Talk:Main Page

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Available languages — Main Page
Afrikaans Alemannisch aragonés asturianu azərbaycanca Bahasa Indonesia Bahasa Melayu Bân-lâm-gú Basa Jawa Baso Minangkabau bosanski brezhoneg català čeština dansk Deutsch eesti English español Esperanto estremeñu euskara français Frysk Gaeilge Gàidhlig galego Hausa hrvatski Igbo interlingua Interlingue isiXhosa isiZulu íslenska italiano Kiswahili Kreyòl ayisyen kréyòl gwadloupéyen kurdî latviešu Lëtzebuergesch lietuvių magyar Malagasy Malti Nederlands Nedersaksies norsk norsk nynorsk occitan Oromoo oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча Plattdüütsch polski português română shqip slovenčina slovenščina Soomaaliga suomi svenska Tiếng Việt Türkçe Vahcuengh vèneto Wolof Yorùbá Zazaki српски / srpski беларуская български қазақша македонски монгол русский тоҷикӣ українська Ελληνικά Հայերեն ქართული नेपाली मराठी हिन्दी অসমীয়া বাংলা ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ગુજરાતી ଓଡ଼ିଆ தமிழ் తెలుగు ಕನ್ನಡ മലയാളം සිංහල ไทย မြန်မာဘာသာ ລາວ ភាសាខ្មែរ ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ አማርኛ 한국어 日本語 中文(简体)‎ 吴语 粵語 中文(繁體)‎ ייִדיש עברית اردو العربية پښتو سنڌي فارسی ދިވެހިބަސް

Note: This page is only for discussing the text on, and layout of the wiki Main Page itself. It is not the right place to discuss broader issues or ideas about how to improve the wiki (for that see WikiProject Cleanup) or to ask general questions (try other Contact channels).

For older discussions see Talk:Main Page/Archive


New section about using the map data

I have struggled to get information on how to implement my own OSM map on my web site. It is very hard to find this sort of information on the wiki, partly because the information is spread all around the wiki. We need to put it all together like we have with Map Making - we need a Map Using section too!

I now have found such a section/page - Using OpenStreetMap - and I now suggest we put a link to that page at the Main Page:

Map Using
Everything you have to know to use our maps.

What do you think about my suggestion?

--Peter289 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you know about the "Using OpenStreetMap" page? -- Harry Wood 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Arrrgh, no I didn't! :-( I have really looked around for a page like that now and then under the last six month, but did not find it. Of course this is the page that we should link to from the Main page! -- Peter289 17:28, 8 March 2009

Promoting OSM Usage

My edit to the main page was undone because it was not discussed here... It was, but who needs to approve? Since it is a useful addition, I will propose it again.

After Map Making, I added the link for Map Usage. The link is not new, it is now referred to from the "Map Making" page.

Of course, USAGE has nothing to do with the MAKING. Furthermore you won't contribute to something without knowing what you can do with it. So referring "Usage" from the "Making" page is world upside down!

I think promoting the different usages from the main page will benefit all, so please allow an undo of the undo.

User:Altijd Verdwaald Sept 3, 2009

In principle I agree with the idea that "Using" should be at least as important as "Making". However....
the Using OpenStreetMap page is dreadful. For starters it needs a once-over grammar check by somebody who can speak english. (This seems to be the case for any wiki pages edited by User:F... No maybe I shouldn't pick on him) Additionally the page doesn't work as it is conceived at the moment. hopelessly wide scope. It needs to be condensed right down into some kind of textual summary. The top sections are OK, but it goes off on some kind of attempt to cover every aspect of "Using OpenStreetMap".
Linking to this page would encourage people to fix these problems, but in the interim it would also direct a lot of web traffic, and newcomers to the project, onto a very badly written bit of text. Let's improve the quality of that page first.
-- Harry Wood 17:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I see you're working on a Map Usage page. Could be a good first step although a lot of these links are duplication with other pages around the wiki. I hope that spreading across more pages can be a temporary measure, to be followed by some page merging. -- Harry Wood 11:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
To get order in chaos it is always good to take a step back. But I'm wondering what you mean by merging. Hopefully not back towards the Map Usage page. I deliberately didn't want to put any details on this page. Just a clear overview and high level description of the possible use cases. But opinions may differ, so it might be best to define the strategy for the 2nd layer pages (assuming it will become a second layer). In other words: what do you want to see on the second level and what on a third? --User:Altijd Verdwaald Sept 27, 2009
Well mainly I mean doing something with the Using OpenStreetMap page, e.g. just deleting it and redirecting it to Map Usage, or moving the 'Map Usage' content to overwrite the 'Using OpenStreetMap'. Some kind of merge to avoid duplication -- Harry Wood 10:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As an update to this, the Using OpenStreetMap is now quite respectable, but only because all the mess was moved onto linked pages. More rewriting work needed still. Discussion of this at Talk:Using OpenStreetMap. I don't think it's ready for linking from the Main Page yet. -- Harry Wood 13:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


We've had a Template:news which reappeared here on the Main Page a few months back for Gerv's OSMFieldwork announcement. I've removed it again now because that particular news is a bit old now anyway.

So do we want news on the Main Page? Could be good except that the blog is kind of the official OSM announcements channel right? Dont want to create duplication (or extra wiki maintenance tasks) So I guess the logical thing would be to somehow bring an RSS feed into a wee box on the Main Page here. This would require a wiki plugin. Thoughts on that?

-- Harry Wood 16:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We have it again now. People are adding to it occasionally too. Someone's also set up the News Archive, so please move entries which are more than a month old, onto that page.
Do we want this? It is another bunch of tedious wiki maintenance, and duplication of other channels. It doesn't offer any machine readability (RSS). On the plus side, it's openly community maintainable, although I can imagine we may hit the problem of starting to need some kind of news-worthiness criteria.
- Harry Wood 13:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. That was 2009. Past six months this wiki-maintained news box.... has not been maintained.
The current entries on there are form January and February. Its now the middle of March. The most recent two new entries and scalablemaps were put on there by the authors of those projects. They're using the news box to pitch their product, ...which is fine maybe, but only if it doesn't outweigh other more genuine news entries. In other words the "news-worthiness criteria" problem I mentioned above. If you had to think of the top two news stories about OSM recently... they would not make the list. I added a couple of more genuine news entries about 64bit identifiers, and the new iD editor launch. These are MASSIVE news stories for OpenStreetMap, and yet I added these myself in a sort of half-hearted attempt to update this news box several weeks after the news broke. It seems nobody else is attempting to maintain this.
So... I think it's time to retire the news box in its current form. Someone can prove me wrong by updating it (you're welcome to!) but right now it's not well maintained.
I suggest we figure out which mediawiki extension would allow us to pipe in the RSS feed into this box instead.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean a new bulletin each week like featured images? --Andrew (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
No I mean we ask User:Firefishy to install the RSS mediawiki extension, and then sit back and do nothing on the wiki. Disadvantage would be that wiki editing enthusiasts no longer have a place to wiki-maintain news items. -- Harry Wood (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Or the other option would just a prominent link in that box to the weeklyOSM and . Link or maybe icons. Trouble is the blog doesn't have an icon other than the osm icon, and we already have too many of those (two of them) on the main page -- Harry Wood (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Would there be any objection if I added a link to the weeklyOSM? Manfred suggested it at SotM in 2016, and again today, and no one ever objected. -- Stereo (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
A link to weeklyOSM was already added in 2017 by Verdy p, see this edit. Or did you mean something else? --Tordanik 21:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
It's quite well hidden! I doubt it gets many views there. I'm picturing a fourth panel linking to the weeklyosm news in the three-panel thing at the top. A lot of work goes into it, and it's the best source of news we have. -- Stereo (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

User Anouncements/ Call for Research

Im researching how volunteered geographic information (volunteer produced maps) is valued by users and developers, or what factors effect the value of VGI Maps. OSM is an example of this.This is for my PhD, with more information available on my blog (

I am hoping to interveiw as many users, contributers and developers within the UK as possible, so I thought maybe I can put a 'call for interview participants' on the news section of the wiki.

Would anyone object to this? How would I go about doing this? Any other comments?

