User talk:Phobie

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
(Redirected from Benutzer Diskussion:Phobie)
Jump to: navigation, search

As you can see on Special:Contributions I put a lot of work into the wiki (and the database). Many of the (massive) changes could only succeed because I tried to follow the "It's always easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission." (w:Grace Hopper) principal. So excuse me if one of my changes upsets you! Calm down and write me a message. In most cases we can find a solution which is good for OSM.

special cyclestreets in Germany

Hi phobie, du hast bei OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed eingetragen, dass auf path + designated=bicycle ein maxspeed=30 generell gilt. Kannst du mir dafür eine Stelle in der StVO geben? Habe leider nichts gefunden. Wenn es kein gesetz oder generelle Verordnung gibt, die den Eintrag stützt würde ich ihn gerne wieder entfernen. Gruß Cbm

Ja kann ich: Etwas schwammig in § 41 Abs.1 Satz 2 Nr. 5 StVO und spezifiziert durch eine Entscheidung des Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe. Dabei geht es aber nur um Kraftfahrzeuge auf Fahrradstraßen, auf normalen Fahrradwegen sind ja eh nur Mofas mit bis zu 25km/h erlaubt. Allgemeine Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungen gelten generell nur für Kraftfahrzeuge (motorisiert) und nicht für Fahrräder (Siehe § 3 StVO). Spezielle Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungen (Zeichen 274) wie "20km/h für die nächsten 200m" oder Tempo-30-Zonen gelten für alle Fahrzeuge. Siehe Absatz Geschwindigkeit auf und --Phobie 03:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
generell kann durch Zusatzschildern ja jedem Fahrzeugtyp die Nutzung eines Radweges freigegeben werden (spontan fallen mir da Landwirtschaftliche Fahrzeuge ein) --Cbm 07:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Ich habe OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed#Germany mal ein wenig umgeschrieben... --Phobie 04:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

proposed features

glad to work with you on this. much progress has been made. contact me on YIMor email Nickvet419ATyahooDOTcom --Nickvet419 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Internationalisation of the Map Features

hi, I just see that you introduced a new way to translate the Map Features. I'm not against new things but I think we should at least discuss your templates somewhere together with other translators. When I first migrated the Map Features to templates, I made a proposal and discussed with some people strongly involved in the wiki. I did not like the idea of having all translations in one wiki page at that time and it is still an issue in your version. Your new template with {{switch}} is already very hard to read and it will be a mess when you will have the 20+ languages in it, including cyrilic and chinese texts. Be aware also that some tools are extracting the list of approved tags from the wiki directly (tagwatch, maplint). Changing the format implies that such tools will have to be changed. Perhaps we should create a dedicated page to talk about these issues. -- Pieren 14:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Both solutions are bad! The old scheme uses just too many templates per map feature, is very hard to edit and maintain. I just wanted to make it more simple for translators. Sadly there seems to be a performance issue with mediawiki ans the switch statement. 20+ translations on one site are better than 600+ Templates (i.e. Template:De:Map_Features:highway). Make the web-master install the Semantic MediaWiki extension! That would solve all template-problems and makes parsing the wikipages unnecessary. --Phobie 08:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit war about smoothness

