User talk:Grass-snake
Redirects to non-existing pages
Hi, you created some redirects to pages which do not exist like RU:Tag:cycleway:left=share busway for example. This does not work with the wiki software. You need to create RU:Tag:cycleway=share busway, too. Otherwise you will just see a red link. --Tigerfell 
(Let's talk) 12:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I know about that, I'm going to create this pages soon. I wanted to create them on the same day as the main page, but I got distracted. --Grass-snake (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed, thank you for your advice. --Grass-snake (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2021 (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:Ru F3DbuildingSectionV1.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|Grass-snake}} 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) 21:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. If the question is only in picture File:Ru F3DbuildingSectionV1.jpg, then I just took picture File:F3DbuildingSectionV1.jpg and translated 2 phrases into Russian. There is also no information about the license on the original picture and I am tracking it, so as soon as the information appears, I will add it to the page in Russian. For my part, I am not adding any legal restrictions. — Grass-snake (talk) 07:23, 27 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:Ru Make river.png ?
Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?
Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ" or "this is map generated from OpenStreetMap data and SRTM data" or "map generated from OSM data and only OSM data" or "This is my work based on file -link-to-page-with-that-file-and-its-licensing-info-" or "used file downloaded from internet to create it, no idea which one".
Doing this would be already very useful.
Licensing - photos
In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?
In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.
Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?
Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?
If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.
You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self|Grass-snake}} 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) 20:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. If the question is only in picture File:Ru Make river.png, then I just took picture File:Make river.png and translated words 'way' and 'area' into Russian. There is also no information about the license on the original picture and I am tracking it, so as soon as the information appears, I will add it to the page in Russian. For my part, I am not adding any legal restrictions. — Grass-snake (talk) 16:35, 5 June 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:Ru F3DBdoorOpeningDirectionDefinitionV1.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|Grass-snake}} 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) 19:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, if it's about File:Ru F3DBdoorOpeningDirectionDefinitionV1.jpg, then it is based on File:F3DBdoorOpeningDirectionDefinitionV1.jpg. Unfortunately, the original file does not contain license information, so I don't know what to specify in the Russian version of the file. — Grass-snake (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Traslate Taginfo2 template
Hi, I'm writing to you because I see that you are an active Russian translator. Maybe you will be interested to translate the {Taginfo2} template, which is visible in many many places. Most of these messages are only visible when you hover the cursor over icons or numbers. Instructions on how to do it are here: Template:Taginfo2#Translations. maro21 10:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the advice. I will be glad to translate this text for Russian speaking users.
If you mean pages MediaWiki:Taginfo-all, MediaWiki:Taginfo-nodes, MediaWiki:Taginfo-ways and others, then I cannot change them, since the page is protected. — Grass-snake (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)- Yes, you can't change them, these are English versions. That's why there is an instruction how to translate at Template:Taginfo2#Translations at the bottom. maro21 11:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Different computer companies
Hi, saw you translated some of those pages, updated them for clarification of the differences (as some think everything needs to be an "office"), could you please check whether it's comprehensive ?
THX, Rtfm (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Rtfm:, Hi, I just translated the specified pages from English so that it is as clear as possible for a person who prefers Russian. I think this is one type of POI (maybe except software_development, I'm not sure). At the moment, I don't care exactly how the specified POIs will be designated, I'm still waiting for someone to suggest classifying offices more accurately and so that a more accurate classification can be replaced. I have a lot of tags and mapping approaches that can be offered, but unfortunately people don't want to accept my suggestions, so far I have enough local map. —Grass-snake (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)