User:Kyral210 10:49, 13 May 2009

The mailing list is the main Contact channel for reaching everyone. I guess it might qualify for a entry in the news box too... but then again maybe not. It's not very core project news (See discussion above) -- Harry Wood 08:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


What about adding a quick navigation panel on the main page, whith some links to freqent visited (portal) pages. A suggestion template can be found overhere: Template:Portals. - Pietervp 12:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add to the Renderers section a new portal for other renderers, like the ö And trains, busses and trams for the routes section. --RalpH himself 17:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a new portal that collect download facilities. The reason for this is that still a lot of people try to download from the main server although there are alternatives like XAPI and Overpass API, but these were hard to find starting from the main page. -- User:Roland.olbricht 22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But have you seen we already have a page called "Downloading data"? -- Harry Wood 23:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I haven't. Thank you for pointing me to. I think, it would make sense to gear the content of Downloading data more from the main API towards the other API services. I'lll move the relevant content of Download there. -- User:Roland.olbricht 18:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Discuss BEFORE adding things

Obviously the Main Page is important. It has a significant role to play in shaping people's view of the project. The design of the page needs to reflect the correct weight of importance of pages being linked to (and not link to pages which are not important) There's nothing new or mysterious about this.

What it means though, is that we can't be having people slapping their ideas on here willy-nilly. For the most part we've been quite good about this over the past year or so (since we had a nice redesign of the homepage) but there's been a couple of, shall we say, 'under-developed' wiki ideas appearing as prominent links lately. So from now on the rule is simple...

Do not add/change things on the Main Page without discussing on this talk page first (and preferably leaving the discussion open for a while before applying a change). Edit's of the Main Page in violation of this rule, should be reverted.

Note that discussing your idea does not make your idea immune from being removed! It just means it is not in violation of this rule. It might still be deemed inappropriate for the Main Page.

I'm hoping that this will be universally accepted as common sense. If someone wants to argue about it, then I might have to write a "Wiki Policy". Don't make me do it! I will you know!

-- Harry Wood 16:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the issue and respect it, but I completely missed this remark when editing my undiscussed change. On a closer look I found out that there is a comment in source of the Main page. My suggestion would be to make the comment as large as the editing page so you cannot miss it -- User: Altijd Verdwaald Sept 3, 2009
OK I've made that comment a bit more prominent -- Harry Wood 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I've also added a similar comment to Template:Portals because people have been sneaking new links onto that template. May need to do the same for all the other included templates. -- Harry Wood 11:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick Contact Template?

There has been some discussion (see posts 13 on) recently on the forums about the lack of clear links for contacting the community on the main wiki page (this one). It was pointed out that Germany do have such a section, so I've created a roughly translated version and wondered whether anyone would object to it being added just above the lolcat. I'm aware details are available on the Help page which is easily reached from all pages, but the discussions suggested that making something a bit more prominent on the main page would be desirable.

The note above says to leave discussions open for a while, so I'll check back here in a week or so to see if any comments have been made before adding it. --EdLoach 08:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This looks like a good idea. -- Harry Wood 08:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
+1 -- Firefishy 09:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
+1 --Farrpau 11:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
DONE. I've added Template:Quick contact to the page on the right.
I also changed it to slim down the text a lot because your translation was a bit too verbose, and all the text didn't fit well with the layout.
-- Harry Wood 13:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

{{quick contact}} was removed again in this edit by Peterito in Jan 2012 -- Harry Wood (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Reorganising the calendar

The calendar is getting rather big these days; it could well be even bigger if everyone is assiduous as the Germans at listing their events. I propose to keep the {{Calendar}} template for international events with a link to the Current events page for a fuller listing and to have a separate template for each country. A template for Germany already exists at {{Template:DE:Events}} (although following a country abbreviation with a colon risks confusing wiki editors between country-based and language-based pages) and events for Finland are inside Fi:Main Page. Each main page would have events in relevant countries as well as the international calendar and Current events would list all of them. Country projects could also include a template of events in the country if they want to. --Wynndale 10:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's warranted. Major international events are very visible because they are shown in a larger font. If the list becomes too long we could consider listing the monthly events only for one month ahead. --Ulfm 14:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah lots of regular events getting scheduled way in advance definitely making the list too long. A new rule "we list the monthly events only for one month ahead" could be good. I can see why somebody would want to slap them all on there all at once to save hassle though.-- Harry Wood 14:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

RIT Imaging Department

I took part in the Crisis Camp-Boston on 1/23 and did some work on the OSM project. I have since been chatting with some contacts I have at Rochester Institute of Technology which has a cutting edge imaging department. They have recently flown their WASP sensor imaging equipment (see link: over Haiti and have been processing the images with teams of grad students working 24x7. One of the things they have done is used algorithms to identify crisp images of blue plastic tarps, often associated with camps in Haiti. This is something we were trying to do manually and I found it difficult at best. They are also using algorithms to determine "trafficability" of roads. Again, similar to one of our tasks at the Boston camp. I mention all of this because RIT is busy doing all of this work, yet they really don't know to whom they should hand it off. Their plan was simply to post it online along with the data. I would like to get them in touch with the right person at Crisis Commons. I think they could add tremendous value with their state-of-the-art imaging technologies and team of grad students. I sent a general email about this to Crisis Commons, but does anyone have any other ideas of how I can get them engaged to help?

User:Ewhite647 03:57, 27 January 2010

Sounds good
The obvious thing would be to add this WASP imagery as another alternative available to OpenStreetMap folk to use for map tracing. We already have access to a number of imagery sources listed here: WikiProject Haiti/Imagery and data sources How does to the WASP imagery compare? higher resolution?
OpenStreetMap editing software can bring in imagery for tracing if it is rectified and made available either as a WMS or as a tiled map service following Slippy map tilenames structure. We have a number of people who have become quite expert at taking geo-tiffs and converting imagery to be set up in this way.
OpenStreetMap people have already attempted to identify damaged buildings and people camping using GeoEye imagery. We have invented special tags for this, and show them here: If the WASP imagery is higher resolution, the RIT folk may have done a better job of this. It would be interesting to compare. RIT data on that could perhaps be imported with some other tags, but initially somebody should set up a map overlay display.
-- Harry Wood 10:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually it looks like crschmidt is already on it: [1] [2]. I guess this means some of the imagery on is the WASP images? -- Harry Wood 17:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Project of the week

I'd like to put something small on the front page below the image of the week to draw attention to the Project of the week. Without that pulling in people, I think it may be a lot harder to make it a success -- Steve 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a link within the news box. That'll probably send some traffic that way at least until it becomes old news -- Harry Wood 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
What about adding it to the portals box on the Community projects line? Nakor 22:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Can't see the link. -- Marc 20:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it be ok if we put POTW every week on the news? Otherwise it wouldn't be recognized in that way... --!i! 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Assurance

In order to keep OSM useful quality assurance of the data is an important aspect, especially when trying to attract many new and therefore unexperienced mappers. There are quite a few good tools to help spot and correct potential errors, but they are all, in true osm nature, distributed in many different places, and thus probably not as widely know as they should be. Can I thus propose to add a link to the Quality Assurance page on the main page to give it the imho deserved prominence? -- User:Amm 14:29, 14 February 2010

Agreed. Let's add a little link next to 'Tools' -- Harry Wood 18:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

more weight for 'Country projects'

please set the link in bold; because is the importantest way for beginners and guests!
";-) " --Abonino 11:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Purpose, name and structure of the "Main Page"

What's the purpose of this page, why is it called "Main page" and where is the structure?

OK, wikipedia:Main_Page is also called "Main Page" but this name is not written in big bold letters on top of it instead it reads "Welcome to Wikipedia". I never saw a book, journal or newspaper having a main page. There are title, table of contents, introduction, overview and index pages which have a clearly defined purpose. But what's the purpose of a main page, especially of the OSM main page. I guess there's no agreed purpose and it's appearance confirms this. It's a collection, I feel tempted to say bunch, of links which deamed to be important. I couldn't figure out a structure. The information isn't clear, sometimes misleading. E.g. "Beginners' Guide: All the resources for a complete beginner to learn about and get involved with OpenStreetMap." unclear if targeted to a user or contributor. Or e.g. "Routes: Bicycle · Hiking · Other maps" is confusing: you can find routes on maps but maps are no routes.

The subtitle "Welcome to OpenStreetMap" indicates introduction and overview for people who are new to OSM as purpose of the page. But "Data: Binary format" or "Wiki: cleanup" indicate it's a table of contents or directory for advanced OSMer.

