User talk:Verdy p

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives ± : 2012, 2015, 2016 Jan-Jun Jul-Dec, 2017

FreeBSD GPL based ?

Looking at your changes of Template:User_OS/doc we apparently have very different ideas of what makes an OS "GPL based". FreeBSD has some GPL licensed code in /usr/src/contrib (the contrib stands for "contributed code"), that's why the GPL is one of the licenses listed at It does not make FreeBSD "GPL based". FreeBSD also contains contributed code licensed under the Opensolaris CDDL. This does not make FreeBSD "Opensolaris based" or "CDDL based". Most Linux distributions contain e.g. the BSD licensed OpenSSH, this does not make these Linux systems BSD based either.

To get an overview which are the GPL licensed pieces in FreeBSD, look at to see what is or has been used here.

If I have given you enough information that you can agree that FreeBSD is NOT a "GPL based" OS, then please revert your change on the Template:User_OS/doc page. If not, then I would like to know why you are not convinced. --Lyx (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The GPL included directly in core components of the OS is the main difference betweren FreeBSD and other OSD systems (notably NetBSD). There has been numerous discussions on talk lists before the split and creation of FreeBSD, because developers were afraid that the GPL would apply also to the rest of the core. It is a fact that now FreeBSD cannot work at all without the GPL'ed components: Remove them, and what you have is just a basic BSD core with lot of features missing (including many devices). It's UI's and shells would also not work at all.
From the GNU "root" there are at least 3 branches for OSes: Hurd (from the FSF itself), Linux (from Torvald), and FreeBSD now (which is in fact now very far from the original BSD, sharing only an high-level API and some structures for applications that can be built on it. But if you remove the shell, FreeBSD is even unable to boot correctly, exept by using an alternate shell such as BusyBox (where common tools are integrated as builtin functions in the same process rather that using separate processes). Look at talks about FreeBSD and NetBSD and see what they say about each other. Clearly the licence of FreeBSD is very discutable (and the official root licence is probably abusive as there's no real seapration between the modified BSD base and the GPL, even if there are some LGPL libraries making some bridging).
This licence concern is a known legal concern for professional users that still cannot trust FreeBSD and have preferred developping either for NetBSD or for Linux directly (but separately). The result is that NetBSD is much more stable (and more secure) than the FreeBSD "hack", and with a higher quality code (and more performance). FreeBSD has been attacked much more often than NetBSD and Linux, and professional web hosting providers simply refuse to run their servers on FreeBSD (FreeBSD is only supported as a guest OS, supported only by the client and not the provider, installed on a VM running another OS, most often Linux, Windows, or some other proprietary Unix from Oracle, HP, Cytrix, or IBM). As such Free BSD is mostly used by endusers on their own non-shared systems or running on recoverted desktop PCs. The list of active developers for FreeBSD is now in fact very small (and continues decreasing), while the list for other BSD systems is still extremely active. Clearly FreeBSD is no longer BSD, converging now more towards Linux: due to lack of developers, FreeBSD has contantly been increasing the bridges to support GPL'red softwares directly, and notably software developed in fact for Linux. But there's a severe problem with the integration of drivers (meaning that it is difficult to install FreeBSD on modern machines or to support new processor features). — Verdy_p (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I admit that in more than 15 years of using FreeBSD as a professional user, running a professional web hosting datacenter with a three digit number of FreeBSD servers and meeting with and talking to many core contributors of FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD etc. I have never heard the theory that FreeBSD was a GPL based system from anyone. So, either I'm completely blind and have no clue of my daily business or hundreds of people have been lying to me and everyone else that I know for decades OR you might have misunderstood something you read somewhere. Would you kindly point me at one of these supposedly many core components of FreeBSD which are GPL based? You can find a web view of the version control system e.g. at --Lyx (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Unwanted modifications of usergroup page UlmerAlb without prior discussion

Verdy p moved our page UlmerAlb to Ulmer Alb without prior discussion. Although nothing was broken, we felt that to be an intrusion into our domain, because it's our user group page. If there would be rules how to name pages and Verdy p had mentioned them in the edit comment that would have been okay. But the edit comment was even empty. I wrote him that we would have liked to have prior discussion on such stuff and that we regard our user group page as our domain. Now, he "improved" the descriptions in our page too. We don't agree with these changes and will revert them.

We surely appreciate help and improvement of our work, but we would like to see a more cooperative culture of wiki maintenance. We would have been open for discussion about all that if he would have gotten in contact with us first.

