User talk:LA2
Swedish discussion
Jag vet att du gillar mail bättre än "webboards" men jag tar det här iaf. Ett sätt är ju att försöka få in en fot i geocache killarnas siter. Som forum och sådant, ett annat sätt är ju att åka runt och hålla föredrag som Steve gör. Till sist så skulle det ju vara en bra idé att försöka hitta någon i Finland, det finns inte många segment där, och de som finns har väl Petter och jag gjort. /Erik Johansson 01:56, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Jag skrev en blänkare på den svenska Wikipedia-Bybrunnen. Hur adresserar man lämpligast geocacharna? --LA2 02:03, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- en kul grej vore att gömma uppmaningar i geocacher om att ladda upp tracks. De har ju tydligen en tidning som kommer ut lite då och då, om man orkar skulle man kunna skriva en liten artikel som OSM och skicka in den till den tidningen, geocacher.se /Erik Johansson 13:28, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- ABC-bladet kanske också vore värt att prova med.
- Nu finns WikiProject Sweden, så jag föreslår att diskussionen fortsätter där. --LA2 06:36, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Gnuplot Östergötland
Har du möjligtvis gjort eller tänkt göra en PDF över Östergötland utifrån julidatabasen? --eriso 04:58, 5 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- Svealand, Götaland och Skåne finns på http://aronsson.se/img/ om du hittar osm-2006*.pdf. Fler varianter tänker jag inte publicera. --LA2 11:27, 5 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- Oki. Jag har sett dem, men jag tänkte ha något bara över Östergötland så jag kan välja vägar när vi är ute och åker. Jag få ta och testa ditt gnuplot-recept! :-) --eriso 21:14, 5 Jul 2006 (UTC)
Mappinghelg i Malmö
Hejsan, jag frågade på IRC men fick inget svar innan jag loggade ut, är du intresserad av att delta i en mappinghelg i Malmö i slutet av april? Det finns mer info på talk:WikiProject Sweden/Skåne och även i min korrespondens med Dutch här och här. Inget är klart om det kommer att bli av eller inte, men samlar vi tillräckligt med folk så kan jag inte tänka mig annat. /Grillo 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
English discussion
WikiProject
December 18, 2005: There is now a WikiProject Netherlands in addition to the WikiProject United Kingdom. Would it make sense to start one for Sweden too?
Lars, I think your group would be ideal for a WikiProject. I started the UK one because I felt it would generate some momentum and help to direct effort if we had some goals. And it's something to shout about and feel good about when each goal is achieved. Go ahead and start one. 80n 19:32, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Hello, I started the Netherlands one, in order to have the information a bit organised...I guess there are other people here using OSM, because there are plenty of tracks in Holland. I think it helps keeping track of what is there already. No one else added information there yet, but I hope it happens soon (or one day). And as 80n says it is good to "generate" goals.
Also, one more thing I just remembered, it might help to give "volume" to the web-site, so that when a person first visits it looks around and thinks that indeed lots of people are involved and it is worth contributing to it!
Strange shape
> I challenge everybody to guess what this strange shape can be and when it was created.
By crosschecking with google earth i'd say it's a living area that was already set up when the landsat image was taken (visible roads) but houses where build later (visible on google) 09:29, 18 Feb 2006 (GMT)
bad tracks illustrated
those bad trackpoints don't look so unusual
just compare it with the traffic circle here: Traffic Circle in "Eschborn Süd" (it's inside some high rise street valley and recorded a bit to often ;-)
or
those waypoints here, the road is somewhere between those points Castle Frankenstein (a forest road, where i had really bad GPS reception that day) This road is on my todo list before springtime, as long as there are no leafs on the trees.
