User talk:Nakaner

Operation Cowboy

Danke für die deutsche Übersetzung :) --!i! 13:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please link images!

Hello Nakaner,

Thanks a lot for contributing to the OSM-Wiki! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how: You can pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a Road sign, you add the following code:

[[Category:Road sign]]

This will make the File show up in the categories "Road sign".

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Category:Categories.

---

--Reneman (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

AIO Garmin map

Hi Nakaner, zu deiner Änderung: ich denke es wäre besser vorerst einen Hinweis zu platzieren, denn die AIO scheint mir recht populär zu sein. Insofern werden einige Leute die Karte verzweifelt in der Liste suchen. Was denkst du?

Woher hast du eigentlich die Info über die Fehler? Die Karten-Images werden wohl noch aktualisiert. Viele Grüße --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Die Information stammt aus dem deutschen OSM-Forum. Auch auf der AIO-Seite selbst steht, dass sie halb-defekt ist. Meine Quellen:

• DE:All_in_one_Garmin_Map
• "Routing auf der AIO Garmin klappt nicht" im deutschen OSM-Forum (Post Nr. 6)
• "OSM AIO German Daily ( wann wieder aktuell )" im deutschen OSM-Forum

Ich habe die Zeile in der Tabelle auskommentiert, damit man sie leichter wiederherstellen kann. Aber eigentlich hast du Recht, eigentlich ist es besser, wenn man die Inhalte der AIO-Zeile in der Tabelle durchstreicht und dahinter schreibt, warum sie durchgestrichen sind. -- Nakaner (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Danke, das war mir alles nicht bekannt. Ich hab die Liste entsprechend bearbeitet. Gut so? Dann können wir das auch in der englischen Version so machen. Grüße --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Habe es auch in der englischen Version so gemacht. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Prozess für fehlende Attribution

Hallo, du hast hier die Empfehlungen für den Umgang mit fehlender Attribution geändert. Mein Problem mit deiner Version ist, dass jetzt schon der erste Schritt eine semi-öffentliche Bloßstellung beinhaltet, die eigentlich solchen Fällen vorbehalten sein sollte, wo auch auf Nachfrage nicht reagiert wird. Gerade die Tatsache, dass diese Seite eben nicht viel Aufmerksamkeit bekommt und nicht über Google gefunden wird, ist diesbezüglich ein Vorteil. Es geht schließlich (imo) ausschließlich um die Koordination von Anfragen, die Netzöffentlichkeit soll zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch nicht involviert werden. --Tordanik 09:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Meinen Beobachtungen zufolge hat es sich in der letzten Zeit eingebürgert, dass im Forum oder auf einer Mailingliste nachgefragt wird. Eine Wiki-Diskussionsseite wird von kaum jemandem gelesen und hat auch kaum Beiträge. Von der Usability ganz zu schweigen. Wenn sich in einer Diskussion herausstellt, dass alles doch ok ist oder der Anbieter nachbessert, dann kann man im Forum den Threadtitel ändern, außerdem taucht das im Forumsthread bzw. in einem Beitrag im Mailinglistenarchiv auf. Außerdem glaube ich, dass nur ein Teil der Fälle überhaupt dokumentiert wird. Vor allem erfahrene Mapper, die etwas entdecken, schreiben es oft nicht ins Forum oder auf talk-de, sondern wickeln den Fall "unter der Hand" ab. Das mache ich auch meistens so. --Nakaner (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Für mich waren diese Fälle, wo jemand ohne Umschweife ins Forum gegangen ist (oft auch noch direkt in anklagendem Ton) eher Beispiele, wo jemand die Sache falsch angegangen ist, keine Vorbilder. Das mit dem Ändern des Beitrags ist auch so eine Sache: Nicht jeder tut das dann auch wirklich, auf Mailinglisten lässt sich gar nichts mit vertretbarem Aufwand revidieren.

