User talk:Gorm
Hi. I notice you edited the tagwatch pages to make them human-readable, and compared them to the map features pages. Were you aware that these wiki pages are the input into tagwatch software, which needs updating if the format of its input wiki-pages change? (apologies if you did update the software, I just can't see any changes checked-in to its SVN repository)
Regarding the 'completeness' comment, the output of tagwatch is typically more "complete" than the map features, because it lists all the tags which people are actually using. The input pages you edited are an additional description/photo which give more detail/illustration on some common tags in the output. Ojw 08:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, I did not know that. It seemed like just another page that could act as a guide for tagging. I hope that did not break anything. If you believe I did, I won't hold it against you if you revert my change :-). Even better, if you have the skill to do so, you could update the tool to accept the (in my opinion) much better format. That said, I find it quite strange that there is no warning on the pages to avoid such edits as mine. There should also be generic examples of the accepted format and links to whatever tool is using the data. Gorm 14:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
kg for maxaxleload
Hi Gorm, maybe you want to comment on your addition of kg to the units and maxaxleload pages in the discussion on Talk:Map_Features/Units#Reasoning_for_kg? --Tordanik 23:23, 2 September 2012 (BST)
JOSM/Plugins/RoundaboutExpander
Hi Gorm, I can not find the plugin JOSM/Plugins/RoundaboutExpander in josm --User:Lenny 29 January 2019
- It appears in the plugin list: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Plugins It's short name is REX. If you search for either 'rex' or 'roundabout' in the JOSM plugin manager, you should find it. --Gorm (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind it is still in beta and has a number of known issues (https://github.com/gormur/rex). It is still useable to a degree. --Gorm (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- thanks for your answer, i found it and i understand for the beta --User:Lenny 17:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC+1)
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:Fv-skilt.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".
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) 00:49, 12 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:Sporsluse.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|Gorm}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, June}} 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) 15:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)