User talk:RobJN
proposal pages
Hi RobJN, thank you for your help with pages Protected resource and Protected culture but they weren't yet ready for a formal proposal. I'll keep you informed about any progress. --Tago 01:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
For your information: protected_area=* (proposal) --Tago 21:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Looks great. I agree that names are much better that class numbers. --RobJN 23:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
UK "mapping priorities"
You might want to delete this one too: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Secondary_Priorities SomeoneElse 09:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thanks
Hi Rob, thank you very much, for rearanging the internal wiki pages :) Greetings from Germany! --!i! 
23:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I like the tabs. Good work!
- I was trying to think of a way of labelling them as 'wiki' related ( Talk:Wiki/Tabs )
- - Harry Wood 12:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
continuous work
Hey Rob, seeing your updates to State Of The Map 2013 every other day – thank you! Good work! :-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Upload#Merge_proposal
Hi Rob! Could you please join a discussion at Talk:Upload#Merge_proposal? You did the opposite of what is proposed now. ;-) Cheers --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi RobJN, I want to restart the discussion in order to get a decision. I would be happy to have your comment again. Here's an overview again:
Hello, I write to you because you are part of the Wiki Team. I would like to establish a navigation concept for this wiki, lead by use cases. I wrote an example main page and an example navigation page (for the use case 'contribute map data'). In January, I wrote a correspendent proposal on Talk:Wiki_organisation, with some but not much feedback. I would be happy if you could add your feedback in order to decide either to refuse the proposal or to proceed. In the latter case I will incorporate all feedback, write the two missing navigation pages ('about' and 'use') and finally I would like to change the main page. Best wishes, --Cantho (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Now I proposed to apply the proposed changes to the main page. Your feedback/ vote is welcome. If you want to respond but don't have the time right now, please give a notice about when you think you can respond. Have a nice day --Cantho (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
footways beneath beside cycleways
Hi RobJn,
if there is a footway beneath beside a cycleway, either both roadside or indpendent from any road,
mostly it is tagged highway=cyclway + bicycle=designated(for advisory cycletracks in Germany often (*=yes) + foot=designated + segregated=yes, or all the same with highway=path, hiding its function from some renderers (*).
Some time ago, suggested in a discussion page to tag
- on separately drawn roadside cycletracks highway=cyclway + sidewalk=right (mostly in the continent) or sidewalk=left (mostly in UK, IRL etc.)
- on independent cycleways highway=cyclway + footway=right or *=left, for independent couples of cycleway and footway it is the only possibility to note their geographic correlation.
After there had been no answer for some time, I entered this siggestion carefully ("not established but not forbidden") in the instruction articles.
Do you see any reason, not to use these tags, well established on "roads" (carriageways), also on cycleways?--Ulamm (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
(*) I think it can be called mapping for the renderer, as to hide something from a map that is designed to show it, is just the same as to inforce the presentation of something in a map that is designed not to show it.--Ulamm (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I get what you mean! Can you please let me know which instruction article you added the suggestion to. As for "sidewalk", it is my understanding that this is used for roads where there is only mapped a single line for the road. sidewalk=right suggests that there is a sidewalk (footpath/cyclepath) on the left side of the road only (according to the direction the road is "drawn" in OpenStreetMap). It has nothing to do with "UK, IRL etc". --RobJN (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Up to now that tag has only been used for roads, I know.
- But I cannot see any reason not to use it for cycleways if there is a footway beneath a cycleway.
- I have not seen any sidewalk tagged with a road rendered, but if a renderer shows sidewalks tagged with a road, why shouldn't it also show sidewalks tagged with cycleways.
- If the cycleway is far away from any road, it is merely a car-free kind of a road.
- Normally (for me), carriageway, cycleway and footway are placed in that layout that the cycleway is between carriageway and footway. If a roadside cycleway is drawn as a separate line, I consider it quite logical to tag the footway as sidewalk=* to the cycleway, instead of calling it a part of the cycleway (which is done by highway=cycleway + foot=designated + segregated=yes).
- My question is, "do you see any logical reason, not to do so?"
- If highway=cycleway + sidewalk=* is tagged, and if the nominal direction of the cycleway is that one of the real traffic direction of the neighbouring side of the carriageway (or with dual carriageway of the neighbouring carriageway), with right hand traffic the sidewalk ought to be on the right side of the cycleway, and with left hand traffic on its left side. (that is no question)--Ulamm (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- To answer your question (assuming you mean "beside" instead of "beneath"): Yes, I guess you could do that. It would only add a little bit of information (which side of the segregated cycleway the pedestrians should walk on) but I suppose it would be fine to tag like that. I personally won't be adding the tag as I don't map many cyclepaths, and in the UK I don't think there is any rule that says a pedestrian must walk in the pedestrian part of the cyclepath (and the seperation only tends to be a white painted line). --RobJN (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- A sidewalk is a sidewalk, it doesn't matter if there is also a cycletrack on the same side of the road.
- The first lines of the artivle Sidewalks don't mention cycletracks, but that doesn't mean that they forbid the use on cycletrack waylines.
- Maybe the writer has not thought of roadside cycletracks, nor of cycletracks with adjacent footways far away from a road.
- But that is no ban.
- The rules of OSM are developed amog free people. There is a lot of space, but no space for irrational tabus.
- Last not least: Many tags are not yet understood by evaluating programs, but highway=cycleway + sidewalk=right is understood by pedestrian routing, the router leads pedestrians on cycletracks with that tag.--Ulamm (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Garmin/Geko series
Hi Rob,
Saw the Garmin/Geko series page has been removed, see here for the last version.