Ich fand es daher eine gute Idee, einen geschützten Raum für die Koordination von entsprechenden Anschreiben an Nutzer mit fehlerhafter Lizenz zu schaffen. Die Seite "Lacking Proper Attribution", für die es ja sogar Sonderregeln im robots.txt gibt, könnte einen solchen bieten. In Forum oder Liste lässt sich eine vertrauliche Behandlung praktisch nicht machen. --Tordanik 14:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dass es diese Ausnahme in der robots.txt gibt, wusste ich gar nicht. Danke. Ich habe ehrlich gesagt auch nicht in die robots.txt des Wikis vorher geschaut.

Ich glaube, es ist das Beste, wenn wir das im Forum ausdiskutieren, ob wir die "OSM-Detektei" dorthin verlegen und künftig bei allen "Hier fehlt die Attributierung" mit "Bitte im Wiki melden und diskutieren und den Thread hier löschen." antworten. Da die robots.txt die Diskussionsseit von Lacking Proper Attribution verbietet, kann man vom Forum aus dort bedenkenlos hinverlinken. --Nakaner (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

ORM: WC-Entsorgung

Hallo Nakaner, zu Deiner gestrigen Änderung: Afaik sind es normalerweise keine chemischen Toiletten, also bräuchte es für waste=* einen neuen Wert. --rayquaza (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis. Ich war mir selber nicht sicher, ob geschlossene Zug-WCs chemisch oder nicht chemisch sind. Wikipedia kennt auch dafür ein englisches Wort (für Abwasser mit fäkalen Feststoffen) – blackwater. Siehe meine Mail auf der OpenRailwayMap-Mailingliste. --Nakaner (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Railway Electrification tagging

Hello Nakaner, I saw earlier that you had made a section on how to tag railway electrification. Recently, I had been drafting up my own tagging scheme for that. There are some things I think could be improved in the tagging scheme you posted, and since you came up with it, I figure you are the best person to discuss it with. Also, since I know English isn't your native tongue, I hope what I've written below makes sense.

The way I was coming up with had catenary masts being tagged as ways. The reasoning for this is because simply tagging the node on the track does not show the infrastructure accurately, while just tagging a node where the pole is doesn't give any information that's important electrically. Either of these situations also don't support catenary mast bridges that are supported on both sides of the track, and support wires for multiple tracks. Over here in the U.S, utility companies often have bought rights to hang power lines or communication cables on top of masts, typically above the posts. It is Because of all of this, I feel it is best to tag singular catenary masts as well as the bridges as ways. I am unsure if the node where it meets the railway track way should be tagged or not, though. Doing so would make it more like how power lines are tagged with their posts, and it wouldn't have to be interpolated by where the catenary mast way and railway track way intersect.

The tagging schema I came up with for catenary/signal masts is documented below, with notes about each value.

Key	Values	Property	Description	Default value
railway	mast	Mast	Declares it a mast; this also allows signal masts to be tagged as well.
mast:use	catenary/signal/both	Mast Usage	Supports signals or catenary wires (or both)
mast:type	pole/bracket/bridge/cantilever/cable	Mast Type	Bridges have two supports on either end of track, bracket is a single support with an arm, pole is just a pole, cantilever is a pole with arms on either side, and cable is where a supporting cable is draped between two poles with the catenary being mounted to that. For a single catenary mast supporting a single wire, bracket would only be used when the structure forms an actual bracket structure like in the background of this picture.
mast:structure	i_beam/truss/tubular	Structure Style	This is the structure of the post; most are i-beams, but some are a trussed structure.
catenary:style	generic/new_haven/prr/south_shore/<others>	Catenary Mast style	When railroads were electrifying originally, most prominent railroads had varying designs for catenary bridges, which were often patented. Each value links to an image example of it. signal:style would be a related key for signal structures. new_haven = New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad, prr = Pennsylvania Railroad, south_shore = Chicago, South Shore and South Bend Railroad. I'm positive more values could be figured out for just U.S. railways, let alone globally. This is more as a sample right now to demonstrate the key, with more values to be added and some to be changed (for example: The new_haven tag needs to be broken up into two tags for different types of masts used at different sections of electrification).
ref	<value>	Reference ID	Most catenary masts here have a reference ID associated with the structure.
layer	<value above railway layer>	Layer	Since it's an elevated structure, for rendering it probably should be on a layer above the railway.
material	steel/wood/etc	Material	The material of the pole; some older installations were still wood.
color	<color>	Color	The color of the pole. Optional, but I included it because the catenary masts of the New Haven are either a deep rust color (which I assume is actually from rust), or a white-green color for replaced or repainted poles.