Hi Phobie, would you agree with the suggestion of User:Sletuffe on the ML ([1]) to re-open the proposal discussions/vote which seems to be the best compromise after the long discussion in the ML ([2]) ? Personnally I could see a good point if we move it out from the Map Features page and give a second chance for people who dislike this tag to argue de pros and cons between adults. -- Pieren 12:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No one said "nothing will change"! Discussion can always go on. But if a vote has started a proposal should not be changed anymore. A proposal change after vote-start would invalidate all prior votes. So if someone finds issues during the voting period, which did not came up during RFC period, he can either vote against it or start a new proposal to improve the last one. The vote should not be reopened and the discussion has never been closed. To change the approved smoothness tag start a new proposal like Proposed_features/Key:smoothness:2 --Phobie 08:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This look like a perfect example of what I wanted to say just down there. I proposed to re-open the vote on the talk list in the goal to make people react. Because if nothing more is to be added to the proposal, then the only thing that it mean, is that we are just going to ignore previous vote from people "not aware", and that is bad, very bad. Another solution, a good trade-off imho, is to continue the vote. not re-vote. UNLESS, of course, the proposal is changed. The risk is that people will argue it is unfair given the actual number of votes in favor. But hey ! that's democracy (or something that looks like). I'm a bit like phobie here, if nothing has to be added, it will rather be useless, BUT it will a least show that I want to make people happy. If 10 "no" votes come, I'll then go over it and abandone this feature until re-open. Sletuffe 11:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I just do not want grave digging on already approved/rejected features. Perhaps a voted proposal should be closed if there is no new comment for a week. 10 "no"-votes should result in a reject! For sure we need more anarchy in here! --Phobie 12:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Modification of the SVG file of "grouping vehicles"

Man ! You are crazy ! What if this proposal is abandoned ?? you would have spent useless time. You should better discuss it first ! Anyway, great great awesome work ! (maybe we could merge unmotorized and motorized vehicule under the wheeled vehicles tree, to limit duplication of transport means on the picture ) I have made a paper version, and I'm sure we can't avoid duplicates, since it is a multidimmensionnal array, it is not a big deal I think, but we would better limit it if possible. I suggest however, that we limit our spent time until things appear to be accepted by others Sletuffe 12:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am! A draft started one week ago should be abandoned? I waste a lot of time discussing while I should better do maps. "feel free to improve it" does not sound like "don't touch anything, ask first"! No I can't because there are unwheeled motorized vehicles (hydroplane, motorboat, snowmobile). The svg only took 15 minutes of time... Btw. please always put a license tag when uploading images! --Phobie 12:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't meant to say don't, I meant to say : if we discuss it, people will probably join us if they find the idea good and stop me if they find it nasty. And I was just starting the idea, but looks you found it good if you took (15 minutes ? whaou you are much a better SVG editor than I am) time to make it improve. Sorry I forgot the licence, but as said in my talk page, all my work in osm and on the wiki is under WTFPL Sletuffe 16:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I used Inkscape. Seems to be pretty easy. --Phobie 07:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, I forgot the motorized part, maybe duplicate this section in motorized_boat, motorized_two_wheels, motorized_four_wheels, motorized_ski_mobile ? Sletuffe 16:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not like such a combination, because it would not be good for parsing and I never seen such a road-sign-combination. --Phobie 07:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

options bei amenity=bench

Hi Phobie bei dem amenity=bench proposal hast du für die Optionen ein vorangestelltest "bench:" vorgeschlagen. Welchen Hintergrund hat das? So auf den ersten Blick wäre das für mich nur bei Gegenständen notwendig die gleichzeitig mehrere Funktionen haben und man die Eigenschaften den verschiedenen Funktionen zuweisen möchte, da aber bei amenity=bench eigtl. ziemlich klar ist zu was die Optionen gehören wäre das hier doch gar nicht notwendig. Oder hat dieser Vorschlag andere Hintergründe? Grüße, Steffen S.A.L. 08:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Es zeigt sich immer wieder, dass allgemein gehaltene Keys Interpretationsspielraum zulassen. Gut zu erkennen ist dies an dem vielfältigen Einsatz vom Key "type". Im Falle von "backrest" und "seats" ist das nur schwer vorstellbar bei "movable" aber sehr wohl. Bei den ersten zweien habe ich es nur davor gesetzt um ein einheitliches Benennungschema einzuhalten. Ich nehme den Prefix erstmal raus, da ich ihn nicht als Blocker sehe. "permanent" und "length" halte ich aber weiterhin für unangebracht. Wenn man unbedingt die Größe in Metern angeben möchte sollte man das für Objekte übliche "Breite/Tiefe/Höhe"-Schema einhalten und da gibt es nun mal keine Länge! Was permanent angeht bezieht sich das Wort wohl eher auf die Absicht der Installation als auf die Möglichkeit zur Bewegung. So würde ich die Bank auf dem Bild als permanent=yes UND moveable=yes einstufen. --Phobie 11:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