Verdy p, please stop editing UlmerAlb! --Meillo (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"Nothing was broken"... Have you seen the doc about this wiki: it does not belong to single users, or small restricted groups of users (OSM is more open than what you think). It is not just "your domain", even if you feel it, any one in that wiki can edit. And what you say is obvious that you have not seen any error or broken things. I added a bit more description with relevant links to make this page even more focused, but still more accessible for more people (including in your area: if you think this page has to be almost unfindable or should not link to other relevant pages, it will not help others finding it and locating you).
If you want you own page for your own small group and want full adminship on it, this wiki is not the place for that, create your own website. — Verdy_p (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I think this is a misunderstanding. When Meillo wrote that "nothing was broken", he is referring to your renaming of the page. The statement is not true for the dozen of changes that followed. I'm new to the business of links and wiki categories, but as far as the contents of the page are concerned, none of your changes makes sense to me.

Sense was there only for adding links, and checking them (or locating where to point), in the same related group. My only intent was to make this page more visible and reachable or findable where it is expected to make you better known. — Verdy_p (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to understand why your changes are not appreciated, let me try to illustrate. Suppose there is a small OSM group somewhere in the countryside in southern Germany, who feel that mapping of their region in OSM should be improved. They meet once a month for discussion and even occasionally organise excursions into the real world to gather map data. In order to track the activities of the group, one of the regular contributors has created a wiki page. He might be less experienced than you are and might not have added all possible links, but he is taking some effort to keep the page correct and up to date, enter date and location of the next meeting or event, and even write a short summary of the topics that have been discussed after each meeting.

Now suppose the group has met the day before yesterday, and he has updated the wiki page the following day. Later on the same day he discovers that the wiki page has been changed by somebody else. The page that he had written in more or less correct German language is now in an unknown language that looks a bit like the result of an automatic translation attempt. The description of the group activities has been changed, the geographic scope has been restricted, and details have been added to the report of the last meeting. There are no edit comments. All the changes have been done by somebody from far away, called Verdy_p, who hasn't been on the meeting. How can you know what the group is doing and what has been discussed?