I'm interested to see your take on this, since I assume that because you wrote that tagging section, electrification systems are something interesting to you. Regardless, tagging schemas should be collaborative, anyways.

--YamaOfParadise 02:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you know OpenRailwayMap mailing list? It would be better to discuss this topic there.

I (and a few other mappers) decided at tagging discussions at Bad Nauheim Meeting in October to use power=catenary_mast for catenary masts. Catenary mast also are used for trolleybuses. That's why we voted against railway=*.

German mappers are not interested in mapping catenary masts at the moment. We are focussed on collecting information which is not available to the public. Deutsche Bahn AG (German federal railway company which owns all main and most branch lines) does not publish information about its network (condition, places which have to be refurbished, speed restrictrions, maximum train frequency, …) although it is own by the public. We map speed limits, electrification (the old, common tagging scheme) on the track and the maximum train frequency is given by distance between two signals. Signals are mapped as nodes onto the track. The tags railway:signal:<function>:location=right/left/bridge says where the signal is mounted. Germany is not finished and we cannot keep up with current speed of changes in railway network.

power=catenary_mast was created to map catenary supply lines (German "Speiseleitung). catenary supply lines are mounted onto the top end of catenary masts to supply catenary at a remote point (2–30 km away from a substation and far away from other electrificated railway lines). See also the images single line on top of the mast, double line on top of the mast, 2+1 lines. I didn't like to use power=tower/pole for this nodes and invented power=catenary_mast to prevent other users adding wrong power=* to these nodes (example node which was mapped before Bad Nauheim Meeting).

Initially, I thought "Why should a catenary mast be mapped as a way?" but I think now that you are right. In difference to common power poles/towers, catenary masts are not symmetric, have a direction and, if they are a catenary mast bridge, two independent poles and foundations.

I ask you to propose your tagging scheme at OpenRailwayMap mailing list. If we do not disagree with you, you can add it afterwards at OpenRailwayMap tagging page. (But do not expect OpenRailwayMap rendering catenary masts!) --Nakaner (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Vorherige Zielfindung erforderlich

Danke für Deinen Hinweis. Seiten sollten ein Ziel haben. Daran fehlt es der Rad-Kartiersseite derzeit. Daher ist keinerlei Strukturaufbau möglich und es verbleibt bei einem Brei aus Verkehrsschildern und Tags. Für sich genommen ist alles richtig, aber ohne Struktur. Eine Zieldiskussion wurde gestartet in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE_talk:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren#Ziele_und_Zielgruppe_von_.27Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren.27 Ich erwarte schon, dass Interessierte sich diesen Fragen stellen und sie halbwegs nachvollziehbar beantworten. --Hb 16:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2015-11-24-bitkom.pdf

Hallo Michael, mir kommt es ein wenig Merkwürdig vor, wenn du die von dir erstellte Präsentation im Wiki ablegst, in der Präsentation angibst, dass diese im Wiki liegt (Seite 40) und gleichzeitig schreibst, dass man den Inhalt des Wikis bitte nicht ernst nehmen soll (Seite 39)... ;o) . Ich würde es begrüßen, wenn mehr darauf hin gewirkt würde, dass man den Inhalt des Wikis ernst nehmen kann, bzw dass es dem Leser die Antwort gibt, die er erwartet um an OSM mitzuwirken oder dieses zu nutzen. Besten Gruß von René aus Mainz --Reneman (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

railway:platform attribute

Ich möchte die Güterverkehrsterminals in Europa eindeutig identifizieren, wie z.B der Behala Westhafen:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/140374295

railway:platform ist in dem Fall nicht ganz korrekt, da es sich nicht um eine Platform für Passagiere handelt:

railway=platform Way Area This is parallel to the rail line for showing where the actual platforms are. It is also to know where you can change platform and enter the station, so use footpaths to connect them. This is really useful for routing too. Use in addition to public_transport=platform