Therefore I would like to suggest the following steps:

  1. Agree on the purpose of the page.
  2. Redesign the page.
    I made an initial draft Welcome to OpenStreetMap (Draft).
    It's incomplete and it links to existing pages which fit at least a bit. I've also integrated the links of the boxes on the left side "recent changes", "navigation", "toolbox" but can't remove them in the draft. I suggest to integrate them as well.
  3. Restructure and may be rewrite the rest of the Wiki.
    My proposal is to structure it top down from the "welcome page" thus building a chapter / subchapter structure as in a book.

This would be quite a lot of work, a project. I'm ready to contribute, to write or rewrite in English and German and translate from one to the other. Willi2006 12:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Main Page has evolved over time a little bit, although actually there was a sudden redesign which happened a couple of years ago, which we've stuck with for the general structure of the page. "Main Page" is the default Mediawiki name for... the main page.... of the wiki. So no mystery there. We've just kept the default name. That's the title which appears at the top of the page, and the title to which can link with [[Main Page]]. We could call it something else I suppose, but that would create major link moving work. Another possibility might be to set a different {{DISPLAYTITLE}}.
So the purpose of the main page is to do what any website front page might try to do. We try to present a compelling welcome message and an interesting image, then we provide what we judge to be the most important links to other parts of the wiki. We can think of it as the top level of a navigational hierarchy, though it's not just about links. Also hierarchy is can be the wrong way to think about it. Wiki pages are interlinked to form a web. Often this should look hierarchical (tree shaped), but its not required. I guess the purpose of the main page should reflect the purpose of the wiki as a whole. We've got some philosophical thoughts about this at WikiProject Cleanup#Objectives.
In fact I'd encourage you to get stuck in to some of the cleanup tasks we have identified there, because you say "Restructure and rewrite the rest of the wiki" "quite a lot of work"... errr understatement! But it makes sense to tackle things in that order. If we tidy up the important parts of the wiki, or create new important (tidy) parts of the wiki, then we can think about linking them from the Main Page here, and maybe dropping some links we deem to be no longer so important. In this way the main page can be gradually and organically redesigned.
...or we can go for a big bang redesign. but I don't see your current design as being anything radically different. It's just another bunch of links which you have deemed to be important. Also do you really want to ditch the image of the week? ditch the bigger links? I kind of prefer the current Main Page design I'm afraid. But worth prototyping other designs certainly.
-- Harry Wood 21:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
"Wiki pages are interlinked to form a web. Often this should look hierarchical (tree shaped), but its not required." That's the point I tried to address: A structure, typically hierarchical, is not required, but is a big help not only but especially for beginners. Links are pointing to related subjects, but can't show the whole structure of such a manifold project. Books tend to have a table of contents as well as an index as well as references within the text to related text.
Yes, my proposal is also a bunch of links but I tried to clearly organize them by activities to show the newcomer and outsider what he can do with and in this project. And it shouldn't be more than a first draft, the links are more or less examples but not meaningless. I didn't want to say that only these links are important and all missing stuff has to be ditched.
Only one response here in one month and few activity on WikiProject Cleanup, which I read before I posted here, indicate in my opinion few interest for a redesign. May be too early.
--Willi2006 11:55, 5 August 2010 (BST)

Rename this page / suppress the title

As suggested above, we could rename this page. HannesHH suggested it here too, as he thought about sidebar navigation improvements, and I think it makes a lot of sense. "Main Page" is obviously misleading, when you consider the project as a whole. HannesHH suggests renaming it "Wiki homepage" which seems sensible to me.

How to go about renaming this page? We can do a page move. We can then fix any incoming links within the wiki content, to directly link the new title. There would also be some hassle around Translations of the page, but mostly just a matter of moving pages. Quite a lot of post-move tinkering needed, so it could be good to get a few volunteers to be on hand to do that at the time of the move. We could set a date and time to coordinate this.

We would also modify this: MediaWiki:Mainpage so that the wiki software defaulted to the new title (without redirecting) when going to

-- Harry Wood 01:42, 12 October 2010 (BST)

Hello, Harry. If there were a way to suppress the name of the page being displayed, so that "Main Page" did not appear on the . . . main page, I think that would suffice. Do you agree? --Ceyockey 03:12, 12 October 2010 (BST)
Maybe. hmmm I see there's a trick to hide the title, so we can just do it.
The title is another thing taking up excessive vertical space on this page too, so could be a good improvement. The slight downside is that it makes it slightly harder to understand how to link to it to the page, but that's not the end of the world. Shall we try it?
-- Harry Wood 09:49, 12 October 2010 (BST)
"Wiki homepage" is a rather technical title. And not all linked pages are Wiki pages. This page is the "door" to OpenStreetMap. And I think at your door you should say "Welcome to OpenStreetMap" or short "Welcome". Willi2006 14:54, 14 October 2010 (BST)
Philosophically I'm not sure if everyone would agree that the wiki homepage is the "door" to OpenStreetMap. The door to OpenStreetMap is the front page ("The Map") the wiki is a sub-site relating to help information, technical documentation of the project.
Well actually if we go with the plan to suppress the title (make it invisible) on this page, then the title nearest the top of the page will be "Welcome to OpenStreetMap". I think we should do this. Any objections to that part of the plan?
After that the question of what the actual page title is, will become less significant... although it is still a question, because people have to know it to link to it, and ideally the sidebar link text would be the same. Do you think "Wiki homepage" is too technical for the link text appearing in the sidebar?
-- Harry Wood 18:10, 14 October 2010 (BST)
It would be quite interesting to know if there is more traffic at than ; I presume that the traffic would show a 95:5 ratio, but it's worth checking. Just by way of a really simplistic look at search results, Google top hit for "openstreemap" is the Map page, as it also is for the query "OSM", but the information presented is quite different; for the "openstreetmap" query, you get sublinks which includ the Wiki, whereas for the "OSM" query you don't get this. --Ceyockey 03:50, 15 October 2010 (BST)
Are you worried about loss of google rankings as a result of suppressing the "Main Page" title? We might rank lower for the keywords "Main Page", but otherwise all the content will remain as before, in fact the page might rank higher for "Welcome to" -- Harry Wood 10:21, 15 October 2010 (BST)

OK DONE'. I have suppressed the 'Main Page' title via the css method. We can always put it back though. As said above, this isn't really the "Main Page" of the project, just the wiki, so a misleading title perhaps. But also the title is another thing taking up excessive vertical space on this page. The slight downside is that it makes it slightly harder to understand how to link to it to the page. -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Categorization of this page and other language main pages

I will be accused of wiki-fiddling, certainly, but what do you think about placing this as a page in the Category:English and other language main pages including in other language categories; for instance, Ar:Main Page would go into Category:Arabic. Now the drawback (perhaps benefit) of this would be that Categories would be created for each of the languages represented in the OSM Wiki.

Alternatives to this which are equally OK are

--Ceyockey 01:30, 25 September 2010 (BST)

I don't think 'Category:Arabic' would be a good idea (language categories) because that implies that there should be a 'Category:German' (or 'Category:DE'?) which would have many hundreds of pages in it, requiring a lot of maintenance without doing anything very useful. Note that Ar: pages can be listed with this: Special:PrefixIndex/Ar:
I'm quite happy with not categorising the Main Page, it's not like anyone will have trouble finding it.
but then I'm not really all that obsessed with organising wiki categories in general. If there's a scheme that this needs to fit in with, then I guess you might want to add categories.
-- Harry Wood 11:55, 13 October 2010 (BST)


Add a link to Software page in Tools box and Desktop/mobiles software --Esperanza 16:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC) --Esperanza 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page beta

See also: Main page beta

I have created a new page Main page beta where we can propose, discuss and explore options for modest changes to the Main Page before they go live. In effect this it providing a 'moderated' or 'peer review' stage to all edits to the Main Page. I suggest that any discussion about changes continues to take place on this talk page. For contentious, major or speculative changes that are unlikely to get immediate resolution please use a different page to float the ideas and have a discussion.