Of course editing is not limited to members of the Ulmer Alb group. I don't even think there is such a concept as a membership of the group. Everybody is welcome to contribute, to join the meeting and discuss. However, for a wiki page about the activities of the group, it simply doesn't make sense for somebody who doesn't know anything about the group to edit the contents of the page. After all the page was meant to contain useful information.--Scaro (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You accuse me of using automated translation this is not at all the case; and about this page, it already has various uncorrected German typos throughout the page, making it effectively either diffcult to read/interpret, if not simply ambiguous. Look seriously, there are many approximations, and I just felt the need to add some links, or corrected all the typos.
I studied German many years (but yes it was about 30 years ago), but I avoid writing long texts in that language, but I have no real difficulty reading it (provided that it is written "correctly"). I have worked several years in Germany too, in Hamburg (where I used several languages there, German, English, French, Polish, Danish and Swedish, and even Portuguese, in an international working team, or in the places outside work; there I wrote mostly in English or German at work, and German or French outside, including with Germans).
My intent was not to break this local work, but visibly that person doesn't care, and in fact most probably does not really want to promote the activity on this wiki, keeping that meeting group very small, very local, and not even explain where it really works, and where they really meet... Additionally, if there are people in this group, they don't participate at all in the page and are unknown.
And about the renaming, it was justined as well because the content of the page already separated the terms, as expected in normal German, and as expected if we were looking for them. Words with capitals in the middle are used only for commercial acronyms or trademarks, they are net the normal German. And I must add that I did not remove the validity of links without the space and you can also see that there was absolutely no link going to this page (and that it was not properly categorized (that's why it was difficult to locate).
If they say they are interested in an area, it should be clearly defined: even the name of the place where they meet is wrongly described or amsibuous, there's no place named like what they say, and the locality is still a small "Dorf" not found in address searches (I just added the location of that "Dorf"/village within its actual "Gemeinde"/municipality, to make the distinction with the other named place in the area, which is not even a place name but a small river near the aredescribed (but still outside of it!). Adn the actula meeting place is in fact a Gasthaus, but not specifying it is very strange, meaning something else, a wellknown animal in the forest (and I don't think they meet in the forest for hunting) ! — Verdy_p (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me add my two cents. ^^
  • The area where we work and that we are interested in is clearly defined, in multiple sentences. We've even put a map of the area on our page.
  • The place were we meet monthly is given as a OSM link (actually two links, as we alternate the locations), please consult the Local Group Box at the right side. In our region, it is very common not to say Gasthaus Hirsch but simply Hirsch. Every local mapper will recognize a Hirsch to be a Wirtschaft, not an animal in the forest, as loads of taverns called Hirsch are around, so just saying Hirsch Urspring is enough. If you would have consulted us before editing, we could have told you.
  • Your so called typos were no typos. Using ae instead of ä, oe instead of ö ect. is quite common, even if your keyboard lacks this keys. Anyway, I changed this spelling to correct umlauts by now.
    My keyboard is definitely not an issue. I know what is an umlaut and its origin in old fraktur typography similar to a superscripted e over another vowel, and the fact that an alternate German sorte order treats ä, ö and ü as if they were ae', oe and ue. — Verdy_p (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Having a look at the version diff, it's easy to realize that you've not corrected any typo at all, but added contents, linking and some HTML comments (why?).
Linking was the first purpose to locate that page so it is found in related pageds.
  • In our first description sentence, you were re-phrasing Ulmer Alb to Ulmer Alb Gebiet. In German, this sounds very funny, but is simply wrong.
    What a scandalous action I did ! There's a single inversion may be, but abbrevations and inversions (as well as other typos all around or missing terms in what you wrote, which are much more grammatically incorrect, are still there and I did not do that... And your usage of colloquial terms is also funny, just like you are meeting each week in an animal ! — Verdy_p (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • We consicously were using UlmerAlb as our local group name, to distinguish it from the geographical designation of the region Ulmer Alb. After your page moving, on our last meeting we decided not no re-rename the page, as naming is all hollow words. We were not knowing you were editing diligently while we were meeting…
    The wiki has all its pages for geographic locations made for local groups, all of them are open and they are there to document things to do, and add links to relevant pages or conventions, not to decument the region itself (we link them to Wikipedia or official pages of related administrative units or transportation services and the like. All these are subproject pages, and it's important to locate them precisely. You say yourself that the area is named Ulmer Alb and it was also the name used in that page itself. The single term UlmerAlb uses uncommon orthography that will not make it found even when searching, and as this page had no link pointing to it, it was unreachable, even for people in your area that would look for it. What is wrong with adding this space between the two words, also in the page name? And if ever there were links to it from external sites, they remain valid, the redirect immediately displays the page. — Verdy_p (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You say some people in this group, they don't participate at all in the page and are unknown. Did you think of some people that just do not want to expose their names (even user names) publicly?
  • You say that there was absolutely no link going to this page. Did you ever had a look to the future or recent events calendar on the wiki start page? It's full of links to our page.
    There are only two pages (historic news that have been visible only for few weeks) and 3 user pages (including this one since your post), this is 2 people in your group (including you)... This proves that you don't reach the people in your area, give nthe time this page is there, and also given the fact that no one talks about it (except here since few days). — Verdy_p (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
After all, all we want is discussing edits on the group's page before executing them, as we do every single month when meeting. If you want to contribute to the UlmerAlb, sorry, Ulmer Alb local group's page, contact us prior to that. Thanks. --Phoks (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that all this accusing of failures in this or that detail brings us anywhere. The message is clear: User group pages are typically cared for by the groups themselves; they document there their self-understanding and working data; one better gets in touch with them before improving "their" page. This is few effort and avoids all that what we're going through currently. In most cases a nice Hello spares a lot of discussion. Can we agree on that? If so, please let us settle it. --Meillo (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You are the only one to make accusations (against me, assuming bad intents when in fact it was still minor edits trying to connect you with more people, including but espcially in your area). All above are accusations by you only. I did not break anything, full stop. — Verdy_p (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please Add Edit Descriptions

