User talk:Cartinus
Amenity template revert
Beste Cartinus ,
ik ben het niet eens met het terugdraaien van mijn toevoeging en wijziging betreffende amenity=doctor(s) op de pagina
Template:Map_Features:amenity.
from the history of amenity :
25 jan 2009 - Paulbe (correction amenity=doctor (not doctors))
26 jan 2009 - Cartinus (Undo revision 215621 by Paulbe - See the mailinglist archives and tagwatch about why this was wrong.)
I do not agree.
"See the mailinglist archives" is not a very contructive remark.
Furthermore, just the mailinglist archives and Tagwatch can not count as authorative documentation.
On the wiki, Tag:amenity=doctors
automatically redirects to
Tag:amenity=doctor.
So the real documentation says we should use "doctor".
--PaulBe 13:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply
To start with the last: Not really. The page it redirects to is titled "Proposed features/Doctor" and was created 29 october 2008. This is a rather inane proposal. Why propose a "new" tag for something that is already tagged since several years. This page should probably be replaced by something that really describes what is being used.
There is only one thing in OSM that is really authoritative and that is the database itself. The easiest way to see the results of that is Tagwatch. In Europe amenity=doctors is used 739 times and amenity=doctor is used 177 times. In other words any tool/application better accept the fact that there are two different tags that describe the same thing. But one of them is used ~4 times as much as the other.
If you dig in the mailinglist archives, then you'll find that amenity=doctors was added to the amenity template based on usage, not on the basis of some voting process.
One (technical) problem of tagwatch is that it can only show you how often a tag is used, not what it means. Here is where the wiki could help us. But now we encounter a social problem. In stead of (only) filling the wiki with pages that describe what is used, a number of people consider the wiki a normative platform. The norms they try to "force" on the others alas don't coincide with what is actually used. Again see the mailinglist archives for multiple discussions about this.
The way you changed the amenity template, made it look like the tag that is used the most is somehow wrong. This is simply not the case. It is a perfectly valid tag, that is used many times, by many different people, over several years time.
And another one: The preset in JOSM is amenity=doctors.
--Cartinus 05:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
API v0.6 XSD
Hey, you pointed out at API v0.6/XSD that the xsd for the osm xml format is incomplete. Which parts are missing/wrong? --Defonion 18:30, 9 May 2012 (BST)
what is the context of that image?
What is the purpose and use of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Diagram_lock_simple.png ? 13:47, 4 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 author of image File:Diagram lock wide.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) 21:43, 10 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:Diagram lock wide riverbank.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|Cartinus}} 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) 20:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)