User talk:Mueschel

RFC Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 2)

Hallo Mueschel, nachdem das Fire Hydrant Extensions Proposal nicht die nötige Mehrheit bekam, gibt es nun einen zweiten Teil: Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 2). Gerade läuft das RFC. Es wäre schön, wenn du mal drüber schauen könntest, ob deine Bedenken berücksichtigt wurden und ob du dieses Mal zustimmen kannst. --MoritzM (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Different service tags for vehicles

Hi, how do you think this should be solved ? : [1]
That's now the 4th "approach" and it doesn't seem there would be any productive outcome on the mailing list,
as people seem to prefer to discuss the mail format instead of the original subject [2].
Even worse, the 4th format is currently being copied to more pages, see shop=caravan.

guard stone proposal

I did not try to "sneak in" any new tagging, I merely tried to adapt the proposal following something that had been pointed out in the mailing list. If you prefer me to delete the additional tagging which should have been brought to my attention before the voting process, let me know. I cannot please everyone, even though I am trying. B-unicycling (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

inscription:igl

Hi, I'm not familiar with that tag - what does the igl stand for? You brought it up on the ogham stone proposal page. B-unicycling (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

We use the ISO 639 language codes to denote languages and add non-standard scripts using a hyphen, e.g. name:sr-Latn is Serbian language in Latin script or name:fr-Arab for French names in Arabic script. pgl and sga are the codes for the old Irish languages Ogham is used for. So, the tag for inscriptions in Ogham letters should be inscription:pgl-Ogham (I'm not familiar enough to tell if pgl or sga is suited). If I wrote igl, this was a mistake and should have been pgl.

A word about your proposal: I'm perfectly fine with the proposed main tag - but the additional tags you propose to use don't fit with established tagging schemes, so I can't cast a positive vote.

I see, thank you. I think rorym actually worked on all those tags. I didn't think it was gonna be so complex. But thanks for taking the time to explain.B-unicycling (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess I would have to stop the vote...According to here it should be pgl.B-unicycling (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually it should be "pgl-Ogam" because we use ISO 15924 script codes which are four letters long. As the mention of inscription tags is not an integral part of the proposal, I think that dropping this in the aftermath and replace with a reference to multi-lingual names should be fine.

Okay, cool. I'll bear it in mind. I'm doing a Youtube series on mapping for historians and I would like to do an episode on Ogham stones once the proposal is accepted. I'll sneak in the improvements then. Well, actually, not sneak in, but explain why to do it different.B-unicycling (talk) 16:15, 31 January 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 author of image File:Bosch 3pin Stecker.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 January 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.

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:17, 29 January 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:DestinationSignHerentals.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|Mueschel}} 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) 16:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)