Don't you realize that I'm sorting the Railways categories by language and merging equivalent categories found somewhere but not elsewhere with different names? In your example, "Railway" is not the cateogy name expected which takes the plural for feature names (these categories exist). — Verdy_p (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC) A few months later you fell back on the old and unwanted behaviour (and other complain about that) I hereby ask you again to use edit descriptions for every and every edit in this wiki. I have the impression that you ignore me (and others). OSM and its wiki is a community project. If you ignore others and only think that you are the greatest wiki user, it is time for you to look for a new hobby. If your editing behaviour keeps the same and my impression does not change, I will ask the admins to place a block on your account for a longer time. You have been warned often enough.--Nakaner (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No I did not ignore it, but resurrecting topics within about 200KB of archives of past discussions (fully terminated months ago) does not help at all (And in fact I had difficulties to see what was really changed; This was supposed to be old topics left as is).
And I disagree with your comment (putted at random place): this was discussed, in previous topic) and even before in mails. Too much noise for just a single space added (with edit comments in addition, except minor typos or just removing/solving red links without any actual content change!)
Stop posting at random place, keep things in order ! Don't attempt to remove or break those old archives. This page became too large and I perfectly have the right to archive it (like everyone does to make their talk page manageable). — Verdy_p (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
And I don't know why you contact me. You do almost nothing on this wiki. Except trying to cite me by some hidden channels without let me know what you are saying there about me. You did not even participate to anything to the page involved above. You've missed the discussions that occured already via OSM-mail, not just on this wiki. And nothing was finally removed, instead other corrections were made in the same sense. The only problem being about the presence of a single space for something that is may be the name of a group but a also a generic geographic description, on a page that was very difficult to find on this wiki before my edits to add missing links.
I have never wanted to break their work or influence their local activity, even if I won't go there physically in any predictable future. That page was created by a single person, not maintained at all since long, nearly abandonned as is, except the final table of events that I did not even touch). And visibly the few peoples that meet there lack other local volunteers and need more contacts: I just added a few relevant links. This wiki is also not the only place where they'll meet, there are other contacts also on OSM itself. But that subregion still merits something better (and is not restricted to only a few undeclared members in a small group meeting in a place left also mostly secret (using very fuzzy description). This page even has no reliable contacts on this wiki. So the claimed damaged are in fact disproportionally overlooked. I still made very few changes, all kept and judged positive), but it was much more that the disputed single space! And that occured already weeks ago, you did not follow what happened then, it was solved until someone added my name on that page and immediately resurrected what was thought to be already resolved !
Now you start involving yourself with immediate unfriendly threats (with powers you don't own, and in a conflict you were never part of and for this wiki where you do almost nothing) except criticizing others (the only thing you've done here in two months) — Verdy_p (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


Hi, it seems that you have broken something. The pages with _ in the name are displayed with space now. Chrabros (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

OK but there are errors in many places. I was trying to isolate them to only the needed pages.
The temporarily disabled generation is now enabled again. Only pages in article namespaces about "[lang:]Tag:*=*" and "[lang:]Relation:*=*" whould use the display title.
The errors are coming from incorrect capitalisations; the remaining errors are now in articles incorrectly named. — Verdy_p (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

use of an empty category?

Hi Verdy p, what is the use of Category:DE:Leaflet ? It is empty. Did you create if by accident? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No its nopt empty, but the server currently has delays updating the contents of categories. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Apparently this is caused by the recent upgrade of Mediaviki: some background vvorkers are running much slover than before, probably due to absence of needed tuning or some incorrect/incompatible old settings.
There's been various quirks since the upgrade, including non vorking javascripts (deprecated features that have been used since years but signaled since long and not fixed).
The logs of the server may contain info about various bugs or no longer supported features, or missing config paths/paths not found/missing data resources... — Verdy_p (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thank you! I see one member now. :-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Problems with adding category

Hi, can you please have a look here - Proposed_features/contractor? Why is not the page categorized correctly? Did I break something by my recent edit of {{Template:DescriptionCategories}}? I hope not. Thanks. Chrabros (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A sort key added to a categorisation cannot be empty (it causes a parser error). If you want to use a default sort key, don't include the vertical bar ! — Verdy_p (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Note that the sort key here is generated by the template, that REQUIRES a tag name (you've note specified it when using the template). But the key also requires you give a "name" to your proposal, I added them. — Verdy_p (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for analysis. It was not my proposal, I have just stumbled on it. Chrabros (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Documented values mystery