Ich weiß ja nicht, ob das schon so endgültig ausdiskutiert ist, dass man's in die Map_Feature reinschreiben sollte... --Mueck 23:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Was genau meinst du? --Phobie 04:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

user Fgh

Well done keeping an eye on fgh (User_talk:Fgh). I can't understand what they're playing at either. -- Harry Wood 09:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

¡De nada! --Phobie 02:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Inactive features

Could you please explain me why you have defined Category:Inactive features as category of Rejected features? --Jakubt 23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at Template:Proposal_Page! We have a long list of valid values for the "Status". So we added a more generic overview status with only three values: "active", "inactive" and "under way". --phobie m d 22:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, i see the list now. I also see that there is a discussion at Template_talk:Proposal_Page#status_updates to separate inactive proposals from the Rejected features category and in fact it is exactly why I was confused - it should be separated in my opinion. --Jakubt 23:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

sea-navigation: color or colour


Ok, I replied there. But please don't do top-posting! --phobie m d 09:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

URGENT: Stop your colo(u)r bot. Please look at (? at record 3732 Heiligenhafen). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JjOffline (talkcontribs) 22:14, 5. Sep. 2009

1. There is no bot!
2. I did not edit 3000 tags. Other users also tag with "colour"...
3. I only changed it because there was a wild mix of color and colour and we need consistency.
4. To your link: FreieTonne should simply start supporting "colour" (and "color") and all question marks will be gone...
--phobie m d 00:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not move proposed features (about key:fixme)

Ooops, you'r totally right. I don't do that usually, but maybe because that key missed the voting process, I was confused. I'm reverting my change sletuffe 22:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, thanks! --phobie m d 14:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Undo change in Bicycle page

I removed your last edit in Bicycle ( Add the "oneway:bicycle=no" if you like in your edits but don't put this as a recommendation. It is redundant with "cycleway=opposite_lane". If you want, you can add a comment in the page "cycleway=opposite_lane" explaining that it implies "oneway:bicycle=no". --Pieren 10:41, 13 September 2011 (BST)

Thanks for the note! The real problem is the "cycleway=opposite_lane" tag, which we should get rid of! I added "oneway:bicycle" to that line to get a more clear tagging scheme. Today I reworked parts of that page to make the things clearer. --phobie m d 16:56, 15 September 2011 (BST)

Unwarranted revert on Wiki Translation

Sorry not to have done a clearer edit summary.

Your change only makes sense if it’s backed up with a large number of page moves. While several people see a problem, there is less of an idea what the solution is.

I also remain concerned about your commitment to OSM as a project given that you’ve rejected the Contributor terms and haven’t explained why and that some of your complaints to other editors on the wiki have been quite aggressive.

Andrew 17:59, 20 September 2011 (BST)

Oh, you might have answered on your talk page.
Yes, I am planning a large number of page moves, after we tested that wgCapitalLinks variable.
A OSM-user named "phobie" rejected the CTs and a user named "phobie-odbl" accepted it. I documented my concerns about the changes dictated by the OSMF at User:Phobie#OSMF_License_Change (in German). But the new OSM-CTs and the ODbL have nothing to do with the OSM-Wiki. The OSM-Wiki is CC-BY-SA and has no CTs! So what are your concerns?
About my complains on other editors: Your sentence is unspecific and generalised! I would gladly talk specifically about some of those aggressive complaints.
--phobie m d 17:38, 21 September 2011 (BST)

