User talk:Riiga

New vote explanation

Thanks for a vote! As it turns out that bundling all vote changes in one was a clear mistake, I stopped the ongoing vote after you already participated. If you want you can participate in a new vote that was started at Proposed features/change vote counting rules - remove no show paradox. It includes only one of proposed changes. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

New vote on Evaporation ponds

Thanks for voting! There were a few minor issues that were discovered after the vote started, and therefore the vote has been restarted. If you want you can participate in the new vote that was started at Proposed_features/Evaporation_basin. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Splitting roundabouts

I see you have changed the roundabout page, but your edit has changed the page like it was okay to split roundabouts (without emphasizing all the possible problems with that and about how to resolve them if a split is necessary, and how to see when it is not). I do not see any community agreement on that, neither in the talk page nor elsewhere, so please either start a discussion or a vote, or clearly indicate that this is your personal opinion. The timing was particularly unlucky since people started to complain about ID editor involuntarily splitting roundabouts and ruining relations and it may have seemed like if someone have changed the wiki (and its meaning to the opposite) just to stop the people complaining. --grin ✎ 13:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It is common practice that splitting roundabouts is okay like I wrote. The incorrect text on the wiki saying *not* to do it was added only a year ago or so. --Riiga (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Please link the community decision of the change (or, as I said, start a discussion/voting, if you believe "everyone agrees with you") before you revert it again, or you will be reported to the DWG for abusive behaviour. I have explicitly notified you about the problem, you have not linked any proof for your statement, and you have reverted my edit without any relevant discussion. Do not revert again until you have backed up your changing statement with proof. Thank you! -- grin ✎ 15:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

See, I can also make random words bold to sound threatening. Why don't you link to community consensus that splitting roundabouts is not okay? And the wiki page doesn't count in this case, it was added only in December 2020, which was my main point: The addition of the text was not by community consensus, and my change describes common practice (I don't want to use argument by authority, but I've been mapping since 2008 and especially roads, so I know a fair amount about this subject). Some advice for next time: try asking yourself if threatening people at the first sign of disagreement is in the spirit of OSM. --Riiga (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

A discussion has been started. --Riiga (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! --grin ✎ 16:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to split roundabouts, it's often require for placing route relations that run through them. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Do not mix up splitting them when required compared to splitting them for fun. The problem was especially raised when it is was not required, exacerbated by the fact that route relations are also completely messed up. (There may be a whole section about splitting, and what to watch for, but without that it is extremely harmful in general, especially when using ID editor, especially when ID editor splits up without notifying the editor.) The page currently says when to split and what and how; the specific paragraph is talking about connecting ways, which must be be used as an excuse to split. That's the problem. --grin ✎ 16:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

For completeness re "reported to the DWG" above - the Data Working Group isn't responsible for the OSM wiki (we have wiki admins for that), but for data in the OSM database itself. We typically don't get involved with disputes that are only or mainly in the wiki. Andy, from the DWG. SomeoneElse (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources

thanks for uploads with proper mapping of link roads! Can you add location data and info which aerial imagery was used there? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It applies to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Theoretical_gore_tagging_1.png https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Theoretical_gore_tagging_2.png https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Theoretical_gore_tagging_3.png https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Theoretical_gore_tagging_4.png - is it a Bing imagery? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:58, 5 June 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:P-gbg1.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|Riiga}} 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) 21:04, 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:P-gbg2.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|Riiga}} 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) 18:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

parking lane revision

Hey Riiga, thanks for your additions to the street parking revision proposal! You added some details about parking space markings - I like that very much and have just tried to illustrate it (see picture on the side). Is this similar to what you meant by the meaning of the values? I have made small changes to the values, e.g. hooked and solid as suffixes, which can be combined with lines or now also dots (whereby "dots" in my understanding can also mean botts dots - in my area this is often used as parking space markings). I think it's still compatible with marking concepts like crossing:markings=* (which you also based your values on, right?).

I don't think it needs another tag to distinguish "individual" from "non-individual" markings, because each value actually already implies one of those, doesn't it? So the lane values don't have individually marked parking spaces, most of the other forms do. Only surface is not clear. Maybe we can think of a distinction like surface:box or similar... I also thought about lines:box or similar instead of lines:solid (but I don't really like the term "*:box"...)

Should/can I add you as a co-author to the proposal top? --Supaplex030 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Excellent illustration! And you're correct, I based them off the crossing:markings=* values. The only one that hasn't been covered that I originally intented to use was hooks as a standalone value to represent markings like here. Surface I'm not sure about the best way to approach. I don't like "*:box" either. Feel free to add me as co-author and I will try to help some more with preparing it.

Oh, true, I forgot the hooks! Added them now and made a little table in the proposal. Instead of solid or box I took single now, but not sure, if it's the best picking :) And added you as an co-author. Feel free to fill some of the gaps, or, if you want, I added a section about "data migration" where I have listed some activities that need support (but maybe thats more for the time after RFC/voting). --Supaplex030 (talk) 13:18, 21 October 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:P-nkpg.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|Riiga}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, November}} 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) 14:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Accidental Edits of Highway Crossing Proposal Cleanup Page

Good evening Riiga,

I realized that I was discussing a different proposal related to crossings with another user, and I went ahead and made changes to one of your proposals! I am sorry. I can totally revert my changes to the table on your proposal Highway crossing cleanup if you would like. I thought it would be nice to add the old tagging methodologies to each of the examples you gave to better illustrate the complexity and ambiguities involved with the old tagging schema. Feel free to give my wiki hand the ol' slap either way! Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
IanVG IanVG (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries! --Riiga (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

When are service roads intended for through traffic?

You recently removed text in highway=service that stated that this type of way should only have local traffic and not through traffic. May I ask you some real examples of service way with through traffic? I think it is commonly understood that they have a local traffic function like highway=residential and highway=unclassified, but they are not necessarily local in the sense implied by a tag such as access=destination, so maybe all the article needs is some clarification. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That is what I meant by reverting that edit, as "local traffic only, no through traffic" can easily be interpreted to mean access=destination. It was someone trying to add that, not something I removed that had previously been there for very long. Feel free to add a similar clarification that is less ambiguous. --Riiga (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)