- --Frank 22:50, 20 Feb 2006 (UTC) Forgot to "sign" the comment .. now added manually
- I don't agree. I think your tracks are just fine, but the ones I found are really bad, systematically deviating from the actual road in places where reception should be good. The roads I depicted have been travelled 4-5 times and all tracks coincide except that bad one. We will always have some bad tracks, but currently the ordinary user has no way of telling whose track it is or to remove it. If you sign your message with four tildes (~~~~) this will expand to your user name and a timestamp, like this: --LA2 00:27, 21 Feb 2006 (UTC)
- Systematic deviation is a bit strange (if it was drawn without trackpoints, i'd assume its somthing like the big circle example i uploaded earlier this month). Systematic errors might be caused by failed coordinate transformations -- Frank 10:20, 21 Feb 2006 (UTC)
GPS constellation
your explanation of the GPS constellation issues are somewhat flawed. the issue described is valid if you only had one satellite. however, you have 24 satellites roaming around. sweden being between 55 and 70 degrees north or so, you will have satellites that are between 0 and 15 degrees directly above, which is plenty fine. in fact, the system is designed to work correctly between +80 and -80 degrees latitudes
- If it is designed to work south of 80 degrees, it means it will work better at 50 than at 70 degrees. And if you drive north with your receiver on the dashboard, the car's roof will shade the satellites that are south of you. This doesn't mean it doesn't work, because you still have satellites in orbits to your east and west. But you should be able to see a difference in reception quality between driving north and driving south. When you drive south, the car's roof only shades the satellite-free area above the north pole. With my current receiver I cannot connect an external antenna, but for my next receiver I should look for a model that can. --LA2 10:45, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)
- ah yeah sure, I didn't think of that. it's true that I have a roof-mounted sensor, which gets extremely good readings thanks to the ground plane that the roof creates.
- On the Swedish east coast, your track is always at the center, with newer tracks sprinkled on both sides. --LA2 17:33, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)
- is this a good thing or a bad thing ? The Gps sensor was located on the back-left of the roof, close to the back door.
31U
Hello Lars
UTM zone 31U is listed on your page as Belgium. Amongst mercator zones in Europe, perhaps it covers the most poplulation centers across political and geographic boundaries. I live at 51.437700 -0.003700 (in London), and 31U starts right at the end of my street. In fact, it covers much of populous S.E London, E London, Kent and East Anglia as well as Belgium, most of Netherlands (including Amsterdam), a large part of France (including Paris), the less populous side of Luxembourg. I estimate 31U has the following populations: Nl 11m, Fr 25M, Be 10.6M, Lu 150,000, Eng 9M. To count the work in the zone and call it Belgium is misleading. Perhaps in the interests of brevity and completeness, it could be labelled BeEngFrNl.NickH 15:49, 2 Sep 2006 (BST)
- Yeah, whatever, but the table layout didn't allow me to include every detail of what's covered. The UTM zones only give a rough distribution worldwide. You're welcome to produce more detailed statistics about smaller zones of Europe. --LA2 21:12, 2 Sep 2006 (BST)
Merkaartor
Thanks for trying out merkaartor and your feedback. It's a great help showing what I need to improve to make it usefull for others. Just some more remarks
- I am surprised it can now be compiled with Qt 4.1.2. That was not anticipated but I guess that's good news. There is now a (k)ubuntu repository online for merkaartor which contains a binary for (k)Ubuntu Edge. Not sure how hard it would be to have the same thing for Dapper. There is also a source package in that repository but given that I don't even know how to use a source package with ubuntu (just installed it last week) I am not sure if it is working at all. Much appreciated if someone in the know could try it out and let me know what's wrong
- It will be a while before I think about optimizations, for now development is focused on bringing it to a level where it is at least usefull.
- There is a pan function in the new 0.04, there is also zoom in/out with the scrollwheel. The issue you describe about Zooming out moving to another position I can't reproduce? What is it exactly?
- GPX trackpoints can be moved around because they are actually just nodes. Try drawing a segment to one of the trackpoints, it will snap to it.
- Download from web is maybe ill named. It is actually "download from www.openstreetmap.org using the REST api". To use that you always need a username/password AFAIK?--Bartv 09:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Osm I Malmö
Jag fick ett samtal från en firma i Malmö som mha en praktikant har kartlagt centrala Malmö, länkar om du är intresserad:
http://www.goodold.se/blog/office/2007/03/13/victor-does-malmo-gps-style/ http://www.goodold.se/blog/office/2007/03/15/an-interns-experience-with-open-streetmap/
Coastline Script
I read that you made some improvements in the coastline scripts. Would you please send me your changes?
I think only a few people are able to use Perl scripts. So I plan to create a web page on my server which contains a simple input form for the script, runs the script and creates a link for downloading the result file. And I don't want to modify the original script if there is existing already something better.
My email address is paul@lenz-online.de
Thanks & regards --Plenz 07:03, 9 November 2007 (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:LA2-404.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".
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) 13:54, 8 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:Gps-orbit.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|LA2}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified April 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) 21:17, 30 April 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:Eriso-la2.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|LA2}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, May}} 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) 17:56, 30 May 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:20060928-altitude.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|LA2}} 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) 12:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)