Proposed changes Jan 2012

I am proposing some changes to this page on Main page beta as follows:[3]

  • Move the image of the week back to top right given that it evidently isn't properly visible on all displays when it is below the status information.
  • Move the intro text into the top of the left hand panel which will promote the image of the week and other right-hand column stuff further.
  • Change the 'Press' link to an 'About' link which is of more general applicability and can have a 'press' section.
  • Swap lolcat and usedata to keep all the new and calendar stuff in a block.
  • Remove the Portals include given that the important links are already in 'getting started', 'use data' and 'help' or could easily be. This is about reducing the complexity of the Main Page for beginners.
I don't see where all the links of the portals are contained in these pages. And even if they were: The portals page is the best approximation to a table of content and thus should not be removed. -- Roland 2012 Jan 4, 10:25 UTC
Thanks for getting back on this. Many items in the portal are available via two clicks however I am relaxed about having the portal in for now. Lets leave it in for this update. PeterIto 14:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I would rather remove the news section. Having two weeks old news is not very active, and a link to would fit better. -- Roland 2012 Jan 4, 10:25 UTC
Personally I think the news is good for the first time viewer. Lets not consider taking it out at present anyway. PeterIto 14:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to make further changes or reverse some of my proposed changes on Main page beta until we are in agreement.

-- PeterIto 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have recreated the changes described above based on the new home page which has had a bunch of html issues fixed. I will transfer it to the live home page later today unless anyone indicates that they have any issues with the changes. One change - I have removed Project of the Week which appears to not be running any more anyway. PeterIto 08:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

New Portals beta article

See also: Portals beta

I have created a new Portals beta page where we can discussion proposed changes to Template:Portals. Please make your change to the beta page and then use this talk page (not the talk page on Portals beta) to explain the motivation for your change. We can then discuss the change and make further alterations to the beta page. If no objections are raised the contents of beta can be put live after 48 hours. PeterIto 15:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reworked Portal

I have reworked the Portals beta into what seems to me to be a more logical order, which is as follows:

  • Contributing first - because we want people to contribute so put it at the top. I have moved everything which is relevant to people contributing data to this section, including imports.
  • Mapping projects - because this is the top one in the left hand menu for the wiki and this supports the main priority which is to increase the number of contributors. A longer list of mapping projects should probably be added here (and the list on the main top left panel on the Main Page itself could probably then also be reduced somewhat).
  • Using OpenStreetMap - because we want people to use OpenStreetMap data.
  • Data and quality - I put this next because anyone using OSM or contributing should be interested in quality.
  • Editors - I moved this down because it is of less interest to the novice.
  • Routes - I have left this in, however I am not sure what is it really useful for.
  • Software - I moved the renderers themselves to this section
  • Contributing to the wiki: Stuff about how to make the wiki better!

-- PeterIto 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Fyi, I have just made a minor layout tweek directly to the main page to move the Portals Template into the left-hand column rather than having is span both colums. PeterIto
On the basis that there has been no comment or objection to the proposed changes above I have now updated Template:Portals to the version on beta. PeterIto 19:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor layout changes

I have proposed some further minor layout changes to the Main Page on Main page beta. These are as follows:

  • Rolled the Welcome to OpenSteetMap heading into the top of the left hand column to streamline the page avoid using unnecessary depth.
  • Made minor adjustment to wording of intro para and added 'Welcome to OpenStreetMap' at the start of the first sentence.
  • Changed 'Legals' to 'Licensing' and adjusted the text for clarity - lets include the words 'attribution' and 'share-alike' on the main page!
  • Moved the 'Portals' section into the left hand column for balance.

-- PeterIto 16:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The current layout is subtantially broken with IE. Further please reduce the amount of redundant text that seems to be turning up, there is no need to point out that a link leads to more information when it is already appropriately named. And one more thing, a significant amount of useful information doesn't seem to be reachable via the main page anymore, for example the name of the OSM Twitter account. SimonPoole 10:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • IE9 seems to work OK, what exactly is broken for you and which version of IE are you using. I note that changes have been made to the table formatting recently - but can't comment on the effect of these. Regarding redundant text, can I suggest that you make any changes you feel are appropriate on Main page beta and in relation to Twitter, we can indeed add a link to Twitter, but I am not aware that there ever has been such a link on this page. Again, do suggest what you would like to see and where it should go. PeterIto 19:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fyi, Twitter is linked from the Help page, as are the mailing lists and many other resources. We could potentially create a line in the Portals section at the bottom of this page for things like email lists and twitter etc. Would that be helpful? PeterIto 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now integrated the above proposals onto the Main Page. Do please base any further discussion on this version, in particular discussions about IE compatibility and 'redundant' text'. PeterIto 19:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Link to contributors page

It has been pointed out to me that we lost the link to the Contributors page on the 4th Jan (my edit). I now notice that the copyright page doesn't contain a link to the Contributors page either. Any thoughts as to whether we should put the link back on this page and/or get someone to update the copyright page with a link 'Contributors'? PeterIto 16:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

IMHO we are under an obligation to provide the contents of the page in a reasonable form. Obviously a solution that merges this in some way with the other attribution page is what we should be aiming at, but as long as we don't have that. We should revert the change. SimonPoole 16:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think 'reverting the change' from the 4th Jan which removed the 'download and use data' include would be sensible given that all of the other links within the include are already been integrated into the main page. We could, however include a link to Contributors from somewhere else on the page. Would that be acceptable to you? PeterIto 17:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The 4th Jan change also lost the Quick contacts template. I think that should be added back as well, as it was useful for showing ways of connecting with the OSM community EdLoach 11:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
However... the quick contacts include was a pretty random list of stuff - for example there was no mention of Twitter or the copyright infringement contact details in that template. All of these are available in the Help page which is also available from the menu. Personally I would suggest that we add a line to the 'Portals' template for 'Community' with the key links to mailing lists, twitter, copyright infringement etc etc and also retire the Contact page by merging it into the Help page and turning it into a redirect - that way all the contact details are available directly from the left hand 'help' menu and the key ones are available from the 'Portals' template on the Main Page. PeterIto 13:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I've fast tracked one of Peter's rewordings seen on his Main page beta so that we now have a Contributors link somewhere on the main page. It's also just been added to the wiki sidebar though. -- Harry Wood 10:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Further adjustments following comments above

In response to comments above I have created a new proposed main page (see Main page beta) and a new proposed Portals template (see Portals page). Note that the adjusted Portals template does not appear in the proposed new Main page, but both will be updated together if the changes are approved. I will update the main pages in about 48 hours unless there are objections. The main changes are:

  • To tightened up text on the Main Page to reduce bulk
  • A new row for 'community/support' in the Portals Template, including a link to Twitter, mailing lists, IRC etc.
  • Links to the Contributors page from both the Main Page and from the portal.

-- PeterIto 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Having noticed that there was no link to the Foundation or blogs from the main page I have added links to these from Portals beta. Also to the OpenGeoData blog. PeterIto 08:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The OpenGeoData blog is already listed on Blogs, I'd say that the direct weblink is redundant.-- Tordanik 19:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. PeterIto 03:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I have also added links to Donations and Import in the 'contribute' section. PeterIto 08:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we drop the "Routes" line please? The "Other maps" (links to List of OSM based Services) belong to either "Using OpenStreetMap" or "Software", imo. And the "Bicycle" and "Hiking" links have no more reason to be listed there than, say, Buildings or Addresses - they are just overviews of tagging for a particular topic. --Tordanik 19:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree with you. I have made the adjustments you suggest. PeterIto 02:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have done some further clarification work on the Portal template on Portals beta; mainly by reorganising existing links into clearer categories with clearer text, also added wkink to Data Primitives. PeterIto 03:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The changes described above are now live on the main page and Template:Portals. PeterIto 21:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


Can I paste Vespucci and!? --Canabis 11:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Software" section in the portals box currently only includes overview pages, renderers that are used directly on the front page, and the top 3 editors. Is there a good reason why Vespucci and should be added, while a lot of other programs are not? There are several editors more popular than Vespucci according to Editor usage stats. --Tordanik 12:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Adding a link to those things would open the floodgates. There are hundreds perhaps thousands of apps and software projects in and around OSM which we could link to from the main page. We have to weigh up the importance of links and other use of space on this page. At the moment it's easy to have things like this linked temporarily particularly via the news boxes (And incidentally the developer of gary68 was playing this game for a while by announcing every point release there, and so it already gets more Main Page linkage than it deserves in my opinion. I mean how many people actually use ) .-- Harry Wood 14:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Can we change the link to the twitter account in the portals section to the wiki page? --Flaimo 17:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Make a lot of sense given that there are many different twitter accounts for OSM. I have adjusted the link in the portals section as requested. If by chance anyone objects to the change then let's discuss it here and possibly revert the change, however I think that is very unlikely. PeterIto 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick contacts

See 'Link to contributors page' section above as a background to this comment

The quick contacts was very useful, and probably what a lot of people are looking for - I think it should be added back. There are often people saying they never knew about the forum/mailing lists etc. Having it as a single line hidden in the portals template or the sidebar doesn't help much. Though its true that the quick contacts template should be improved, with a link to etc. I don't think Twitter is useful as a link on the contacts. --Vclaw 16:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that we add Contacts to the sidebar for starters and also add a new row to the main 'Welcome to OpenStreetMap' table rather than creating an additional inclusion. Would that help? PeterIto 19:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar review

Discussion about sidebar moved to MediaWiki talk:Sidebar. PeterIto 15:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese main page

I started to update the Vietnamese main page to reflect the recent changes in the English version. But after applying a bit of artistic license and getting carried away, I ended up with something completely different. (Automatic translation into English) It's pretty minimalistic compared to the English version, because I tried to whittle the lists of links down to something less intimidating to newcomers. (I think you can still reach most of the remaining pages via the links I kept.)