Für ein Güterverkehrsterminals würde ich folgenden Wert ergänzen wollen:

railway=terminal

Im Rahmen eines EU geförderten Projektes sind die Terminals dokumentiert: http://www.railfreightlocations.eu/

Ich denke es macht Sinn bei intermodalen Terminals ein oder mehrere Transport-Modes zu ergänzen:

terminal = Inland waterways;Rail;Road;Ocean;Air

Dies ist keine Tagging-Diskussionsseite, sondern meine persönliche Benutzer-Diskussionsseite. Wenn du ein neues Tag vorschlägst, dann tu das bitte auf einer fachlich geeigneten OSM-Mailingliste. Bitte beachte außerdem noch die Import-Richtlinie. Bitte signiere deine Beiträge auf Diskussionsseiten mit --~~~~ --Nakaner (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Overpass Vortrag zum OSMSonntag

Hallo,

ich wollte deinen Vortrag am OSMSonntag in die List der Sessions über Overpass aufnehmen. Beim Reviewen ist mir ein Problem auf der Slide "Vereinigung (Union)" aufgefallen.

Eigentlich sollte das wiefolgt aussehen:

[out:json][timeout:25];

(
  node[amenity]({{bbox}});
  node[shop]({{bbox}});
); 
node._[opening_hours];

out;

Korrekturen:

• {{{bbox}}} gefixt (klar)
• das ._ nach dem node ist unbedingt notwendig, da sonst alle Nodes weltweit mit Tag opening_hours ermittelt werden.

Probier doch einfach mal mit einer sehr kleinen BBox folgendes aus: zum einen werden da beacon:uuid Nodes weltweit ermittelt (mit opening_hours als Tag läuft die Query in einen Timeout, daher das extrem seltene Tag), zum anderen haben diese Beacon-Nodes keinen Bezug mehr zu den zuvor ermittelten amenity / shop Nodes, welche einfach komplett ignoriert werden für die Ausgabe(!).

[out:json][timeout:25];

(
node[amenity]({{bbox}});
node[shop]({{bbox}});
); 
node["beacon:uuid"];

out;

Mmd (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ich habe es korrigiert. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A2016-02-03-overpass-workshop-osm-sonntag.pdf&type=revision&diff=1325394&oldid=1322251 --Nakaner (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

ok, prima. Folien sind jetzt in der Liste drin: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API#Talks.2C_Presentations.2C_Workshops Mmd (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

DE:Public_transport#Verschiedene_Erfassungsschemata

Hi,

Du schreibst dort "... wird hier beschrieben ...". Meinst Du mit "hier" das historische Proposal (dann würde ein : fehlen) oder die Wiki selbst? Im Forum wurde ersteres vermutet, ich nehme letzteres an.

krza

Ist das besser?

Übrigens, mit --~~~~ kannst du deine Beiträge auf Diskussionsseiten signieren. --Nakaner (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ganz ehrlich? Nö ;-) Wegen des Hinweises auf das Proposal in der Klammer weiß man noch immer nicht genau, was mit dem "dieser Seite" gemeint ist. Wenn Du das Proposal meinst, solltest Du "in diesem historischen Proposal" schreiben und den Link drunter legen. Wenn Du aber den Text meinst, solltest Du den Verweis auf das Proposal in einen separaten Satz packen (z.B. "Das ursprüngliche Proposal findet man übrigens hier." oderso). --Krza (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

So beser? --Nakaner (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Pascht ;) --Krza (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 2)

Hallo Nakaner, 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) 10:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

So, wie es aussieht, ist es jetzt deutlich besser. Die verbleibenden Tagänderungen sind in meinen Augen ausreichend gut begründet. --Nakaner (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fire hydrants

Hello. I apologize for my long winded maybe back biting response to your initial post on my talk page. You make valid points and I should of waited until the morning when I was fully rested and hadn't been staring at my computer for hours on end already before responding. That aside, I wrote someone else a message about the fire hydrant page and I would like your opinion on it. Since you seem to know more about this then I do. Id appreciate any feedback you can give about how to deal with issues like it in the future. Thanks.

