Dieterdreist (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

In many cases I replaced the images, not just unlinked them. But I agree in the future only to replace images, and not to unlink them without replacement. Something B (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Refine highway=ladder

Hi, thanks for your great (and thus approved) ladder proposal. I've added suggestions for a couple of additions in the comment section. Curious about your opinion. -- Martianfreeloader (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I agree that material=* could be an interesting addition. Regarding the implication of "horse=no" and "bicycle=no", I would not suggest to add it. As this is a highway tag, "horse" and "bicycle" are meant to be interpreted legally. In situations with ladders, there is no general legal prohibition of ladders for bicycle and horse riders, (although they might be excluded by the laws of physics and logics, e.g. if you have to use one hand to hold your bike, you won't be able to climb a ladder), IMHO this is not something we should prescribe. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the clarification of the semantics of the bicycle=* and horse=* tags! Surprisingly, I was not aware of that. I've integrated your feedback to the ladder talk page. I propose to continue potential future discussions there. --Martianfreeloader (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Image (copyright license)

Hi, Martin! is Your work? If answer is "yes", please license this photo under free license. Regards, Something B. Something B (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, it is my work and I added a license, Dieterdreist (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

rooftop=* is deprecated or is it?

Regarding this modification] of yours, I would like to point out that I only removed the rooftop key (which is currently deprecated according to this wiki) not the rooftop value from the tag location=rooftop which is, as we surely both agree, well defined). In a tag page I think it would be advisable to suggest other tags that are not deprecated. By the way, I also removed the rooftop=* from Tag:leisure=swimming pool, Key:swimming pool and Key:underground so, in case, we should think of cancelling those too.