The first thing you'll notice is a big slippy map up top. If for whatever reason a newcomer first lands on our wiki instead of the main map, it's the slippy map that'll draw them into the project, not a list of links or verbose introduction. The map widget is documented in detail. It could act as a second "featured images" section for showcasing well-mapped areas. It also comes with a link to the Wikimedia Toolserver's localized map, since in my opinion that's a big advantage over every other map service.

The rest of the portal is broken down into six sections, the first three for the audiences we'd expect at the wiki: end users, contributors, and Web developers. I tried my best to tame the existing Image of the Week, news, platform status, and events templates for the remaining sections.

For wide screens, the slippy map fades out on both ends. For narrow screens, the columns wrap more or less gracefully. I haven't tested the design in Internet Explorer, so it probably looks hideous there.

I realize you've all put a lot more thought into the English main page, so it'd be unfair for me to ask for the Vietnamese one to be adopted wholesale. But I hope some of the ideas there can be incorporated into the other main pages. Please let me know what you think!

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:48, 26 March 2012 (BST)

Really nice! I have added a link to the English translation to your comment above. PeterIto 17:36, 26 March 2012 (BST)
Yeah really nice. The fadey effect on the map is clever. I don't know if we'd want to put a map on the Main Page really, but I like the effect! Perhaps the most useful idea there is to contain the events list in a scrollable box. I think we should do this on the english main page. The events list has always been too big. -- Harry Wood 12:38, 27 March 2012 (BST)

Wiki discussion

There's currently no link whatsoever to the main discussion venue for the wiki itself, this should be fixed. As far as I can see, it's Talk:Wiki. --Nemo 10:28, 16 August 2012 (BST)

Copyright infringment should be under legal, not community.

In Template:Portals. That's about it; it has to do with legality more than community. - User:Tmcw 14:57, 13 September 2012

yup. I agree -- Harry Wood 16:36, 13 September 2012 (BST)

Where do we put information of technical projects

There is a page for projects collecting data, but doesn't appear to be any summary (or otherwise) pages on projects using/manipulating the data.

I'd like to add a page detailing an C# .Net processing system I've developed to import and render OSM data via an Sql Server database.

User:Derek bartram of 09:41, 20 October 2012

Cleanup this (and others) discussion page

Should there be some kind of cleanup process for the discussion pages - e.g. there is a section on here relating to someone who deleted some spam content which is months old. It has no ongoing value so should either be archived, or perhaps more sensibly deleted.

-- User:Derek bartram 09:13, 24 October 2012

Yeah this is quiet a big discussion page so we've archived it off on a couple of occasions. I'm not sure how wikipedia organises this. I think in the past i've made a value judgement and moved the discussions which seem clearly old and of limited value (as opposed to some which can be old but still relevant) Of course if we're too trigger happy, we'll end up archiving a discussion before people have read their replies. Best not to stress too much about it, but occasional cleaning is needed yes.
The other ongoing discussion cleanup hassle is to add people's signatures to their comments when they forget to do it themselves :-P
--Harry Wood 02:30, 25 October 2012 (BST)
Feel free to move no longer needed discussions to Talk:Main_Page/Archive, or in future other archive pages linked from top of Talk:Main_Page Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Remapping link more prominent

I've left this hopelessly late of course, but been trying to work out where on the Main Page we should link to license change info, and particularly the remapping guidelines for mappers. Then I noticed/remembered we've had it linked at the bottom of the news panel for a long time. I think it's appropriate to make this a little more prominent. Although license change is kind of a techy topic, not of interest to outsiders for example, the remapping page is one we'd like to get mappers to take a look at.

I'm making it in a light yellow box at the top of the news panel. Hopefully not too ugly. Of course we're hoping to be over and done with remapping very soon anyway so it won't be like that for long.

-- Harry Wood 13:34, 3 July 2012 (BST)

I agree that it's late (especially for the "Asking users to accept the ODbL", which slowed down significantly after April 1st), but the placement in the news panel is fine imo. I've done the same for Template:DE:News now. --Tordanik 13:52, 3 July 2012 (BST)
I have added info to the Licence change. I think, we should temporarily move the Licence link to same place at wiki, where we create information about new licence. The page Open_Database_Licence could serve as a good start. --Jakubt 15:20, 16 July 2012 (BST)

"We are changing the license" Except we have. News Template doesn't really need to talk about the change - just leave the news entry that it changed. Also under Licensing in the top left box, text needs changing (we really don't need the link to redaction bot progress any more). Can't think of suitable wording though. --EdLoach 10:33, 15 September 2012 (BST)

I've changed the wording to indicate we have changed it, and link to the OSMF blog post. It could likely do with a complete rewrite but it's an incremental improvement. Pnorman 06:55, 18 September 2012 (BST)
OK. The link to remapping is important at the moment, but becoming progressively less important. We can drop the yellow box entirely at some point. -- Harry Wood 18:56, 19 September 2012 (BST)
Just swapped it from yellow to grey -- Harry Wood 02:38, 25 October 2012 (BST)
Several months after the license change now. The Remapping page is happily no longer important at all in my opinion. Most areas have either been remapped pretty well. Some areas never will be, and the gaps will be discovered by natural map progress instead. Frederik decommissioned his OSMI layer for those kinds of reasons I guess. I think Edloach was suggesting we don't give it special position in the news template and just leave it as a news item which will disappear off the bottom soon. Sounds good to me. I guess I will add a link to remapping from news entry and drop it form the news box header -- Harry Wood 02:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
DONE - Harry Wood 15:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Refresh maybe?

Hi, I've created proposal of bit refreshed main page. Feel free to edit and comment. Yarl 15:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why you didn't include the language template in your demo page? I think due to its standard placement at the top it would have a noticeable effect on how the page looks? And do you propose update the style of templates used elsewhere in the wiki, too, or is this design refresh limited to the front page? --Tordanik 16:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I want to add lang. template on main page, but current one isn't look nice. Well, I want to standarize country WikiProjects and templates like {{ValueDescription}}, but I need to test them first. Yarl 16:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey, that looks like Wikidata! :^) The overall style is quite pleasant, though I find the duplicated OSM logo on the right a bit odd. Earlier this year, I developed a layout for the Vietnamese main page based on a large slippy map and compact lists. My main objectives were to tame unwieldy sections like Events while adding a bit of interactivity with the slippy map. I think your design and mine would make a great combination. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 11:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
+1 It looks very good. Why this has not been adopted yet and what has to be done to adopt it in the current version of the main page? Paweł Paprota 17:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
+1 It looks nice --Kendzi 17:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I like the general look. Suggest to tone down the bars a bit (would prefer green bar to match one of the logo greens). What about the +/- buttons in the headlines - have you forgotten them or omitted them on purpose? And I think we need the language thing back else lots of people will complain. I argued against it in the past and was shouted down ;) --Frederik Ramm 21:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Moderate rework"