if you have some spare time, could you please have a look at Documented values at these pages?
Key:resource shows 3 but Cs:Key:resource shows nothing.
I cannot find out why. Thanks. Chrabros (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what is missing on the Czech page, contents seem equivalent, and statistics from Taginfo are the same. what do you mean by "shows 3" ? — Verdy_p (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
There is "Documented values: 3" on the English page, but no such info on Czech page. Also it is missing in some other languages. Chrabros (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I see, this is counting 3 pages in CATEGORY:Tag descriptions for key "resource", which exists in English but not in Czech.
  • CATEGORY:{{LangPrefix|{{Langcode}}}}{{DescriptionCategoriesLang|tags per key|key=resource|group=}} returns 3 in English (it looks into CATEGORY:Tag descriptions for key "resource")
  • CATEGORY:{{LangPrefix|{{Langcode}}}}{{DescriptionCategoriesLang|tags per key|key=resource|group=}} returns 0 in Czech (it looks into CATEGORY:Cs:Klíče:resource but there's no such category)
I think the counters should be looking into the same English category; but linking to the category should be to the Czech one (if it exists) or default to the English one.
Verdy_p (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a mix in Category:Cs:Klíče (contains both "tags per key" and "tags per group" starting by starting by "Cs:Keys:*" or "Cs:Klíče:"; in your case above the group is empty).
You've forgotten also language bar to link Czech cats and English cats in several ones; apparently when you have setup "Template:DescriptionCategoriesLang" you forgot naming categories the way expected (descriptions are stored elsewhere). — Verdy_p (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I was not setting this up. It was just copied while creating. Anyway, I am trying to fix it now. Could you please tell me how do I sort this [:Category:Cs:Relation descriptions by status]? Chrabros (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I figured it out already. Chrabros (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
It is OK for me that it counts and links the Czech versions of pages. No problem there. But why the category CATEGORY:Cs:Klíče:resource does not exist? It is not created automatically? Chrabros (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
No category is created automatically. Templates just check if they exist, they will never create any page. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I am still failing to understand it. Why is it working on other pages like building=*? Who created the required category there? And most important question: How to make it work? Chrabros (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The templates are made so that no category are required except very few generic oness. Individual categories name containing specific tag names (or group names, added later) are never required. The description template displaying the numpber of documented values (also added later) only work here if there's a matchin category name for the tag name, otherwise they don't display anything).
Categoeies are then created to fill the gaps when description templates are requiring them (and creating red links in categories at bottom of pages).
If you intend to extend the categorisation per tag name or per group name, this is in "Template:DescriptionCategoriesLang".
But you'll need to create all the implied categories yourself. They can be created by anyone, I think there's no bot doing it. — Verdy_p (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
See for example: history of Category:Tag descriptions for key "building". — Verdy_p (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. I have created Category:Cs:Klíče:resource manually. But then I had to dummy edit the tag manually to force into the category. And it works now. ;-)
Another question: Is there some bot which will add the tag into this category automatically in some time? Or do I really need to dummy edit it to force the categorization?
Thank you. Chrabros (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi, is it a good idea to add Tag:access=exclusion_zone to the access=* page?
The tag is not used and its definition seems vague to me. It seems more like a definition of some kind of area, rather than an access tag.
Chrabros (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I detected it by looking into categories and counting the 7 items referenced. For now there's not been objections against it, but the whole access=* tag is used de facto and was never voted. I just put them at end of the list and reformatted tag vules in the table.
If you object this value, discuss it on its talk page or place a warning about its deprecation (this will need to be discussed and announced). For now there's no reason not to add it in the table. You should contact authors of the tag value page or thier users on OSM. (In fact it looks the same for me as access=no, and the exclusion zone is better defined as a boundary, it could be a natural/protected parks, a military zone, a dangereous zone such as mine fields, extraction sites, unstable soils near coasts or rivers, dangerous buildings with risks of collapse, or polluted areas (around damaged Thernobyl, or Fukushima nuclear facilities), or temporary areas with extensive works. — Verdy_p (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the reason not to include it is that it does not exist in the database. And also that it seems not very precisely defined. So why make it so prominent here? I could live with the current (emphasized) version, but I would prefer not to inlcude it at all. I will raise this question on the talk page. Thanks. Chrabros (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