I think that is not a good idea, yes, the Geko is discontinued but that can be marked as such, I do not see why the page should be deleted, it can be helpful to people still owning this device incl. myself.
Emvee (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Emvee. I've restored the page on your request. Please note however that out of date content can be misleading to others. I have therefore added a note at the top to say it is discontinued. --RobJN (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
GPS device reviews
Hi there. While I'm all for page cleanup and getting rid of outdated information, do you really think deleting all the discontinued devices from the GPS device reviews page was the best option? It might be worth saving the information for older devices somewhere. As some people might still own them or want to buy them used. They would neccesarily know to go through page history either. Plus the page isnt exactly easy to browse through. Therefore, a better alternative to deletion might have been either creating a subsection of the article listing discontinued products or a creating a seperate page for them and linking to it on the main page. Just to be clear, im not saying you should restore the content. I'm just exploring what better options there might be to complete deletion. For all I know though, it might actually be best one.
- Yes I personally think it is the best option. Everything I took out is no longer available new and very hard to find used. It creates more confusion to new users than it helps people who already have one (they already know their device!!). We do need to keep the wiki relevant otherwise it loses it's appeal to new mappers. --RobJN (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for the elaboration. I agree. If the devices are not easy to obtain anymore, there's no point in keeping mention of them on the Wiki. There's always other places on the net if a rare person needs to find that information. The wiki should be useful to new mappers also. I tried to edit a bunch of pages towards that goal back in the day, including the one currently being discussed, and it was met with a lot of posturing and hand ringing by other users. So I fully support any actions taken to improve things. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Btw, some of the devices you deleted the reference to have their own pages (for example the first entry "Pentagram PathFinder P3301" has one on Pentagram).I'd appreciate it if you can go over the devices you removed to make sure none of them have their own pages and if they do, request that they be deleted. Otherwise it creates a bunch of islands out of the pages that serve no purpose and can't be deleted easily. Making sure things like that don't happen is usually a part of the maintenance process. Like getting rid of dead pages by making sure nothing links to a subject or page that is being removed with the "what links here tool." Thanks --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry that must have slipped through as I have marked many of the other pages for deletion (now deleted). I will look out for this in the next set of edits. For now I have had to take a pause on the GPS Reviews page but I will get back to is soon. --RobJN (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, if you want to go through the mobile software and do the same thing with that it would probably be helpful. I doubt anyone is using map applications from android 4.0 that won't load on modern android systems and can't be downloaded anywhere even if they could. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry that must have slipped through as I have marked many of the other pages for deletion (now deleted). I will look out for this in the next set of edits. For now I have had to take a pause on the GPS Reviews page but I will get back to is soon. --RobJN (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Btw, some of the devices you deleted the reference to have their own pages (for example the first entry "Pentagram PathFinder P3301" has one on Pentagram).I'd appreciate it if you can go over the devices you removed to make sure none of them have their own pages and if they do, request that they be deleted. Otherwise it creates a bunch of islands out of the pages that serve no purpose and can't be deleted easily. Making sure things like that don't happen is usually a part of the maintenance process. Like getting rid of dead pages by making sure nothing links to a subject or page that is being removed with the "what links here tool." Thanks --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for the elaboration. I agree. If the devices are not easy to obtain anymore, there's no point in keeping mention of them on the Wiki. There's always other places on the net if a rare person needs to find that information. The wiki should be useful to new mappers also. I tried to edit a bunch of pages towards that goal back in the day, including the one currently being discussed, and it was met with a lot of posturing and hand ringing by other users. So I fully support any actions taken to improve things. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Significant changes on page Notes
Hi RobJN,
Thank you for your wiki contributions. Please discuss such extreme changes as you applied to page Notes before doing them in the future. You have to remember that not every page is addressing newcomers only and the wiki editors also need to keep track of the translations. In this case, we have 15 translations which need to be updated. Please consider this.
Just a personal note: I actually liked the old version of the wiki page, even though it was chaotic, because it contained all information in one place. --Tigerfell 
(Let's talk) 00:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- New comers or not, its still important for pages to be concise and easy to read. So what's the specific issue with more or semi related information being on other pages? Thats kind of the point in a wiki. That said, if there's anything you think should be added back, maybe it could added to the section at the end or something.
- Semi related, I tried a few years ago to get a set of "wiki article style guides" off the ground so there would be some basic standard of page length and legibility, but unfortunately it never sent anywhere. It might be worth revisiting though. It would at least cut back on a lot of the head butting over what should or shouldnt be included on a page and how. Good luck getting people to follow it though. (Adamant1).
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:Essex Court Warwick UK-aerial.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".
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 February 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) 06:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's a screenshot from JOSM. Pretty obvious if you look at it. I'm not going to faff around figuring out how to update the page. Feel free to do that if you have the time. Might be worth improving the upload tool whilst you are at it as there wasn't a suitable option to pick. --RobJN (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but aerial visible there is not trivially guessable. And for upload tool - I plan to look at it as some indicated that it is less helpful than it can be, for now I created a test account without customization. I need to wait a few days till it will become allowed to upload files and see is there anything improvable there Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:00, 5 February 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:Historic England logo.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}} 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) 14:58, 23 March 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:Maxspeed 60 km h for hgvs wide.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 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|RobJN}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, June}} 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) 16:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)