I don't like some aspects of yesterday's "moderate rework". The introduction at the top is nice and was also part of Yarl's suggestion above, but the almost complete removal of any kind of border around the various boxes doesn't look good at all imo (and it wasn't discussed beforehand either as is usually required for changes to the Main Page). I suggest to either implement Yarl's design, or revert the boxes to the previous look. --Tordanik 16:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should have been discussed. Reverted. -- Harry Wood 17:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm open to discussing changes on a mailing list or in issues. I don't think that the policy of 'discussing' on this talk page is very effective, and actually that it's much the reason why this page has stayed consistently ugly and incomprehensible for more than three years. Tmcw 02:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Well sometimes the mailing list is the place for discussion, sometime the wiki talk pages are better. That can be a source of confusion/tensions particularly around changes to tag documentation (It created a strange kind of wiki fiddlers versus mappers debate at times) Did you discuss on the mailing list? In the case of cosmetic redesigns to the wiki Main Page I think it's well established that here on 'Talk:Main Page' is the best place to discuss this. If you want to discuss the matter on the mailing list, you'll need to cross-post / link here because everyone else discussing it here. Sorry if that seems unreasonable.
The idea of insisting upon discussion before making changes, was introduced in relation to content and prominence of links, because people have occasionally added crappy ideas as links on the Main Page. But it does apply to restyling of the boxes on the wiki page too. Again, sorry if that seems unreasonable. If I understand your point correctly, you're saying the styling of the boxes has made the Main Page "consistently ugly and incomprehensible" for the past three years, and that insisting on discussing changes first has prevented improvements, or had some kind of chilling effect over that time. Interesting theory. You may be right, but it balances against other benefits. In any case, as far as I'm aware this is first time anyone's expressed a particularly strong opinion about the current style of the boxes. I would have thought the matter would have been discussed more often if everyone really felt the boxes are "ugly and incomprehensible". It's also the first time anyone seems to be questioning the common sense of discussing changes first, and it's the first time anyone has decided to restyle the boxes without discussing it.
So your idea seems to be to drop some of the 1px borders (or all of the borders? you actually applied the change inconsistently across some but not all the boxes). We can discuss it, but the timing seems bad. We were actually in the middle of a discussion about restyling the boxes. I guess you didn't see that. What d'you think of Yarl's boxes style above?
-- Harry Wood 13:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
+1 for discussing widely before changes are made (ideally presenting the alternative suggestion visually like Yarl as done it). The big "PLEASE DISCUSS FIRST" message in the page source has been there since 2009 at least and even if someone thinks it stands in the way of progress, simply ignoring it cannot be the answer. --Frederik Ramm 21:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Contribution List

Can we add one more item to the "Contributing" list as follows in order to encourage people to contribute more to the cleanup of the wiki itself: --yigiter 2 Dec 2012

I wonder whether we should also add links to the bug trackers for the most important OSM tools. There has been a comment on help recently that the usage of trac isn't easy to spot. --Scai 18:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Link for developers should be more exposed

The Develop page (developer "portal") is linked only from the rather vague "Create better tools" link. Link for developers should be front and center on the home page. I think it could be done as a separate main headline after "Contributing" - something like "Developers". It is just too important to be buried. I can do the changes but apparently it needs to be green-lit... - Paweł Paprota 17:08, 10 December 2012 Ppawel

+1 for more prominence to developing for and with OSM. The "developing for" could actually fit under "contribute" but the "developing with" maybe not... --Frederik Ramm 21:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Frederik. We discussed exactly this topic at EWG meeting today and last week also - the separation between developing "for" and "with" OSM. I think there could be a single general "Developers" link and under that link a developer would get more information about this separation and also relevant links to further content for each "side". But I think anything really will be better than the current situation... Paweł Paprota 21:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
"I can do the changes but apparently it needs to be green-lit" I think you're referring to my rule described above. Just to clarify... It's not necessarily a matter of green lighting changes. On this page we have a special rule, that all changes must be have a corresponding discussion on this talk page. This doesn't preclude people from making a change immediately provided they add the discussion immediately. You might do this if you're confident the change will be widely agreed upon, otherwise discussing in advance of a change is better.
I understand this rule and I agree with it. Sorry for my hasty comment about green-lighting - it sounded like I was angry at this "red tape" but in fact I was just frustrated by the fact that there's no link to developer stuff... Paweł Paprota 12:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Anyway yes, a "Development" link used to be more prominent actually see this version in December 2011 before Peter made some changes. Lots more links and text were added, and the Development link got sidelined a bit. I agree it should be boosted in prominence somehow.
-- Harry Wood 12:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think restoring the "Development" link is probably the best way to do it. Paweł Paprota 12:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
DONE. I also created a new landing page for developers - Developers, need some feedback about it. Paweł Paprota 18:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Navigation by use cases

I proposed a reorganisation of the wiki navigation, which would imply bigger changes to the main page. I would be happy to get your opinions about it. --Cantho (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sidebar translation?

Hi, I would like to change some text and links in Czech version of the sidebar (main menu on the left). I am not able to figure out how to do so. Could you advise me please? Chrabros (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to ask an administrator to edit the necessary interface messages for you. The sidebar links are defined in MediaWiki:Sidebar. Everything currently to the right of a | is the name of an interface message that holds the link text; for instance, mapfeatures refers to MediaWiki:Mapfeatures, which contains the text "Map Features". By editing MediaWiki:Mapfeatures/cs, an administrator can translate the link text when the interface is in Czech. Likewise, everything to the left of a | is the name of an interface message that holds the linked page name. So MediaWiki:Mapfeatures-url/cs should be edited to say "cs:Map Features". – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 12:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clear explanation. Chrabros (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Calculating shortest path on maps

My project is about calculating the shortest path between several points .get this points from database, run a shortest path algorithm on them and then draw this path . how could i do this using OpenStreetMap ????????????

- User:Aya eltokhy 21:48, 6 April 2014‎

Hello. You are asking this question in the wrong place (This page is for discussion the wiki Main Page contents)
We have various Contact channels. As your question is not very specific, maybe would be a good place for this.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change the main page

In January, I proposed to organise navigation in this wiki by use-cases, which implies fundamental changes to main page. During the extensive discussion I incorporated a lot of feedback into the proposal. One month ago the last wave of discussion ended and now I feel ready to propose to apply the proposed new main page, which would imply to link several navigation pages (example) from the main page.

Main improvements are:

  • The new main page is consistently structured by use-cases. The current main page is partly structured by features, for example the "Software" group in portal block.
  • The new main page has a hierarchy in use-cases, taken from the amount of pages related to each use-case. The three primary use-cases are 1) use OSM, 2) Contribute map data and 3) Software development. The three secondary use-cases are 1) about OSM, 2) Other ways to contribute and 3) General help.
  • The new main page layout, adapted from, is lighter through the introduction of navigation pages, which shifts many links away from main page. See the list of omitted links to be sure that all links stay accessible through the new navigation pages.

Now I would like to change the current main page to the proposed one. As far as I can see, there is no defined procedure to decide about that. My hope is that we can do a vote and get a consensus about it (meaning that nobody is against it and at least some people support the proposal). So, please give me your vote about applying the proposed new main page.  :) --Cantho (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I support the change. You've obviously put a lot of thought into it, and it looks great. Thanks for the hard work. There's tweaks I would make, but we can discuss those later. -- Harry Wood (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg I support the change. Is it possible to fix the different start-heights of the left column and the right column? --LordOfMaps (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    I've changed this via an edit of Template:Calendar3, although this now makes the current main page look wonky. It won't hurt for a little while, I trust. Moresby (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. We talked about it before, great work! One small suggestion: Don't include Openstreetmap_logo.svg twice. --phobie m d 13:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --★ → Airon 90 13:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. The existing page is a hangover from when we were a much smaller project with a link farm of pet projects added to it. The new page gives a makeover like the one the map has benefited from. --Andrew (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
A followup: other pages linked from the main page should be as clear as the new ones.--Andrew (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Another followup: having pages called Use OpenStreetMap and Using OpenStreetMap both linked from the front page could confuse people not understanding what the difference is meant to be.--Andrew (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I'm confused about that. See Talk:Use OpenStreetMap -- Harry Wood (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I support the change with minor tweaks. Only one of these tweaks I see as crucial and that is to add the Contributor Terms link from the Portal box (that is being dropped) to your Use OpenStreetMap page. My other two suggestions are (i) to keep the community links (e.g. by keeping the Portals Box but with just the community links), and (ii) to consider whether the presntation of "More about OpenStreetMap | How to contribute | Where to get help" can be improved. --RobJN (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Under the current state. Chtfn (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Use OpenStreetMap
Openstreetmap logo.svg
Using OpenStreetMap

