User talk:Alv

Welcome to OpenStreetMap

Hello Alv, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Here are some tips to help you make the most from OSM:

• Please don't use copyrighted maps as a data source for OpenStreetMap edits
• To meet other mappers from your country, add these lines to your wiki userpage:

  [[Category:Users in your country|Alv]]

  [[Category:Users in your city|Alv]]

• Join your regional mailing list
• Take a look at the Beginners' guide
• And if you have any questions, look at the FAQ page, or just ask!

Have fun mapping!

--EdoM (lets talk about it) 10:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Passing Places

Thanks for your work on the passing places. Bruce89 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean that tracktype proposal is now obsolete?

Thanks for clarifying on the tracktype=* page. I wonder, should we stop using tracktype now, and what are the alternatives (surface=*)? What can I expect from renderers?
— Vibrog 07:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it means that only the proposal is obsolete because tracktype=* is in Map Features and in use and usable even without a vote. Alv 08:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

landuse=farmland vs. landuse=farm

Hello Alv, but - don't you think, in the descriptions should be made the distinction, that farm includes "all", too farm-buildings and farmland matters just the cultivated ground? Thats, what we had discussed in the ng (thread "farmland in DE:MapFeatures"). cheers, t.--Typoshrub 12:35, 20 October 2010 (BST)

No. Farm = farmland. If your translated description for it was misguided some years ago, doesn't mean it's any bit ambiguous. See also Farm. Alv 12:43, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Template:UserMotorist

Hi,

You are the developer of the template, and I want to ask for permission to change the image of the car in this template into this one [1]. Becauce it fits better with the other templates, such as hiking, biking, etc. [2]. Smarties 19:37, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Sure, go ahead, that was just the only one available/easy-to-find at the time I created the template. Alv 10:43, 28 June 2011 (BST)

Thanks. I changed the image. Smarties 00:05, 29 June 2011 (BST)

Bicycle

I don't understand your description of M2c: "Oneway cycle lane in the direction as the oneway road, between driving lanes (different directions). ". Why "different directions" if all lanes are going to the same direction in your picture ? --Pieren 09:58, 16 September 2011 (BST)

Ok, it could be better. At the next intersection the rightmost driving lane turns right, left is for continuing straight/left. Without the explanation it could seem like a pointless arrangement. --Alv 10:08, 16 September 2011 (BST)

Ok, I get it now but I will remove all those comments. You don't have to explain why such arrangement exists. It happens, that's it. --Pieren 11:51, 16 September 2011 (BST)

natural=bedrock

Am I right, you added to the Template:Map Features:natural the tag bedrock? Where does the tag bedrock come from? I used times before always natural=rock. And with Proposed_features/bare_rock we have now a third tag for the same thing. Way don't we stay with rock. As for Tagwatch, bedrock is used 62 times and rock 4592 times. Please tell me your motives. Thanks, fireball2 11:34, 23 September 2011 (BST)

I didn't add it, I just fixed the syntax needed for translating the template to other languages. On the other hand, there's discussion on some of the pages how "rock" has multiple meaning from "boulder" to "submerged stone hazardous to boats" to "bedrock" to "tiny bit of land in the sea/in a lake". Alv 11:08, 23 September 2011 (BST)

I'm sorry, it was my failure. It seems Lzhl did this before you. I hope I'm right with that now :-). Anyway thank you very mutch for your reply.

traffic:hourly

hi, i try to create a cycle map of my city, taking "traffic safety" into account.

i've seen http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic:hourly but it is updated long time ago and taginfo is blank (but there are many possible combinations). from my point of view a reasonable tagging scheem, yet too complicated to get good results (after 1 week of mapping).

is this tagging used somewhere? any thoughts on refining/giving some examples of actual usage?

thanks

--MichalP 15:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have sporadically experimented with it nearby (esp. when walking the dog), but only in the data collection sense. Or maybe I once made an excel graph showing how the traffic goes up at day time. The format does have it's flaws, but when I tried the "other possible way" (i.e. like traffic:hourly=Mo 09: 270/6:00;Mo 10: 192/8:00; Tu 11: ... it very quickly becomes even more difficult to insert new values, or to refine old observations. And the 255 character tag value length limit is too easily exceeded, so one has to split the data to multiple tags anyway. There's some example data at and around 290342396 290342396 and some older data at and around 493983043 493983043. Some observations are also scattered across the city. The results are pretty consistent, though, given long enough observation time. And they do seem to reasonably match the values the officials publish for the motorways. Would be nice to have a simulation/visualization with these as the starting point, but that's been just an idea for several years now.