(disapproved) for access=designated

I do not understand why you have labeled designated value as disapproved. Do you mean that access=designated is disapproved? Or even foot=designated is disapproved? Its quite confusing. Chrabros (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Visit its tag page, this is state there ! — Verdy_p (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
But this is true only for access=designated and for other access keys like foot=* or bicycle=* is the value pefectly fine. The table there is not for access=* only. Its valid documentation for all other access keys! Therefore it cannot be labeled as such there. Chrabros (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I have onlky added this on the single value designated used with the key access. The same is said at top of Tag:access=designated !
The status does not apply to other *=designated values on other tags like foot=* or bicycle=*. So I maintain that what I added is perfectly correct, that value MUST NOT be used on access=* ! — Verdy_p (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Some times I wonder if you even try to read what I write to you.
access=* page is not only for key access=*. It is a COMMON page which defines the values for dozens other keys like foot=*, bicycle=*, horse=*. For ALL these keys are the values defined in the table you have modified. So it reads nowmthat designated is disaproved for ALL keys which use access=* values which is NOT true.
Please read that page carefully and then fix it. Chrabros (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I have read carefully, but suppressing the value from the table will not help. It is still disapproved with key access, even if allowed for other keys that. But the status given is for the whole tag, not just the isolated value (this does not make sense to speak here about other keys: do you think that the value "yes" is approved or denied, when it has lot of confling usages, and many "key=yes" tag will be explicitly disapproved woithour invalidating all "otherkey=yes" tags. — Verdy_p (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
That page is incorrectly labelled as access=designated. It should be <any transport key>=designated. That's why depracated status doesn't match the contents of the page. Note also that foot=designated and bicycle=designated redirect to that page. So yes, there is a problem with this page, but fixing it requires more work. Rafmar (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The title is misleading but it's highly prefereable to keep it as is, even if it raises some warninngs in data validators: these warnings cannot be used directly by validators, but they'll need to look more precisely what is valid or not depending on keys. It's not difficult for them to see that it is valid for other keys, but not for the access key that this page is using, even if "otherkey=designated" are redirected (on this wiki) to this page. But these warnings will allow validators to detect the specific rule they need to implement at least against "access=designated", but not on other keys only documented only by a redirect.
The content of the page makes it clear. We need to keep somewhere the deprecations/warnings against uses, notably when we see that there are more than 35000 ways using access=designated tag incorrectly without corectly identifying more specific keys.
For now that page still does not clearly document which replacement keys are valid with this tag. — Verdy_p (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to your changes the 'designated' value is now deprecated in the whole osm wiki. But who says beginners should have easy life ;) Rafmar (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The "whole wiki"?? Absolutely not. Only this specific TAG (specific key+specific value). — Verdy_p (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
One example: If you want to use an access type key lets say bicycle=* then you go to its page for documentation and you are refered to the access=* page for its values documentation. And there you see that it is discouraged. The same is true for all other access keys. They all refer to page access=* for values definition. Chrabros (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
And what does that page indicate ? only that that tag is discouraged with this access key. There's certainly a better solution to avoid false interpretations like in your example: create a template that will import the tag values in "Tag:otherkey=*" description pages and give there the real status. But there's no question that with access=* it is highly discouraged.
You are confused by the wiki-specific navigation system used which was to use redirects only, or because other keys pages are forgetting to specify some filters on values allowed with them, even if they are not allowed in another key. We cannot have two status displayed for this single tag (single key+single value) on the same place. If other tags are refering to it, they have to say what they don't take from the refered page or what they will accept. This access tag page however MUST be allowed to indicate that the value is not for the key itself even if you want to include it there ! — Verdy_p (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree the current way of defining the values for all specific means of transport together with access=* makes it harder to advise people not to use access=designated while at the same time explaining the meaning when applied to specific transportation keys. IMHO we should give priority to the latter, because access=designated, even if meaningless, doesn't seem to harm and can be fixed later.--Dieterdreist (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Coming late to the discussion I agree that Verdy p has a point but we also need a page to explain the value *=designated. Nearly a year ago I already made the proposal to create a *Description template which supports only values, regardless of the key: Template_talk:Description#Support_of_value_only. This would fit *=designated very well. Is somebody up to the task of creating Template:ValueOnlyDescription?--Jojo4u (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

FR:Servers/ to FR:Serveurs/ traduction fr)

Bonjour, La page étant en anglais, il ne faut par traduire Server en Serveur mais laisser la page Servers/ en l'état et créer une autre page FR:Serveurs/ (ou FR:Servers/ --Nospam2005 (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

C'était des toutes des sous-pages de la version française de la page Servers, elles ont basculé en même temps. — Verdy_p (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Ces pages sont dans la catégorie FR:Serveurs La plupart sont en français. S'il faut en traduire en français on peut toujours le faire et ajouter une barre de langues. — Verdy_p (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Pour te faire plaisir j'ai remis le contenu sur la version anglaise et commencé la traduction française de cette page. — Verdy_p (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about changing language of the page for templates