your edits on the main definition page for maxspeed in summer 2011

Hi Phobie, you changed the tag definition page for maxspeed regarding implicit maxspeeds. You deleted the current well established suggestion for source:maxspeed (e.g. DE:urban, DE:rural) and substituted it with an almost meaningless "implicit". Now, half a year later, there is some of those "implicit"in the data (2000 compared to 140000 source:maxspeed in total (1,4%) and compared to 16800 "sign". Please make at least a proposal and let the mappers vote before you make substantial changes to the definition of established tags. I consider an edit like the above "vandalism". --Dieterdreist 14:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I invented the <country-code>:<implicit-value> tagging scheme, so it would be funny if I would want to remove it. source:maxspeed is a helper tag for maxspeed, they should always be tagged together. source:maxspeed=implicit should only be tagged with maxspeed=<country-code>:<implicit-value>. This was only a compromise to avoid data duplication. IMHO the best solution is to tag maxspeed with implicit values where ever possible. But in those days some users had a strong standing against non-numeric values in maxspeed and forced implicit values into a extra tag (maxspeed:source later source:maxspeed). Btw. I also did not set up a proposal for DE:urban so this is well established vandalism now! ;) --phobie m d 15:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve with page moves?

Unless you can sensibly explain why your page moves are useful I will revert all of them. --Andrew 15:09, 22 July 2012 (BST)

Why do you want to revert something in the first place? The reason has already been given in some of the edit summaries! You should have a look at Talk:Wiki Translation! Keywords: lower case impossible, avoid mixed case, consistence --phobie m d 04:40, 23 July 2012 (BST)
Hmm, "avoid mixed case"? I don't really understand your recent moves to mixed case prefixes. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It's because I found a solution to display all language-prefixes lower-case. Before that I tried to make all upper-case because this is better than mixed-case. Because of two bugs in my changes on the Languages-Template, a user reverted them all (See below). I fixed both bugs and will recommit the changes later. --phobie m d 16:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! Eh, but that means that you want to move ALL pages with a language prefix to a lowercase prefix? I really think you should discuss (or at least announce in advance) that action more broadly before doing such a mass move. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Only the Hungary-virtual-namespace had to be changed. Those page-moves are already completed! For the discussion thing: Please read the preamble of this page! Btw. I announced it on the correct place: Talk:Wiki_Translation#Language_codes_in_lowercase. --phobie m d 18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not very pleased by your "preamble" - sounds like "I am always right". ;-) However, thanks for the link to the discussion (although I don't really see the announcement of the HU moves), why not paste that into your move comments? (positively meant suggestion!) Thanks! --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I am often wrong, but those cases hurt less than stagnation. Yes, I should improve my summaries, but they are already much better than the many empty summaries made by others. --phobie m d 19:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Deine Änderungen an Language-Templates vom 11.04.2013

Hallo, ich habe soeben deine 4 Änderungen an Template:Languages/Interface und Template:Languages zurück gesetzt. Die eine Änderung bewirkte, dass der erste Buchstabe vom Lemma klein geschrieben wird. Deine zweite Änderung bewirkte, dass im Languages-Interface die Sprache "Englisch" nicht mehr aufgeführt wurde. Siehe Screenshot. Gibt es für diese Templates nicht einen Sandkasten? Es gab bereits einige Anfragen von Usern, warum bzw. woher die o.g. "Fehler" gekommen sind. Ich bitte daher um Verständnis für das "zügige" zurück setzen. Screenshot von OSM-Wiki-Seiten mit u.a. "eigentlich" vorhandener englischer Sprache --Reneman (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Der erste Fehler war bekannt und trat nur auf, wenn bei T:Languages der erste Parameter vergessen wurde. Das ist halb so wild und kein Grund etwas zurückzusetzen. Den zweiten Fehler habe ich bisher nirgends gesehen und kann ihn auch noch nicht nachvollziehen. Nein, einen Sandkasten gibt es nicht. Ich habe allerdings T:Lowercase_namespace vorher ausgiebig getestet. Bei direkter Einbindung trat der geschilderte Fehler nicht auf. --phobie m d 18:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Wie gesagt, beide im Screenshot gezeigten Seiten gibt es auch in englisch. Seit dem ich deine Änderungen zurück gesetzt habe, wird auch englisch wieder angezeigt. Und ja, ich halte es für unausweichlich, einen solchen Fehler umgehend zu beseitigen. Die englische Sprache ist im OSM-Wiki besonders wichtig. Nicht jeder Nutzer der Seiten weiß, dass man eine andere Sprachversion nicht nur über das Languages-Interface erreichen kann. Zumal einem die Verfügbarkeit dieser nun nicht einmal mehr signalisiert wurde. Außerdem bitte ich dich, deine Aktivitäten an diesen Vorlagen (nach Tests) gebündelt vorzunehmen. Denn jede Änderung führt zu einer zwangsweisen Aktualisierung aller knapp 30.000 Seiten. Danke. --Reneman (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Ja, ich weiß, dass das Ändern dieser Templates eine hohe Serverlast verursacht, um so unglücklicher war das Zurücksetzen. Den zweiten Fehler habe ich nämlich inzwischen erkannt und hätte ihn längst behoben. Das erste Problem sehe ich nicht als Fehler des Templates sondern als falsche Einbindung. Ich teste aber trotzdem mal, ob man das Problem umgehen kann. --phobie m d 18:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
vlt. noch ein kleiner Hinweis: Die im Screenshot gezeigte Seite OSM Transport Karte (du hast den Templeateparameter gesetzt, danke) weißt im Screenshot nicht nur Englisch nicht aus, sondern Deutsch ebenfalls nicht. Nicht dass da noch irgendwo ein Käfer Winterschlaf hält ;) --Reneman (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