Software Development
Develop and use the Platform

  • Use OpenStreetMap for your software
  • Contribute to the OpenStreetMap software
  • Edited to add a proposal (above) of how to integrate the top three link. No boubt you will come up with something much better :-) --RobJN (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A comment: has a template for the main page that the page in each language uses. Is that something worth doing here?--Andrew (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I like the new design. Great work. --Werner2101 (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I neutral this proposal. Okay! I do not have enough time (or rather willing to invest time) to get into the details of the proposal in-depth (although I was discussing in an earlier stage), so I think I should not vote "pro". The change project seems to be very good planned (e.g. list of omitted links) and thought about (at least compared to the low activity in our wiki), so if you, Cantho, think that it is ready, go for it. Thank you for your effort, Cantho! Some ideas:
    Note 1: One issue which comes to my mind: what about translations? I did not find a planning or concept at Talk:Wiki_organisation#Navigation_by_use-cases.
    Note 2: There are some other bits which are improvable, but that is not really in scope of this redesign (e.g. the use of the words "the map" – we do not have only the one and only map. At the help centre people are often confused about the several maps... and we do it wrong ourselves, how should they know better?).
    Note 3: tables for layout is not the best thing to do. Tables are for structured data. Using divs and css would likely be better. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Great work on the new design, well thought of and a good improvement all round. Martin Renvoize This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 18:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your feedback! After one month of vote nine people supported the proposal, one person was neutral (given reason: no time to go into detail) and nobody oposed it. The last vote is three weeks ago. I think, the proposal is ready to go online. There were some (smaller) suggestions, as there will always be, but I think it's good to implement the changes as they were proposed and voted on, and then people can continue on improvements if they want. I don't have the right to change the main page, thus I asked a sysop (User:Harry Wood) to do the changes. Let's enjoy the new main page :) Best wishes --Cantho (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a text one could put into the news box: "The main page was redesigned to be lighter and strictly use-case oriented, and we introduced navigation pages." --Cantho (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a few ongoing tweaks we'd like to make. I suggest these are put forward as new discussion headings here.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


I think the biggest casualty of this change is that interesting information about project has gone missing. Daily stats and other stat graphics have no access point. I finally found the user stats link on a German language page. I would think that stats would be an important use case. At least that's what inspired me as a young mapper. (Dr Kludge) 25 Aug 2014

Missing Whitspace

Hi, i miss some whitespace between the meta-info and the calendar.. Greetz, GercoKees (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, see this comment from me above:
I've changed this via an edit of Template:Calendar3, although this now makes the current main page look wonky. It won't hurt for a little while, I trust. Moresby (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It was a temporary change to allow the new page proposal to be viewed correctly. The proposal looks as if it's going ahead, in which case this problem wil disappear. If the new proposal doesn't happen, for some reason, someone need simply undo that edit. Moresby (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Problem disappeared. --Cantho (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Cut down Meta Info

Most of the below-the-line boxes have contents that change frequently, the static links have gone to navigation pages. With Meta Info, only the platform status is that sort of information. If we trim it down we can also get rid of the unclear name.--Andrew (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand your proposal, sorry. Do you want to remove the Meta Info box from Main Page? Or the platform status link? --Cantho (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I want to keep the platform status and get rid of the links to statistics and feeds.--Andrew (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Stats is already linked on About, and I added Feeds to About. [4] is linked on Stats, thus all three links will stay accessible after removing them from Main Page. I approve the proposal. --Cantho (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I further propose to completely remove the current Meta Info box (thus also to remove Platform Status) and instead add a mesage box on top of the calendar box, which only appears if Platform status is not ok. I suggest to link Platform Status on Develop, when removing it from Main Page. --Cantho (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Make country pages easer to find

The mew front wiki page is a significant improvement over the previous version, however it has made one issue worse: it is very unclear where the country specific wiki pages are. This is likely simply a wording issue, most people don't (does anybody) think of the country/local stuff as a "Mapping project..." I would suggest replacing "Browse the Mapping projects" with "View Country and Thematic resources" or similar. SimonPoole (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah they're gradually being sidelined for some reason. We used to have Mapping Projects linked in the sidebar, and the list of countries was on that page, but that list was moved onto the title "List of territory based projects". The list of countries is an import page on the wiki to my mind, so (as I mentioned at the time Talk:List of territory based projects) it was maybe a shame it got hidden away with a clumsy long name. -- Harry Wood (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually I think country specific stuff as a Mapping project :) Anyway imo we can link more specific from main page, since there's only Mapping projects related to either countries or cities or specific features. Everything else listed on Mapping Projects is not really a mapping project. What do you think about "Browse the mapping projects for countries or specific features, or search for your city."? I would then clean up Mapping Projects: Focus it on mapping projects on specific features, (additionally) link List of territory based projects there and move the rest to where it belongs (for example WikiProject Semantics to Contribute map data under "Tagging"). --Cantho (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Review of translations of the new main page

There are a few translations of the new main page now. The translatable headings for the boxes at the bottom are often not being translated. The markup to use them (with headings in English) is:

{| role="presentation" style="margin: 0;border:0;" width="100%" cellspacing="10"
| valign="top" width="50%" |
{{Image of the week | Image of the week | Other featured images}}
{{News | News}}
{{osm_metainfo | p_status=Platform Status}}
| valign="top" width="50%" |
{{Calendar3 | Event Calendar}}

(slightly different if your language community is capable of maintaining its own news box)

If the main page in English uses these explicit strings it would make the translation of the headings more discoverable.--Andrew (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Functionality and reliability under opensource conditions.

Hi all, after (and in) several discussions on tags and localities, I have tried to write something like a meta-instruction: Mappers, evaluators and feedback.--Ulamm (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

suggested changes to 1060762 version

  1. unlink "Develop and use the Platform"
  2. link "Use OpenStreetMap for your software" to Using_OpenStreetMap#Software_development
  3. link "Contribute to the OpenStreetMap software" to Develop or even Develop#Main_Projects

Also, remove following text from Develop:

There are two major ways you can get involved in OpenStreetMap:
By developing the OpenStreetMap Platform itself. This includes the website and related components and services.
By Using OpenStreetMap. You can "use" OpenStreetMap data and services together with software and services from our community to build anything you want.

Xxzme (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That part of the navigation/ main page can definitely be enhanced. The currently linked Develop is about both, development of OSM and development with OSM. It's for that reason, that currently Develop is linked as the general entry point for both use cases. Splitting like you propose should be done on Develop before it's done on the main page, in my opinion. I already proposed that, but got negative feedback, see the disc. --Cantho (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes and sadly Tordanik forcing that Develop should be single page for anyone. [5]
I think we should create portals:
and leave Develop as simple Disambig afterwards. Xxzme (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the page was created not long ago with the goal to offer a single point of contact for developers, and imo that's a pretty good idea. I believe the two audiences are very, very similar. There also is no clear boundary, as creating a map that is used in the OSM community is the same process as creating a map for external users. So the synergies pretty much outweigh the differences.
Look at the infoboxes: Most of the content of the left one is also relevant when using OpenStreetMap for development. Likewise, the contact information below, as well as the knowledge of editors and libraries, are relevant for non-core developers.
And ultimately, there's something to be said for not changing pages all the time for minuscle improvements. If the current state has no big flaws (which this page definitely has not), then perhaps we should leave it alone. If we change a page, it has to be translated all over again, all the wiki links need to be modified, old links from outside the wiki get destroyed and so on. If you take this into account when considering the usefulness, you come out far in the negatives with a page like this. --Tordanik 12:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There very clean boundary. I don't want to show content only for Category:Development_of_OSM (especially always outdated stuff like Category:Development of OSM/requested features to all Software developers (Category:Development).
I don't see how information about source code of iD (JOSM/ will help somebody to deploy their own Mapnik/whatever.
I don't see how informations about translations of iD (JOSM/ will help somebody to deploy their own Mapnik/whatever. Xxzme (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Categories are a comparatively rarely used feature, and should hardly dictate how to split or merge pages. And you mentioning examples of the few things that are not relevant for both groups does in no way change that most of the content is mutually relevant. --Tordanik 13:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Here is list of "few things" from Develop:
And only after that there tiny link to Leaflet. Who will read this page? Xxzme (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Fund raising drive 2015 banner

To promote the recently launched I've put a big fat banner on the Main Page (within the news box). Hopefully we'll hit the target within a reasonable timeframe, at which time we can remove that banner again -- Harry Wood (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

How to link from a wikidata item to a way

Wikidata can already link to a point, using coordinates. Wikidata would also really like to link from wikidata items like countries, towns, motorways, rivers to a 'way' which defines the borders (including ways for historic/obsolete borders) of these linear and spatial objects. There has been talk of having a datatype for ways in wikidata but the general feeling is that OSM is a much more sensible place to create, edit and maintain such geographical objects rather than wikidata trying to duplicate your efforts somehow. The problem is that Wikidata keep being told that OSM doesn't have any stable ID for such ways.

