User talk:Cbm

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Refactoring of Marine Tagging Proposal in August 2010

Hi Cbm, I'm about to contribute some stuff to your proposal at Proposed_features/marine-tagging. I don't want to override you in any way though, if you don't like what I'm doing, please tell me and I'll stop. Also, what I intend to add is all just a suggestion, please refactor mercilessly. :) Arne Johannessen 18:46, 18 August 2010 (BST)

You know, I still feel it'd be best to leave the proposal page basically as it is for the time being and continue work and discussion on marine tags on a set of other pages (basically one page per topic). But I interpret your changes of the proposal such that you mean to keep it all in one page for now, which is fine with me. I'll just start to fill in a few of the blanks then, if that's okay with you. Arne Johannessen 18:46, 18 August 2010 (BST)

I hope we can keep the information together on one site as long as possible. Don't hesitate to fill up the gaps ;-) Regards --Cbm 19:05, 18 August 2010 (BST)
Great, thanks; I went ahead and added a good selection of sub-section headings INT 1, along with a very brief explanation of their content. I also added some comments to these along the way. The existing content is unchanged (just minor clean-up of some empty lines etc.), and separated from the stuff I added by horizontal lines. I intend to proceed firther and add some actual content instead of just section headings, but won't have time for at least a couple of days, maybe longer. Please don't wait for me with anything... Arne Johannessen 23:47, 18 August 2010 (BST)

I strongly feel we can't proceed with any substantive change of the proposal page without making it clear that the exitsing votes have been cast on an earlier version of the proposal. I also think we should at least suspend voting, possibly even abandon the earlier version of the proposal entirely in order to ensure due process. Arne Johannessen 23:47, 18 August 2010 (BST)

moderate speed

Hello Cbm. The values on OSM tags for routing/Maxspeed are to be evaluated by computers. I`m sorry but I have never seen a maximum for a variable named "speed" to have a value of "moderate". We need some numerical value there. --MarcusWolschon 19:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

the law-text said "moderate" and one german court jugded it could be up to 30km/h. The Wiki-page try to catch the is-situation. For dumb routing-software we habe the tables at the bottom of the page. --Cbm 06:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
So the maximum is simply 30 Km/h. What do you suggest an "intelligent" routing-software to do for the usual metric "fastest route"? --MarcusWolschon 06:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
no it's not. a court judged in one special case that 30km/h were allright.. the law-text still says "moderate" and maybe in another coming court-judgement the 30 would not be correct anymore. Just set a "30" is not as correct as we could be. It's he same as maxspeed=no, maxspeed=default, maxspeed=walk. An intelligent Routing-Software must be able to work with these values. --Cbm 08:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That's what I asked you. What do you suppose an intelligent Routing-Software should do. I am writing one and I am asking you how to interpret your value. --MarcusWolschon 09:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
to make it save. a routing-software should e.g. set his internal maxspeed to less than the judgment-value. e.g. maxspeed=20 for Germany should be a usefull value. maxspeed=walk should be interpreted in generell with 1 m/s what's ~4km/h. maxspeed=default is a bit more complicated because it depense on sitions (in or out of town, etc.). maxspeed=moderate could also be relevant for cycleways where foot=yes. Normally for bicycles there is noch maxspped on cycleways but when pedestrians are allowed the law said maxspeed=moderate. Best Regards :-) --Cbm 12:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Then Make a footnote saying that "*) It is safe to assume maxspeed=20." That is something that can be entered into classic metrics for graph-algorithms.
Maxspeed=default is ignored anyway, determining the maxspeed if none is explicitely given is what OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed is all about.


What exact, numerical difference should a foot=yes make to a cycleway? I know of no statistical evaluation on this and this is no place for guessing and assuming. --MarcusWolschon 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
In Germany a cycleway implies bicycle=designated, access=no (even foot=no) and maxspeed=no. If foot=yes (or other roadusers are allowed) the law-text said "drive carfully" so --> maxspeed=moderate --Cbm 12:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I see. I was not away of the later fact. --MarcusWolschon 13:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"delivery=yes"

