User talk:Frederik Ramm
map compare
hi, könntet ihr bei http://tile.bbbike.org/mc/ neben den einzelkarten auch eine funktion mit 2 karten übereinander machen, bei der man dann mit einem schieberegler zwischen den beiden hinundher wechseln kann? so wie es bei http://sautter.com/map/ mal war. --Kenji 18:52, 12 August 2012 (BST)
citation needed
You said : we don't want people to think this is Wikipedia where citation is in fact needed for everything
- Well, that's a bit of exageration. Wikipedia doesn't needs citation for "everything" not does it asks for citation when none believe it is needed.
- Anyway, imho that doesn't mean we should let any important page be on display like nothing happened and like every one agrees. That page is partly disputed, lying about that won't help. Nor displaying a red box at the beginning like : this page if full of lies either. I find that asking for clarification while expression a degree of doubt in a rather subtle way is perfectly suited. People will then read those sentences while knowing they'll need more digging in order to make their own opinion. Especially when someone take that for granted and starts displaying big red box with the only reason beeing that it is written on verifiability
verifiability of sac_scale / trail_visibility
Your link to Talk:Proposed_features/Hiking isn't convincing me that a debate is still ongoing about verifiability of those tags, those discussions are 7 years old, points made might be outdated now, and there is a warning to ask people to move discussion to current pages. I should add that if we start countings tags that are controversial about their verifiability, I'd soon find that that page was written by haters of those specific tags, and that doesn't help credibility of verifiability. sletuffe (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Timezone boundaries
See my comment on Talk:Tag:boundary=timezone.
Probably your deletion request (made by you blanking the tag description pages) is locally undesired for some countries. I think there's space for them, when they are not obviously administrative subdivisions (notably in Russia, Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Greenland, possibly also in other countries).
It should have been discussed with relevant communities, even if they are obviously not needed for most countries (e.g. for Spain or Portugal, they are not needed, just like they are not needed for UK and France even if there are multiple timezones for their overseas).
So I suggest restoring the page but creating a discussion about when to use these relations or not.
— Verdy_p (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would consider documenting terrible tags as terrible rather deleting pages describing them. This way, after somebody proposes again a terrible tag it is easy to point him/her to relevant documentation Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there any means to construct aeronautical charts based on OSM Aviation data? Are there any such open source charts a flight simulator could use?
Thank you --Anupama Srinivas (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
contacting the DWG, to no avail
Dear Herr Frederik, I'm trying to contact the DWG with a rather serious data issue, in Panama. I have written twice to data@openstreetmap.org and I can forward the mails to you if you require it. the starting point is this selection of changesets, and the fact that there's not just a single user behind them, but a whole group of editors, who organize and give workshops about mapping, who don't seem to understand much about copyright, ownership, and licensing, and who activate their local community, sharing their own understanding of mapping, with the support of the UNACHI university in David, Chiriquí, Panamá.
as a suggestion, please do consider adding some issue tracking software (gnats? bugzilla? Jira?) to the data@openstreetmap.org email address, so that a numbered issue is generated on receipt of the initial email, and subsequent mails can be written to add information to the issue. as it stands now, I'm very (sorry and) dissatisfied with the experience. Mariotomo (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, we use the OTRS issue tracker at DWG and you will normally get an auto-reply with a ticket number if you email to data@osmfoundation.org. However, the data@ alias is run on Google infrastructure and it is known to swallow emails occasionally. Can you send your original complaint to data @ openstreetmap.org (instead of osmfoundation.org), then we'll create a ticket created for it. --Frederik Ramm (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Revert comment
While I appreciate you backing me up about the undisclosed automated edit thing, your whole thing about me not having the "right to single-handedly mark a feature as deprecated" was completely uncalled for and ridiculous. Last time I checked this is a community run project, one that I'm a member of, and people add the depreciation banner to articles all the time. It has nothing to do with them, me, or anyone else having having special "rights" to do things that others don't. If only certain users should be using the depreciated banner then it should be restricted to admins. But it's not me or anyone else that uses it if it's not. Also, you don't know who I talked to before I made the edit or what I was basing it on. FYI the edit had nothing to do with me thinking I had the "right" to do anything. I figured the tag was deprecated because the article has recommended people use other tags for a while now and it's usage has essentially bottomed out over the last few years to nothing. Which I think fits in fine with what Deprecated features says a deprecated feature is. Your free to disagree, but it was in pretty bad form IMO to say what you did about it. I was just following what Deprecated features says and using a banner the Wiki provides. If you think the wiki is wrong, maybe next time take it up with whoever runs the wiki or post about it on the discussion page of the article you disagree with. Either would have been a better way to handle the situation. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2020 (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:Chiselled.jpeg ?
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) 07:58, 2 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:Osmbook cover.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|Frederik Ramm}} 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) 21:05, 26 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:Postcode-example.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|Frederik Ramm}} 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) 21:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)