Please join the discussion at Talk:Wikidata#How to link from a wikidata item to a way if you have a comment on what could or should be done about this. Filceolaire (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

link "creative, productive, or unexpected ways"

We should expand They are using OpenStreetMap and link "creative, productive, or unexpected ways" to They_are_using_OpenStreetMap#OpenStreetMap_data

1. good promotional page 2. good overview page for begginners Xxzme (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer the "mission statement" to mostly stand for itself, rather than containing links. (THat includes the existing link, but that's not the topic here.) While such an overview could indeed offer some additional motivation for beginners, it's not so important that it needs to be linked within the first two sentences on the page. As for general issues with the "They are using OpenStreetMap" page, I've added a note on its talk page. --Tordanik 07:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Link to the wiki from the Help page

The OSM Help page only mentions the wiki at the very bottom. Given its usefulness, shouldn't it be at least before the Mailing Lists ? The RedBurn (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

All the most useful links are on the home page, they necessarily address different needs for different users, including beginners, or regular contributors. Advanced contributors use the search tool at top to look for features and their doc directly. I would not say it is "useless". But you have a more specialized use of this wiki, where you no longer need the main page. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What I mean is that to get to the wiki main page (where we can then use the search tool), we have to go to the bottom of the Help Page and click on Why not put that link at least above the Mailing Lists link, which users click on much less often? The RedBurn (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
By the way, the wiki link points to the English version even for the French help page. Is there a way to fix that? The RedBurn (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC). Ok, I think that part is fixed. The RedBurn (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I still don't understand your issue. The search tool is already at top of every page on this wiki, not at the bottom. You don't need to go to the bottom of the Help page.
I think you are asking for something which is NOT a problem at all of this wiki but another website. So this cannot be discussed here, but on the relevant support page for that website, where's you'll contact their local site admins. — Verdy_p (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm talking about the OSM Help page. Do you know if there's a way to modify it or who we can contact? The RedBurn (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes. The link to the wiki from the was massively downgraded in prominence during a site redesign which took place a few years ago. What was once a single click on 'documentation' in the left hand panel (old design), became a click on 'help' -> scroll down past other things -> wiki link.
Note that many people who maintain the website, and generally in the wider OpenStreetMap community have lost patience with contributing to the wiki, which is the underlying reason why it has been downgraded in prominence. Sadly that's then a bit of a vicious circle, particularly when it comes to keeping the wiki representative of everyone's views.
So to answer your last question, the help page is part of the openstreetmap website, so maintained on the website github repo. It's generated in a rails 'view' here: (which is translatable, so see also text snippets such as these). But being a github repo, that's also one possible place to discuss this issue where it needs to be heard (not much point complaining to people on the wiki!). There must be other discussions about this, but I found this old issue, which was given short shrift. In general any Front Page Design discussion tends to go nowhere. That's a good thing in a way, otherwise the front page would be changing all the time!
-- Harry Wood (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Harry! I just created a pull request to move it to a higher position. About the issue that was closed, it seems that the creator mixed up the OSM main page with the wiki main page, leading to a misunderstanding. About the people who contribute less on the wiki, maybe is it because they don't have the time anymore. Anyway, I hope other people will maintain it, because it's the main source for mapping instructions, leading to good practice (and not just those). Of course, they have to find the wiki first. The RedBurn (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

New Icons and Tools

I just wanted to acknowledge this. I love the new Icons, and the reflect tools made me scream of happiness! (These are the things that exite me in life xD) But yeah, thanks to the community! --AragonChristopherR17z (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Uploading building layer -Colombo highrise residential


I am planning to upload a building layer of the high-rise apartments in the city of Colombo (Sri Lanka). It contains the footprint of the buildings, number of floors and the name of the building where the information were available.

I was advised to first consult the community before uploading the data.

Please follow this link to download the osm file.

Looking forward to your response.



Hi, please check out the Import Guidelines and follow the instructions. --Lyx (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Cyprus borders

Hello. There are some Data and Resources (esriREST, json, wms, SOAP) about Cyprus borders. [6]. It has the borders of municipalities (with their quarters) and communities. I don't know how to use them. How can we add these borders to openstreetmap? Xaris333 (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

License (CC BY 4.0) is incompatible with OSM license. You would need convince them to release it under CC0 or ODbL or something else that is compatible Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Correction: CC-BY-SA is not fully compatible (with the way its existing "Share Alike" restriction is written), but may be with an additional waiver that needs to be signed: there's a dedicated page about CC-BY-SA 4.0 which makes it possible, and an online form which details why the waiver is needed. But CC-BY is more liberal (open data from Australia was accepted under CC-BY !). Make sure you identify the source and the exact licence. The only requirement is attribution, but there's full freedom of adaptation (which then allows preparing the data for OSM before import, and allows further changes and edits, and changing the resolution of data for higher scales). — Verdy_p (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
So, what I have to do? Xaris333 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you really need that data ? Are there really borders missing or mucch less accurate than those in the dataset ?
For my CC-BY 4.0 is valid for OSM (CC-BY-SA is not), as it just requires attribution, and allows derivation/modifications/transformations needed for the integration and reuse of related objects not part of the dataset you want to use. Note that you cannot blindly import it because there's already lot of existing data. But it may be used in a background layer to improve the existing data (without erasing and redrawing, as it will often erase other useful data). For me all municipalities (and higher level entities) are already present, but not all quarters. Be carefgul about the complex adminsitrative status of Cyprus, notably international borders, and the two competing governements with their own claims. Also be careful about the UN buffer zones which are overlaid on part of adminsitrative borders. Also some entities defined by the Repuyblic of Cyprus are not recognized by the Northern Cyprus government which rules de facto these areas. Avoid creating edit wars about them. It's already difficult to reach an acceptable consensus that can correctly represent all parties. — Verdy_p (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The quarters are important. For the municipalities under control of Cyprus Republic. Xaris333 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that this dataset comes only from the Republic of Cyprus and includes lot of data which is absolutely not in its control (including areas in the British bases, where there's only an agreement of usage by Cyprus population on both sides, provided they remain peaceful and are correctly identified, and respect the environment, and repect all Cyrpus laws that don't contradict the laws applicable by Britain). None of the data recognize anything about the UN buffer zones, Northern Cyprus, delimitation lines. At least there should be quarter delimitations based on demarcation lines. Cyprus is still far from reaching a peace agreement with coexistence in a federal systeml recognizing the two governments and even the application of British laws that were ratified by Cyprus and UK. Apparently all this data seems to reflect the old situation before the Northern Cyprus coup, and OSM wants to represent the world as it is effectively governed today (OSM makes no political choice, it is about serving people today in their curent situation, it cannot solve political problems).
Anyway I'm sure we can refine the approximative borders of municipalities, anf adding the few missing "quarters". But we also need to keep the place as well for the Northern Cyprus representation and reflect the world as it is today. There are several wyas to have concerted data, and I think that this should not be done alone, but by a concertation in a group of people from all parts, that want to work together and peacefully to represent their life. But many borders in this dataset are just theoretical and not effective today (so importing it as is will not help solve any problem and may just add to the confusion if this is not coordinated by local welcoming groups). Unfortunately it ithe the people of the Republic of Cyprus that voted against the peace agreement,when those in Northern Cyprus were ready to accept many concessions to create a federal system where communities could have coexisted and both governements would have coodinated their efforts to put an end the very complex situation. For now people just have to adapt constantly to veryu local situations, and OSM progresses more easily at a much finer level, and the adminsitrartive styatus is still not clear to be really important to help them (on all areas) in practice in their life.
There's no easy solution for now, as long as we don't balance the situation by also asking the point of view of the northern side (seen first as a respectable population rather than just trusting one governement or the other when they can't reach any applicable agreement). — Verdy_p (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Top banner promoting the last day of membership with a valid vote

Hi. I propose a top banner with:

--PangoSE (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)