Hallo, ich muss sagen, dass mich eine deiner Bearbeitungen von DE:Road Signs etwas irritiert hat: diese. Das momentane Schema von access-Tags ist, ob man es gut findet oder nicht, nun mal Fahrzeugart = Nutzergruppe/Zugangsrecht (oder access= für alle Fahrzeugarten). In dieses Schema passen Dinge wie delivery=yes nicht, da delivery nur als Wert dokumentiert ist. Die eine oder andere Seite kommentarlos anzupassen, halte ich nicht für einen sinnvollen Weg, daran etwas zu ändern -- eine solche Änderung sollte geprüft und diskutiert werden können. --Tordanik 08:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
ich habe das deshalb geändert, weil das mit delivery in meinen Augen genauso zu handhaben ist, wie bei agricultural. Es ist egal mit was für einem Fahrzeug du einen Weg der nur "für Lieferverkehr frei" ist freigegeben ist, du darfst den Weg benutzen. Es gibt halt verschiedene Methoden für das gleiche Ziel (access=delivery, motorcar=motorcycle=hgv=...=delivery oder paralel zur Methode bei agricultural ein delivery=yes) --Cbm 15:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Der Unterschied ist hier, dass "agricultural" was anderes bedeutet, je nachdem, ob es Schlüssel oder Wert ist. Als Wert ist es landwirtschaftlicher Verkehr (ein bestimmter Zweck, die Straße zu benutzen), als Schlüssel ein "landwirtschaftlicher" Fahrzeugtyp. DE:Key:access interpretiert infolgedessen den Schlüssel agricultural als "Kraftfahrzeuge und Züge, die nicht schneller als 25 km/h fahren können (Sinnbild Traktor)". --Tordanik 09:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Unterschiedliche Sachverhalte mit dem gleichen zu bezeichnen ist dann wohl sehr ungünstig. sollten es dann wohl eher vehicle_type=tractor nennen, weil agricultural klar nur etwas über die Bestimmung aussagt. Dann wäre auch diese unsinnige "agricultural" unter motorcycles nicht nötig, sonden mann würde bei dem Traktorschild in Deutshland einfach tractor=no und ggf. moped=no taggen. --Cbm 13:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Leuchtfeuer