"Hello. Although I acknowledge the page might have value as being the original proposal for what became emergency=fire_hydrant, it is what comes up first in the search and the proper tag is four pages down below another emergency=fire_hydrant page. It also doesn't say that it is canceled or deprecated in the search either. Although it does say in the search that emergency=fire_hydrant is only proposed. Which is weird and doesn't help anyone looking up the term. Especially new mappers. Plus by keeping the page there it potentially causes the term be searchable in Id editor and other such pages, like proposed pages that have sat in one state for ten years without activity or updating potentially pollute the proposed categories. So is there another, better, way besides deleting them so their correct statuses show up in search terms, the correct tags come up in the searches above them, and they don't unnecessarily pollute the categories with pages that don't fit what their actual status is? Does archiving them or putting a banner on the page achieve any of that?" --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverting me

Nakaner, I see no conclusions being made on the talk page you referenced for reverting me and the three people complaining there clearly weren't in the majority. As I asked all of you to refer to the discussion between Verdy_p and SomeoneElse who is a moderator where he said I was able to request pages be deleted if I wanted to and specific examples should be giving if I have actually done anything wrong instead of just reverting me whole hog. I would also refer you to his talk page. Where he elebrates on it. Along with the discussion in talk US mailing list where two other people say I can request pages be deleted if I want to. You and the other two people are clearly in the minority. Some of the pages you reverted even had discussions in them about how they should be deleted. Not to mention EzekielT who disagreed with you. There's no reason if you had a specific complaint on a specific page, you couldn't of just brought it up there or let the moderator do their job and decide. Your clearly edit warring since you ignored all that multiple times and decided to revert me without giving a reason instead. Fake outrage isn't a reason. Now I am just going report you to the DWG since I'm sick of the bullying, agenda pushing, and complete lack of respect you and the other have for my opinion and the opinion of others who disagree with you. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Dear Nakaner,

We would like to invite you to voting in the case of the proposed Deletion policy for wiki pages and files. Based on the input of several contributors, we drafted a deletion policy over the span of two and a half months. Among other things, the policy proposes a centralised discussion page for all cases which are not mentioned explicitly.

Kind regards, EzekielT

PS: I wrote this message on your talk page, because you were involved in a long dispute about deleting in 2018 and 2019 which now led to this policy draft. — EzekielT (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion proposal comments

Hi. You made a few valid points in your comment about the deletion proposal, but it was completely unnecessary to bring me up and lie about things to oppose it. I really don't appreciate it. You know the deletion requests were over a long period of time and that they just got backed up. I also didn't "submit the deletion proposals again" it was different pages. It's pretty disingenuous to say otherwise. I also don't appreciate you saying that this whole thing came about because I felt attacked due to being disagreed with. It utter side steps the crappy way you and the other users treated me and the fact that other people took my side. It also wasn't a simple "disagreement" when Polarbearing compared me to a book burning heretic or when Verdy_P said a bunch of other completely inappropriate things about me. It's not your place to talk about my feelings anyway. So don't do it again.

It's also pretty spineless to accuse Tigerfell of sockpuppetry. He/she put a lot of work into the proposal. Whereas, you just crawled under a rock and didn't do crap except criticize the thing at the end. You made a few good points, but you had plenty of opportunity to bring them and suckpuppetry thing up up before now and you should have. You obviously did it in the proposal just to make it, and Tigerfell, look bad though. It's a pretty feckless tactic. There's nothing in OSM that say's users need to be here a certain amount of time in order to do things or for their opinions to matter and I'm getting pretty sick of you and other people acting like there is. It's an insult to Tigerfell and other people who do what they can. It also shows zero respect for the community as a whole. It's a voluntary effort, most people aren't going to have the years or edits that you and your friends have. It doesn't mean they don't know anything though or that they have bad intentions. It's pretty crappy to act otherwise.

P.S. I'm almost glad you and other people opposed the proposal because I get back to requesting pages be deleted. Plus, the fact that none of you participated in it and rejected the thing shows how much of controlling frauds you are and how little you actually care about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Erfragte Rohrleitungen

Hallo Nakaner,

bei meinen Anfragen sage ich den Wasserbauingenieuren und anderen Gewässerunterhaltern meistens, dass ich sie um Auskunft bitte, um ihre Wasserläufe in Openstreetmap einzutragen.

