User talk:Mnalis

StreetComplete/FAQ

Hi. I do Danish translation of StreetComplete/FAQ. I see that you updated the section 'How does one use AR measure feature?' and I was wondering if perhaps the section 'What are the system requirements of this app?' should also be updated since it also mentions the AR feature? --Fugit Hora (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Fugit Hora: Thanks for heads up! I've cleaned that up now and added references, as well as added additional clarifications. --mnalis (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Very rare obvious red boxes

re https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:wikipedia&curid=26209&diff=2615970&oldid=2569534 - for such really rare and seemingly obvious cases (9 objects worldwide) it is much better to open notes and/or edit them. If it is n actual problem then someone will need to do it sooner or later and it is so small scale that creating 9 notes is not taking much longer time than adding such box to wiki Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: In that particular case, I find it easy to re-make mistakes even after they are fixed. E.g. artist=* is deprecated in favor of much more popular artist_name=*, yet logical artist_name:wikipedia=* is the wrong one, and one should use artist:wikipedia=* instead. I find it preferable to spell it out explicitly in wiki, as it is likely mistake to repeat due to illogical / confusing / inconsistent tag naming. (I still might get to cleaning up some of them myself, time permitting) --mnalis (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Charging station edits

You have recently made extensive edits in the wiki for charging stations regarding access. The previous text was part of a recently approved proposal and was ok'ed. The purpose of that text was to highlight the type of customer ("yes" (public access), "customers", "employees", "residents") rather than type of vehicle. I am going to revert some of these edits to preserve the approved proposal, but will include a less prominent reference to vehicle access keys. --NKA (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Tag:footway=path

Could you please summarize what you think is questionable on the talk-page? StreetComplete is often wrong or weird about some tags, and not the venue to discuss it. --JeroenHoek (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@JeroenHoek: If you look at that provided link, you'll see that is not at all about StreetComplete tagging it wrongly/weirdly (or at all), but rather StretComplete trying to determine if that tag is usable for data consumers. That specific StreetComplete discussion was the one which prompted documenting current (dubious) definition of "Used for pedestrian paths not linked to roads", as well as the one that found problems with that definition (as there are ample cases when it actually is used for pedestrian paths linked to roads). I've added short summary on the talk-page, but one should read the whole discussion to get a bigger picture. --mnalis (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That's fine and all, but for that template to be useful an explanation and room for discussion here on this wiki are necessary. That's not something which can be delegated to a different project. It's fine to link to that discussion for anyone to delve into if desired, but that bigger picture should be made clear on the talk-page (or the page itself) when you apply that template. It might also come across as less abrasive if you start with engaging the mapper who contributed the documentation on the talk-page first, before slapping on that warning. --JeroenHoek (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

There already is both an explanation and a room for discussion on that wiki talk page, so I don't understand what additional actions are you asking me to do here exactly; could you clarify? My intention of linking to original SC issue was to provide context on how the issue come to be, and not to "delegate (discussion) to different project". People are welcomed and invited to discuss it further on that talk-page. If you require further clarifications about the use of footway=path, let's do it there, so conclusion can be reached and template removed when conflicting information is reconciled.

Also, I'm sorry if you found use of Questioned template "abrasive" - that was certainly not my intention. I just don't see as good use of anyone's time to require discussing beforehand whether literal invitation to discussion (i.e. Questioned template) may be used (as it seems to me you imply should've been done for politeness sake?) As the Wiki Help states, general advice is to "be bold" - this is wiki, it is intended to be edited by all users and they are invited to do so, even without "discussing the intended wiki changes beforehand". But also the obvious consequence of that is, if someone makes questionable claims (as that unilateral wiki edit did), it is also intended to be marked as questioned, until the question is resolved. That is not intended to be "rude", that is how wiki is supposed to be used (in order to prevent people wasting time of using definitions which are known to be wrong by other people, as would have happened here if change was not reverted or questioned template added). So, adding that template is intended to be benevolent and proactively helpful. Alternative to such a "wiki being wiki" principle would be to have some committee verifying and discussing for each and every documentation change whether it should be accepted, which perhaps might be more accurate and less "abrasive", but colossal waste of everyone's time. So hopefully that clarifies it; NHF & happy mapping? --mnalis (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read my text again. I'm not asking anything additional from you now. I'm pointing out that just slapping on a warning with just an external link (which you did initially until I asked you to use the talk-page) is insufficient and rude. That template is meant to be used in conjunction with the talk-page where you can explain your reasoning. --JeroenHoek (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarification that all is well now! I agree that it was suboptimal of me just posting a link instead of copy/pasting its content to the wiki talk page (which I promptly fixed and apologized for), but I think calling people "abrasive" and "rude" just for such small (and short-lived!) technical omission (because they did not fill out all technical details in proper format in first few hours, but took little longer) is kind of rude in itself, and completely uncalled for. Using such words is off-putting to people, and does not help at all in solving the actual issue; I'm sure it could've been more politely phrased without them. I'll try to do better in the future on the technical/operational side, but you might also want a refresher on Etiquette Guidelines, especially the parts about "Act in good faith", "Be respectful" and "Be welcoming". Anyway, no hard feelings. There is always a room for growth for everyone, eh? (so don't take that suggestion on improving communications in negative way, please! Your work is appreciated!) Happy mapping --mnalis (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