If somebody was to really gather and utilize the data, there would have to be a JOSM plugin or a separate mobile app that would allow both easier editing, and storing the data either somewhere else, or in some not-so-manually-editable tag format. I've also experimented with signals:cycle=* (varies with time!), signals:green_per_cycle=* and even (parking) capacity:free:hourly:fall=Mo 05: 98; Mo 09: 1; and-so-on. With those, the length limit is an issue even faster - and it seems the values vary much more than they do with the traffic observations. Alv 15:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Status from highway=give_way

Hallo ALV, du hast mit der folgenden Änderung meine Statusänderung von gestern rückgängig gemacht. Kannst du mir bitte sagen warum? Auf der zugehörigen Proposal-Seite steht der Status "Draft". Daher handelt es sich eindeutig um einen nicht abgestimmten Entwurf. Daher sollte man den Artikel auch so kennzeichnen. Siehe: http://wiki.osm.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dgive_way&diff=873346&oldid=873248

Translate into English: Hi ALV, you've made ​​with the following change my status change from yesterday reversed. Can you please tell me why? On the accompanying Proposal-side is the status "Draft". This is a mis-matched design. It is useful to characterize the article that way. see: Siehe: http://wiki.osm.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dgive_way&diff=873346&oldid=873248

Vielen Dank. --Reneman (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

1. The only linked proposal is for a different feature, some sort of give way relation.
2. No matter what proposals exist, or at what stage, the tag is widely used. The majority of tags that are used have not gone through the wiki based proposal process, and many of those tags have documentation pages about them. And likewise many proposals have been abandoned usually at the draft stage, but nevertheless mappers have started using them. They are "defacto approved" by use.

Only tag usage, and data consumer support matters. Alv (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Es gibt dennoch Regeln. Sieh dir die Seite Proposal process an. Es ist nicht in Ordnung, wenn man die Regeln ignoriert. Es ist nie zu spät für eine Diskussion und eine Abstimmung. Wenn das Attribut den Status "Approved" erhält, wird es überall öffentlich sein. Das geht aber nicht, wenn man die Regeln nicht beachtet. Wie oft ein Attribut im Einsatz ist, dass kan jeder über Tagwatch sehen, dafür braucht es nicht den status Defacto. Es ist sinnvoll den Leser darüber zu informieren, dass das Attribut ein Entwurf ist. Nur so weiß er, dass es hier noch Änderungen geben kann oder dass auf der Proposalseite noch eine Abstimmung erforderlich ist. Ich bitte dich daher den Status in DRaft zu ändern. Danke.

There are still rules. Look at the page Proposal process. It's not right, if you ignore the rules. It's never too late for a debate and a vote. If the attribute status of "Approved" gets, it will be everywhere in public. But this is not, unless you followed the rules. How often an attribute in use is that each about Tagwatch kan see, but it does not need the de facto status. It is useful to inform the readers that the attribute is a draft. Only he knows that there still may be changes or that the Proposalsite more consistency is needed. I ask you therefore, to change the status to Draft. Thank you.

--Reneman (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I can even quote that Proposal process: "which is one of multiple ways to introduce and discuss new features". The "Proposed features" process is not a rule, but a tool to find and to discuss the merits and shortcomings of new tagging ideas. You won't find any historic proposals for, say, leisure=park, or even most of the highway=* values. There's no need to! This was the core idea from the beginning, and this has brought osm so far. OSM wiki does not rely on bureaucratic rules and processes, even if you'll find some documented, and a couple of them might get enforced. The osm wiki is here to document what is in the database. Alv (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not correctly. Yesterday i read some sites about highway=*. This is a Approved proposal, with a list of values. see Proposed features/Highway key voting importance, Proposed features/highway=tertiary and more sites. A Doku of a new Tag is a good idea, but this is a "proposal" very well suited. Only a "Proposol" you will inform all that there is to be a new attribute. Together, this will be discussed and voted on then. An existing page should reflect the status of the Proposal. Otherwise, I do not need "Proposal" page. --Reneman (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken.

• trunk: no proposal
• motorway: no proposal
• primary: no proposal
• secondary: no proposal
• unclassified: no proposal
• residential: no proposal
• track: no proposal
• bridleway: no proposal
• cycleway: no proposal
• footway: no proposal
• pedestrian: proposed, "approved"
• living_street: proposed, "approved"
• path: proposed, "approved"

Status of a proposal is really only relevant on tag documentation pages, when a better alternative has been presented. Otherwise, the status is just to keep track what will happen next with the proposal, which is mostly unrelated to the tag usage. Alv (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2013 (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:Advertisign-fi-wall-signs.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".

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)?

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.

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).

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified January 2022}} from the file page.

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:35, 9 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 author of image File:Parts-of-a-bus stop.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 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) 20:31, 11 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:Incline17.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|Alv}} 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) 16:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Other images

Can you go through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mateusz_Konieczny/notify_uploaders/Alv in general? Missing license problem should apply to all of them.

If you have taken this photos then marking this would help Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:22, 14 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:FiGuideCycleIndependentPhoto.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|Alv}} 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) 12:47, 5 August 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:Surveillanceround.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|Alv}} 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) 07:37, 26 August 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:FiGuideCombinedPhoto30012008048.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|Alv}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, September}} 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) 00:41, 22 September 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:ParkingFee9-19maxstay2h.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|Alv}} 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) 14:17, 23 November 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:Naturalwooddeciduous.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|Alv}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, December}} 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) 13:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)