Wenn dann der erfragte Wasserlauf erst in der Karte auftaucht, aber nach einiger Zeit wieder verschwindet (weil er von jemand anderem gelöscht worden ist), wirft das ein sehr schlechtes Licht auf OSM,

genau wie die wahrscheinlich von Woodpeck erzeugten Namenlosigkeiten.

Und natürlich gibt es heutzutage so gut wie keine Information, die nicht auch in mindestens einer Datenbank steht.

Bei Straßen ist OSM konkurrenzlos aktuell. Das wissen die Leute.

Wenn Mapper wie du sich durchsetzen, ist bzw. bleibt OSM bei Gewässern konurrenzlos lückenhaft und veraltet.

Irgendwann merken die Leute auch das. Dann muss OSM irgendwann aus dem GeoHack-Angebot gestrichen werden.

Beste Grüße, Ulrich

ORM not rendering usage=tourism any longer?

Hello Michael:

(Not sure if this is the best way to contact you, but given the broad nature of the question and openness of OSM, I'm OK with asking it here, as it allows others to see our dialog). I notice recently (early 2020, though I'm not sure when this apparent change took place), that OpenRailwayMap no longer renders rail infrastructure which is tagged usage=tourism. Is this true? When and why was this decision made? (Apologies if I don't read German or follow the ORM list, perhaps I should using a translator — and thank you for conversing with me in English!). As you may recall, I'm quite involved in mapping rail in the USA (all Western states, presented a Lightning Talk about rail at SOTM-US in 2016...), especially California and keeping California/Railroads updated. However, what I now see with ORM on the many rail lines in California is a "complete blank" where these are tagged usage=tourism. A result of deprecating this tag in ORM is that additional industrial line, sidings and spurs which are "connected to" (tourism rail) but because they have a different usage tag or do not get a usage=* tag because they are service=* DO render in ORM and so they "float in space" around a usage=tourism rail line which does not render. (See, for example, relation/4710708 and relation/4710758 in ORM, among other tourism rail in California and USA). This seems like either an unplanned-for (and unfortunate) vestige / unintended consequence of deprecating rendering of usage=tourism, OR perhaps it is a consequence of specific tagging we do in the USA which isn't well-aligned with how ORM suggests we best tag a mix of tourism, industrial and other rail lines. Do you have any suggestions for me/us (USA rail mappers) to better tag so we are more harmonious with ORM? We really do have tourism rail mixed with industrial rail here, and it would be great to see them rendered as such, rather than "no rail displayed in ORM if it is tourism rail." Thank you, Stevea (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It also seems that now railway:preserved=yes does not render in ORM, either. Huh? My apologies if I'm "behind the curve" (haven't paid attention to discussion and reasoning on a railway mailing-list or someplace like that), but I do not understand why these would be deprecated in the renderer. Stevea (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

delete request for WORLD OSM WMS

Hey, I saw your request for deletion of the page WORLD OSM WMS. First, the service and website seem to work for me in principle (just a bit on the slow side at the moment perhaps). Second, even if it was offline, would it not better to leave the page in the wiki and mark it as deprecated/offline for historic reference (like it was done for the pages other tools which are offline by now, e.g. OWL, OSMLY, etc.). I don't really see much value in the deletion here. -- Tyr (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I undid the delete proposal and some of the link removals related to it. I am sorry that I was not patient enough to wait for the WMS for 30 to 120 seconds to load. Given that the service is 13 years old and from Heidelberg University, I expected it to be gone. ;-)

While writing this response, the map was rendered tile by tile but it seems that only some layers work at all. Could you please ask the responsible person (you know better who it is) to look after the service and fix it? I am happy to change all to past tense if the service is discontinued or de-facto unmaintained. --Nakaner (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I found out that the service is currently being moved to a new server. The performance should be much better starting "soon" – perhaps in a few weeks. Not sure what you mean by some layers which don't work: There are only two, i.e. the hillshade and the OSM layer. Can you specify the issue a bit more precisely? -- Tyr (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