Bitte ändere keine nautischen Seiten im Wiki ohne Diskussion. Für Wünsche, Kommentare und Vorschläge sind die Diskussionsseiten. Danke, --Markus 16:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi MArkus, ich vermute du beziehst das auf die "Es ist ein komplexes Schema". Wollte da keinem suf die Füße treten, aber der Satz war echt Murx. Produktive Grüße --Cbm 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, nein, auf "bitte nicht von Hand editieren" - das machen nämlich grad wieder einige Ungeduldige, und wir möchten lieber den Editor fertig programmieren, als stundenlang falsche Einträge zu reparieren. Wir wissen dass manches bei OpenSeaMap für OSM etwas "ungewöhnlich anders" ist, aber nautische Karten haben eben naturbedingt höhere Qualitätsanforderungen, und die möchten wir gern erfüllen helfen. Gruss, --Markus 20:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
nur für mich zum Verständnis was du meinst: In JOSM einen Node einzeichnen und Tags manuell eintragen ist für dich schon "von Hand editieren", richtig? Grüße --Cbm 16:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - sorry für die späte Antwort, ich war unterwegs. Ruf mich doch bitte mal an Gruss, --Markus 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi - Du änderst weiterhin nautische Seiten ohne Diskussion. Mit diesen Änderungen störst Du die Konsistenz und verwirrst die Benutzer. Bitte nimm mit mir Kontakt auf, damit wir mal über Deine Ideen und Wünsche sprechen können. Danke, --Markus 06:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Ich fänd es klasse wenn du auf den Talk-Pages einfach mal mit diskutieren würdest. Dazu sind die Seiten schließlich da. MfG --Cbm 09:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Ich beobachte diese Diskussion nun schon etwas länger passiv, habe die Diskussionen verfolgt, aber habe mich bisher nie zu dem THema geäußert. Das möchte ich nun ändern und mal ein paar Dinge loswerden: Wenn das Tagging-schema so kompliziert ist, dass man einen Spezialeditor braucht, dann taugt es meines Erachtens nichts für OSM. Es gibt hier mehr als JOSM. Es gibt Handy-Tools zum Mappen, es gibt Meerkartor, es gibt Osmosis, es gibt diverse andere Tools und Bots und Eigenkreationen. Sollen für alle diese Tools Plugins geschrieben werden? Wieso haben nautische Karten höhere Qualitätsanforderungen? Wenn ich mit meinem LKW unter eine Brücke fahre, die laut Navi hoch genug ist, ist das wesentlich dramatischer als wenn in einer Seekarte eine Tonne ein paar m von der eigentlichen Position angezeigt wird und evtl. doch ein Licht hat. Ausserdem kann das ganze nie eine amtliche Seekarte ersetzen. Da ist der Skipper gefragt. Auch in amtlichen Seekarten gibt es tw. gravierende Fehler, aber dafür steht ja einer an der Pinne und guckt sich die Realität an. Das funktioniert auf See noch wesentlich besser als im Auto, weil man da einfach mehr Zeit hat und weiter gucken kann. In OSM funktioniert die QUalitätssicherung durch die Masse hervorragend, warum sollte das für nautische Zeichen nicht so sein? Ich finde das Proposal zum Thema Marine-Tagging ist ein sinnvoller Kompromiss. Es bildet S-57 genauso gut ab aber ist wesentlich intuitiver zu nutzen. Dadurch sinkt die Fehlerrate drastisch. Ausserdem ist der Weg: Proposal, Diskussion, Proposal verbessern, Abstimmung, "Gesetz" eigentlich der übliche und sinnvollere Weg. Aber in OSM sind natürlich auch andere Wege erlaubt. Falsche Einträge gibt es in OSM nicht. Man kann in OSM auch nichts vorschreiben. Das, was gut und einfach ist, wird sich durchsetzen. Erzwingen kann man hier nichts. Und gutes entsteht durch öffentliche Dialoge und Diskussionen. Ich nutze seit einiger Zeit die Daten von freietonne auf meinem Garmin und bin begeistert. Es ist eine große Hilfe beim Planen der Routen und erstaunlich genau. Das Schema entspricht inzwischen dem Proposal, es ist einfach anzuwenden und verständlich. Zwar habe ich selbst noch keine Seezeichen erstellt, aber ich nutze sie für Experimente über die XAPI und bin begeistert von der Einfachheit und der großen Anzahl der einheitlichen Tonnen. Und das Garmin-Overlay ist spitze. Ich kann alle verstehen, die ungeduldig sind. Wozu warten, wenn es eine funktionierende Lösung gibt? Ich finde es sehr schade, dass freietonne und openseamap es nicht schaffen, sich auf ein einfaches, intuitives Tagging-schema zu einigen und endlich mit dem Rendern anzufangen. Es gibt inzwischen mehrere 1000 Seezeichen in OSM. Also, diskutiert das ganze im Proposal, einigt euch auf ein einfaches, intuitives Schema und legt mit dem Rendern los. Darin sollte die Hauptenergie stecken und nicht im Entwickeln von Spezialeditoren und in sinnlosen Diskussionen und Kleinkriegen. Oder, was meint Ihr? --Norftase 22:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

waterway=safe_water

Hi, Du hattest wohl mal waterway=safe_water vorgeschlagen. Wie ist das ausgegangen? Gibt es da was Neues, Alternativen? Viele Grüße,

DerFahnder -- DerFahnder 17:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi! Wohl ein Thema, was keinen Interessiert ;) An meiner Beispiel Route sieht man aber, dass safe-water UNGLEICH Flußlauf sein kann... ich halte es also für sinnvoll und würde es so taggen, bis wir ne bessere Lösung haben. Könnte man dann vor allem auch als grobe Route für "Routenplanung auf dem Wasser nutzen". Außerdem ist es bestimmt auch für den Verlauf von Fähren sinnvoll. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=38428991. Gruß --Cbm 11:29, 15 August 2010 (BST)

INT 1 tagging

Hi, as you where one of the brains behind the marine mapping proposal, and I have more or less completed my documentation of INT 1 symbols, I hope to invite all interested in marine mapping in some sort of online workshop in unifying the tagging schemes between your proposal, OpenSeaMap and FreieTonne. I feel that we might stay stronger together, and that getting a unified standard will increase the quality of our marine maps, so that we can create the best free nautical map in the world. --Skippern 02:43, 1 September 2012 (BST)

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:Aachen.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".

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:Path-footbicyclehorseagriculturedesignated.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".

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) 11:53, 13 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:Border-sign.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|Cbm}} 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) 15:59, 6 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:Cycleroute Baesweiler Rundweg.gif ?

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|Cbm}} 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) 22:53, 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:Cycleroute Deutschlandroute no7.gif ?

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|Cbm}} 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) 07:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)