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)