PS: The move is now complete, and the WMS service should now have its usual performance again. If you encounter any further issues, please let us know (e.g. via info@heigit.org). :) -- Tyr (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

oppose to deletion of German communities

Hi Nakaner, I oppose your deletion of communities in Germany. Even if they are not filled very much yet, it is a good placeholder down to the Gemeindebene to name every political "Gemeinde". --traut (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ich schlage Wiki-Seiten von Gebietskörperschaften aus den folgenden Gründen zur Löschung vor: 1. Sie sind seit vielen Jahren ungepflegt und lassen keine künftige Pflege erwarten. Ihre Inhalte verwirren dann mehr, als dass sie nützen. 2. Sie bestehen nur aus der Einbindung von Template:Place und enthalten daher keine Informationen, die nicht sowieso schon in OSM oder Wikidata stehen. 3. Listen mit Relationen lassen sich i.d.R. gut aus OSM anhand von Tag-Filtern extrahieren. 4. Fortschrittstabellen werden nur in äußerst exotischen Fällen gepflegt.

Ich möchte dich bitten, diese Diskussion im OSM-Forum zu diskutieren, wo die Initiative entstand. Du kannst dich dort mit deinem OSM-Benutzerkonto anmelden. --Nakaner (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Schön, wenn ihr das auf der Insel OSM-Foren diskutiert. Auf der Insel Openstreetmap allgemeines in Deutsch <Talk-de@openstreetmap.org> habe ich davon nichts mitbekommen.

Zu meiner Überraschung bekomme ich zwar heute einen Hinweis auf jede Löschung, bekam aber keine Benachrichtigung für deinen Vorschlag zur Löschung vor einem Monat. --traut (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sh 0 -> Hp 0. Kleiner Bug :)

Hi Nakaner

Ich habe eben erst entdeckt, dass du dich in OpenStreetMap um Eisenbahnangelegheiten kümmerst :-)
Dabei ist mir bei der Umbennungaktion von 2015 etwas aufgefallen. Und zwar wird dort auch "sh0 durch Hp0" ersetzt.
"Sh 0 light signal has been renamed to Hp 0 many years ago."
Das stimmt so nicht ganz.

• Sh0 gibt es weiterhin und zwar als Formsignal (Schwarzer, waagerechter Balken vor weißer Scheibe).
  
• Bei Licht-Schutzsignalen am Hauptbildschirm gab es sowieso kein explizites "Sh0", hier gab es immer schon "Hp00" -> "Hp0" .
  
• Bei einzel stehenden Licht-Schutzsignal wurde das Signal "Sh0" durch "Hp0" ersetzt, wobei es weiterhin das Signalbild "Hp00" gibt. Was an der Bedeutung nichts ändert
  

"Hp00" an Signalen (zwei rote Lichter) wird sukzessive durch "Hp0" (ein rotes Licht) ersetzt. Die Bedeutung ist zusammengefallen. Nur am Schutzsignal kann/wird noch "Hp00"(=altes Sh0) gezeigt
Ich weiß jetzt nicht, wieviel Form-Schutzsignale es in OpenStreetMap gibt, aber dort müsste es korrekterweise weiterhin "Sh0" heißen :-)
Gruß Ingo --Istiller (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

mobil

You listed mobil at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution - and thanks for that

Have they or other parts of DB continued to violate OSM copyright? Is there any recent case where action may be worth taken?

I would propose to archive "mobil, issue 01.2015, (customer magazin of Deutsche Bahn), insert by connect magazine, page 8" case as defunct from main page but maybe there is worth taking action in some other case? And maybe we should continue to pursue this one and you disagree with archiving this report? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the origin of this diagram?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Station-or-halt.svg

What is the origin of this diagram? Did it originate outside of OSM or created specifically for OSM? What evidence is there that this is a widespread interpretation? I have never heard of such criteria being used to assess the size & usage of a railway station. From my understanding it's purely a German convention, specifically amongst German rail enthusiast & not the general public. "switches" & "spurs" have no bearing on an actual railway station.--DaveF63 (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)