Hallo, du hast die Seite Tag:leisure=firepit heute mit dem Status "Approved" angelegt :)
Kannst du bitte das Proposal noch verlinken, damit jeder den Status nachvollziehen kann?
Danke und Gruß --Reneman (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Auf der Suche nach einem Wert für grillen=erlaubt/verboten bin ich im Wiki auf diesen verwandten gestoßen. Ich habe die Vorlage von einem anderen leisure-Wert kopiert und den Status nicht verändert. Da es seit längerer Zeit auf Map Features steht, haben ich angenommen, dass Approved richtig sei. Ich konnte jetzt kein Proposal finden und habe deshalb den Status auf Defacto geändert. Wegen der verlinkten Änderungen ([3], [4], [5]) könntest du ja mal User:Oddityoverseer fragen, ob er sich den Schlüssel ausgedacht hat oder er einer unbekannten Diskussion entstammt. Mir ist dieser Umstand egal und der Wert scheint unproblematisch zu sein. (Diese Änderung weist auf ersteres hin.) --phobie m d 09:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

reorganisation of this wiki's navigation

Hello, I write to you because you are part of the Wiki Team. I would like to establish a navigation concept for this wiki, lead by use cases. I wrote an example main page and an example navigation page (for the use case 'contribute map data'). In January, I wrote a correspondent proposal on Talk:Wiki_organisation, with some but not much feedback. I would be happy if you could add your feedback in order to decide either to refuse the proposal or to proceed. In the latter case I will incorporate all feedback, write the two missing navigation pages ('about' and 'use') and finally I would like to change the main page. Best wishes, --Cantho (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the current state is not very good, any change is likely to be an improvement. There are many people with an opinion but only a few are actually contributing. We have a lot of naysayer in fear of any change. So my advice is to not talk to much and be constructive instead. I had a look at your proposal. It is better than the current state. Apply it! If many people are upset, further changes can be applied later. (See the principal on top of this page!) --phobie m d 15:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Now I proposed to apply the proposed changes to the main page. Your feedback/ vote is welcome. If you want to respond but don't have the time right now, please give a notice about when you think you can respond. Have a nice day --Cantho (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Creating empty tag pages

Hi, I saw you recently created the page Key:aerodrome:type simply for a redirect. Whenever possible, add the template Template:KeyDescription to pages like this, because they can be read by taginfo even when the page is a redirect (example: wiki, taginfo). If you are creating such a page simply for the sake of making a link go blue, you could do something like {{Key|aerodrome|subkey=type}} instead. (example: aerodrome:type=*). Cheers --Jgpacker (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to remember! --phobie m d 08:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)