building=sheepfold

Hi Mnails! I noticed that you readded building=sheepfold into the article Tag:building=goat_shed and created the page Tag:building=sheepfold. I'm not a native English speaker, but according to the dictionaries I have consulted (Oxford and Collins), a sheepfold is a pen (an enclosure). So building=sheepfold is a contradiction. This is why I have replaced it by building=sheep_shed, which you list as a tagging mistake in the article you have created! By the way, i think that a tag with only 154 uses can barely be called “de facto”. Kind regards --Dafadllyn (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dafadllyn: You're absolutely correct about the status, I missed that while copy/pasting, thanks for the heads up! I fixed it to be "in use" now. As for building=sheep_shed, it has only two uses worldwide (one of them yours), thus I've added Template:PossibleSynonym so the information about its existence won't get completely lost (since you were wiki-editing about it) while I restored original page links. I also agree with you that the naming could've been better chosen (and if no tags were in use currently, I would certainly prefer your suggestion of naming!), but difference between roofed building=sheepfold and unroofed man_made=sheepfold has been used and documented for at least half a decade (see e.g. building=cowshed wiki history).

The thing is, while OSM tags might resemble English words often, in many cases they don't make sense according to dictionary definitions (e.g. street lamp is not a type of highway in highway=street_lamp, amenity=clothes_dryer is not what English dictionary thinks, and many other counterintuitive keys and values exist. The problem with your wiki edit (as I see it) was that one shouldn't unilaterally "rename" tags to make more sense, as that causes all kinds of breakage (see e.g. Deprecated features#Everything is more complicated than expected). If old usage is to be deprecated, and a new tag invented (and "renaming" actually is those two things combined), there needs to be formal Proposal or at least a community discussion (e.g. at a Tagging community forum), and linking from both involved wiki Talk pages to that proposal/discussion (so interested parties may partake). Then pros and cons should be presented and weighed, and all effort needed to make transition successful taken into account (e.g.contacting the mappers which were using the old key, verifying the meaning matches the new tag, checking if editors/data consumers are using the old tags and opening issues/PRs to change usage, resurveying if needed to clarify, etc.). Only when that is completed should the definitions / existing usages be changed.

Alternatively, if that sounds like too much work (and it might end up being so), one is always welcome to create their own tag via ATYL as you basically did, but also document it at its own wiki page, define it clearly (preferably with examples what it is and what it is not) and list its reason for existing (e.g. define problems of existing tags), its advantages (e.g. better name, more clear definition) and disadvantages (e.g. smaller use), and then list it as an alternative tagging on related pages (but do not remove links to existing tagging!). Sometimes new tag becomes popular and overshadows old one, and sometimes old one is preferred. And sometimes there is mix forever - see e.g. how to tag Forest.

All that being said, I'd instead personally suggest using building=livestock + livestock=sheep for tagging as a superior solution to both building=sheepfold and building=sheep_shed (and for other low-usage animal-shed buildings too). I hope I've managed to clarify your questions; and thanks for reaching out and feel free to discuss more if needed. Kind regards --mnalis (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for having taken the time to answer me in such detail! And thanks for having changed the status of building=sheepfold, which i think makes more sense now.

Please excuse me, i wasn’t aware that my edit was problematical. I should have checked how often it is already used.

While i still think that it’s problematical that a tag means something else than its name suggests (people could confuse the two tags and start using building=sheepfold for real sheepfolds, thus reducing the data quality), i want to spend the little time I have on things that I think will benefit OSM more than trying to rename this tag. Kind regards --Dafadllyn (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)