User talk:Flaimo
Enhancing access tagging
Liking the look of what you're doing at Talk:Proposed_features/Access_restrictions#Suggestion_for_a_new_scheme. I've been giving it a few thoughts myself based on some difficult real-world examples I found in my area over at User:Achadwick/Mapping_style#Fancy_access_restrictions. Perhaps we could combine efforts?
Can we brainstorm these ideas somewhere else, and give it a talk page? Suggest Fancy Access Restrictions brainstorming and linking to it from the existing dead or mostly-dead proposals. Currently you're editing a mostly dead proposal's talk page, and it's hard to comment on what you're doing :(
Suggest renaming "kot" to "mode", and renaming "sig" to "user". Initailisms are bad generally, but also the usual British English expressions are "mode of transport" and "road user" - could we adopt that terminology? As for "con"ditions, a generalised suffix :<if/in>:condition=testvalue may be useful. Definitely agree on a suffix ":times" or ":time" using Opening Hours syntax: far nicer and more expressive than the current mess of hour_on and hour_off.
One thing that's missing: you need to define incorporate the sense a conditional suffix applies in into the tag key somehow: my stabs at this tend to look like
bicycle=no bicycle:no:times=<opening-hours>
since restrictions can be expressed in both positive and negative senses: see the Cornmarket example on my user-subpage.
--achadwick 11:17, 26 April 2011 (BST)
- funny that you are posting this right now. i am just in the process of moving my, rather long, comment to it's own page, since i thought it would blow up the comments page too much: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5 i'm not quite done yet, since i want to enhance it a little bit with more examples and some more access keys. after that i'll try to incorporate your suggestions.--Flaimo 11:25, 26 April 2011 (BST)
- i have renamed the access types to mode and role and "con" to "if". also i added your bicycle example at the end of the proposal. --Flaimo 12:36, 26 April 2011 (BST)
Had a bit of a brainwave on this over the weekend: User:Achadwick/Access_1.5_thoughts. I'd appreciate your feedback, and a possible merge? --achadwick 14:16, 9 May 2011 (BST)
Interpretation Proposal-Regeln
Hallo Flaimo. Da ich den Eindruck habe, dass wir in Talk:Proposed features/addr keys (2011-04) irgendwie aneinander vorbei reden, mal direkt und auf deutsch. Die "rule of thumb" sagt meiner Meinung nach: 8 einstimmige Voten für das Proposal oder (mindestens) 15 Voten mit einer Mehrheit für das Proposal. Der erste Fall ist nicht gegeben, denn das Ergebnis ist nicht einstimmig. Der zweite Fall ist nicht gegeben, weil die Hürde von 15 Stimmen nicht erreicht wurde.
Ich habe übrigens nichts dagegen, das Proposal als etabliert zu betrachten - das Thema betrifft mich kaum und bessere Vorschläge habe ich auch keine gesehen. Nur die Begründung für den Schritt sollte passen (sagt mein pedantischer Persönlichkeitsbestandteil ;)). --Tordanik 23:24, 5 July 2011 (BST)
- ok, fehler meinerseits. ich habe "unanimous" fälschlicherweise mit "nicht anonym" übersetzt. dann hast du recht. ich lasse das proposal nich offen. wenn in den nächten tagen nicht eine flut an gegenstimmen kommt, dann setze ich es auf approved. --Flaimo 07:57, 6 July 2011 (BST)
Move shelter_type=wildlife_hide to key:leisure
IMHO the value wildlife_hide don't fit to shelter_type=*. Today it is used 72 times.
I think that this similars the tag leisure=bird_hide which is used 692 times. I suggest to move the value wildlife_hide to leisure=*. This combination is already in use. What do you think? --Rudolf 08:20, 14 June 2012 (BST)
- you should start a discussion about that on the talk page of the key not on this page. --Flaimo 09:16, 14 June 2012 (BST)
- Already done. --Rudolf 10:13, 14 June 2012 (BST)
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:Area highway mockup.png ?
Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?
Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".
In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?
Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?
Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?
If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.
You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
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.
--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:00, 26 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 creator of image File:WertstoffhofWeitnau.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|Flaimo}} 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) 21:07, 26 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:Modes-and-roles.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|Flaimo}} 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) 06:21, 31 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:Big Mall Parking.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|Flaimo}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, November}} 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) 18:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)