Hello, could you please give me an advice? Is it possible to force language code on a regular page? I mean: is there a way how could I set language as a variable on my user page User:Chrabros so that I do not have to use "|kl=cs|vl=cs" with every {{Tag}} template? Thanks. Chrabros (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

For now user pages are not supported. Some users have tried to prepend a language prefix for before "User:" such as "Cs:User:Xxxx", however this actually creates an article in the main namespace, or "FR:User:Xxxx" but this fills the French articles namespace. Talking to them is even more complex.
The only alternative is to use a language SUFFIX i.e. a subpage like "User:Xxxx/cs", but the current templates that attempt to detect existing pages do not work with suffixes. The fact that this wiki since long chose to create dedicated namespaces per language for DE,ES,FR,IT,JA,NL,RU (only these 7 languages) has been problematic and explains why we have prefixes everywhere. On other international wikis (such as Wikimedia Commons, or Meta) suffixes with subpages are used everywhere, and the trnaslate extension developed for Wikimedia does not work here.
And this wiki has tested various tricks to use prefixes, but it never got implemented for user pages.
I have proposed to treat user pages differently than other pages, by updating Template:Langcode and the Languages bar so that they will properly detect a subpage if the namespace is "User:" or "User talk:". Nobody was interested, and only a few users are naming their pages like "Cs:User Xxxx" (in the main namespace).
In all cases these language detections do not work with basic MediaWiki which still generates pages tagged with "lang=en" everywhere. The talks trying to find a unifyniog solution about this were never followed, so this wiki has no single unified solutions and we live with some languages in their namespace for article, and English and all other languages mixed in the same one, but still other namespaces for Templates, Categories, Users and other special namespaces where there's in fact no language support. It has been extremely difficult to unify the naming scheme and tryingto find a solution for translations that works with most contents.
But for non-article namespace, you need to specify the language explcitly because we still lack a better technical solution. — Verdy_p (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for explanation. So there is no way how to set-up the language code explicitly for the whole page, maybe as an variable of a template? Chrabros (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
This is why you already have these tempalte parameters. No there's still no way to setup a variable for the whole page. We don't have any parser function such as {{DEFAULTLANG:cs}} to set it and {{DEFAULTLANG}} to query it. All we have is a naming convention for pages (and their associated talk pages), including language prefixes/namespaces supported in articles, or prefixes only in Categories and Templates. There's still no support and still no convention for user pages (and their associated talk pages), and no support at all for images (because the "File:" namespace is shared with Wikimedia Commons where there's no such convention), or other special namespaces like modules (still not supported on this wiki). Where a convention is applied the current templates work correctly. We need another convention for user pages but users have used various ways for naming their translated pages, and only a few ones use the Languages bar but are in fact polluting either the main namespace, or the user namespace by using a fake user name which they don't own. In user pages the only thing that can work is to use subpages, not language code prefixes. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi, what does this sentence mean?

Larger obstacles needing a surface should use other barrier=* types (such as blocks or debris).

I do not understand it. Thanks. Chrabros (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's clear, and related to the fact it is not used to represent areas. Rows of bollards may be in closed ways but are not an area, they are still rows and aligned on that way but do not cover the whole enclosed surface. If there are larger obstacles such as blocks these are not bollards. This is all about the default interpretation as area=no. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Help please

Hello, could you please help me with i18n of {{No}} and {{Yes}}? I have tried to do it, but I have failed. Apparently I am not good in this. Thanks in advance. Chrabroš (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Done... — Verdy_p (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Superb. Thanks. Chrabroš (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you please review my change of {{Partial}} ? Thank you. Chrabroš (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
No problem, I added more languages (some of them already used). — Verdy_p (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Modification de la traduction de la page OverpassQL


Voir voir discussion OverpassQL Gnrc69 (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Date specification

Hi, I think your ideas on this need some more discussion and thinking, see Talk:Date specification. RicoZ (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Internationalization of some templates

Hello, I would like to ask you for a help if you have some time to spare. Could you change the following templates to be transalatable? It is just one word history there.

  • {{Way}}
  • {{Node}}
  • {{Relation}} - there are more word than just history actually

Thanks in advance for your help. Chrabroš (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Easy, I'll do it now... — Verdy_p (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
See {{TranslationOf history}}, {{TranslationOf analyze}}, {{TranslationOf manage}}Verdy_p (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Superb,thank you. Chrabroš (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
See also {{TranslationOf element not defined yet for}}
I've also updated some other templates for Overpass to use these translated terms. — Verdy_p (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)