User talk:Mateusz Konieczny

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Polish standards of cacle lanes

@Mateusz, in pl.wikipedia i've found this link: I used it adding Poland to the list of at least two types of cycle lanes, but with my poor knowledge of Polish language I suppose that that source does not distinguish two types. Can you help me by adding the Polish terms and perhaps explaining what are their common features and differences?--Ulamm (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


@ Mateusz,

in that article some aspects had been forgotten. I've been able to add them in the English and German versions, but I'm unable to add them in Polish.--Ulamm (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Mateusz, why do you object against a way of tagging that provides reliable information under the condition of the uneven standard, which is inevitable in any opensource project.--Ulamm (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Soft lane

@ Mateusz,

  • if renderers and routers understand "bicycle=lane", "bicycle=soft_lane", "bicycle=strict_lane", "bicycle=shared_lane" as I have proposed in my vote and already before, "bicycle=lane" does not become wrong.
  • In countries, where all bikelanes are obligatory and/or reserved, "bicycle=lane" remains sufficient.
  • If in a country, where there are variuos kinds of cycleways, or where a new kind of cycleway recently has been established, "bicycle=lane" is no more sufficient, it is not more work to change "bicycle=lane" for "bicycle=soft_lane", than to add an access-tag.
  • But if such a facility is absolutely new (or previously has been forgotten) in a road, it is less work to add one tag than to add two.--Ulamm (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "if"
    • maybe I missed it but it seems to not be mentioned in proposal
    • I agree that it is a problem and it should be solved somehow
    • Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
My answer you can read in a small general article that I've begun to write before I've read your statement.--Ulamm (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

MapCSSTagChecker - Validator

Hi Mateusz, why did you add a new link to a page about MapCSSTagChecker to there? Wrong URL? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I added link to page about this topic on JOSM wiki (it has so information that is not appearing here and is more likely to be updated). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, but don't you think it would be better to link to a page one level more up? To ? The MapCSSTagChecker page is just about the technical details. But the JOSM/Validator page is about the validator in general. Please comment here on this page, I watch. :-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, I changed link Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, fine! I first thought you linked to the special page intentionally. I made another minor change (keep the categories always at the page ends to make them easy to find). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Text layout of discussions

Dear Mateusz,

please understand, that starting a line with a big dot is a measure to visualize the structure of a single post.

New posts are marked by another distance from the left border of the page, like wave-lengths in broadcasting.

Hoping that this hint does not prevent a good co-operation

best regards from --Ulamm (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"track" description in Template:Map Features:highway

Hi Mateusz, since you made some of the listed edits you may be interested in Template_talk:Map_Features:highway#track:desc_change_docu_and_suggestion. … just in case you do not watch this page. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


I guess "residential" was just a typo here and unclassified was meant? If yes, just re-add the sentence. If you want residential to "connect other towns" we should talk :)--Jojo4u (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

taginfo embedding


Your move of Lanes and complex intersections visual approach

The page contains key issues that to this date don't have an adequate solution; it needs active discussion, not a dump to the bin that you went for without discussion. The usage of template out of date is by far enough to show that anything contained within is to be handled with care and pretty much discouraged for live edits (but in need for discussion nonetheless).

It served one particular purpose very well, namely to portray the different concepts possible to micromap junctions. Afaik, wrt to lane mapping at junctions, Lanes was never properly integrated with Relation:restriction, both apart only solve half the issue to proper abstract way right and shape to be observed at a given junction. While development (and oppinions vowed) has come to a stop in this area for years now, it's not a reason to start throwing away old work that might be picked up for one reason or another in the future.

As I'm not allowed to restore the page, I request you to do this. Also, besides ignoring the tag "out of date" on the page, in your summary you only quote selective parts - if the whole thing is read there is no encourangement to map for mapnik: The unconnected ways are a mapnik beautification measure, drop them if you do not like them. It's an interim. See variants below for alternatives to this. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

oneway_type and dual_carriageway

There is now a draft proposal for oneway_type=*: Proposed_features/oneway_type by User:HalverHahn - this looks like a good chance to incorporate dual_carriageway=yes. I already suggested it on the Talk page and might as well include it.--Jojo4u (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)