Talk:Wiki/Archive 10

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Templates stop working in page with many table lines

In this page, the state and relation templates stopped working a few days ago, on the bottom of the last table. [see] I've noticed that it's probably due to a limit per page, because if I add or remove lines, the templates appear or disappear accordingly. Is there anything I can do to correct this? --AntMadeira (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Page is listed in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. It appears that there is a limit on template calls that has been reached. I don't think it has anything to do with the table. I don't know if it's possible to change the limit. The only way I can think of quickly is to substitute (insert and convert) the templates using "subst:" instead of standard including. E.g. {{subst:State|c=3|ju=4|ln=3|rl=4|fu=3}} --Chris2map (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I tried as you suggested, but the error persists... --AntMadeira (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
It works but you have to substitute many many template calls to get space from the limit and some more lines working, because each line needs several template calls. This is truly not a solution. In addition, substituting the template:State provides ugly source code to the wiki page. – Meanwhile, I recommend splitting the page into several, e.g. one for each district. --Chris2map (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
This page is too long and too big anyway. I suggest dividing it into subpages. maro21 21:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: answered, Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded tracks pages with this problem already Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Languages/div Mediawiki bug

Resolved: the error no longer occurs

I can't open Template:Languages/div. There is no page at all, only the name of an error and date. This is the first time I've seen such a bug. maro21 22:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The same for me:
[ecf673d83453ac48a248f2fa] 2021-05-03 23:11:13: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"
--Vazhnov Alexey (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Reported openstreetmap/operations/issues/533 --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 17:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The reply suggests that there is an issue with that wiki page. Since I do not even know what the template does I will not change it. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
As Template:Languages/div and Template:LanguageLink are no longer used since Minh rewrote Template:Languages and the wiki has never had any pages in Marathi the only real concern is what the underlying problem is. Has this been reported on the Mediawiki bug tracker? --Andrew (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I can only speculate that the lack of any Marathi pages on the wiki might have triggered the error. Since I removed this language, the database error no longer occurs. Mmd (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks like there is something wrong with the Marathi language in {{Languagename}} template.
See for example
{{Languagename|de}} -> Deutsch
{{Languagename|abc}} -> abc
but {{Languagename|mr}} throws an error
This template uses magic word #language but {{#language:mr}} works well.
{{#language:ar}} -> العربية
{{#language:br}} -> brezhoneg
{{#language:mr}} -> मराठी
I'm still thinking how to solve it. maro21 16:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The {{Languagename}} template was used enthusiastically by, and over-engineered by, a former wiki contributor for purposes such as enabling links to Wikipedias in languages without Mediawiki support. Many (not all) uses can be (and often have been) replaced with #language; {{Languages/div}} needed it for gcf: until the current language template made it redundant. --Andrew (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
We could revisit the remaining templates with languagename and convert as many as possible to #language. --Andrew (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say that we should get rid of the template:). There was a problem only with Marathi language but this language isn't used on this Wiki at all. I think there is a bug with the database somewhere, the template is ok. maro21 19:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Wiki:Babel templates was also affected through Template:Babel list of languages, fixed by replacing Languagename with #language. --Andrew (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I think I’ve found the problem. {{#language:mr}} (Marathi, native name) works correctly. {{Languagename|mr}} expands to {{#language:mr|mr}} (Marathi, in Marathi), which doesn’t. {{#language:en|mr}} (English, in Marathi) also fails. There is no problem with {{#language:mr|en}} (Marathi, in English) so OsmAnd renders. Tagalog has the same problem ({{#language:tl|tl}} fails) and there may be others that we don’t refer to on this wiki. --Andrew (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Good job! But where are these defined? Somewhere in the Mediawiki files? I've never seen source code of Mediawiki and I don't even know where to look for. I checked your examples on English Wikipedia and they work well. maro21 18:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC) --Andrew (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The same bug here: File:K9 BountyHunter.png and File:Wetter Atlantiksturm.png. maro21 21:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if it's related, but I'm seeing this issue with a creative but valid invocation of {{Tag}}: Template talk:Tag#Database error with HTML character entity reference to emoji. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 02:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't open Key:tracktype nor any other language version: Item:Q784. The bug must be somewhere in the data item because {{KeyDescription|key=tracktype}} itself generates an error. maro21 20:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a broader problem than I thought: No tag or key page that has a description in Hebrew can be opened, see:
But it's not this user's fault, because not long ago I was accessing some of these pages and everything was working. Have there been any recent MediaWiki updates? Because sorting by namespace in Recent Changes doesn't work either. maro21 21:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I can open all of those: I don′t see descriptions in Hebrew by default but I get them if I view all languages. I can also view He:Key:fax and fax (Q268). --Andrew (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems that this error no longer occurs. Maybe it has been corrected in the new version of MediaWiki. maro21 21:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

new proposal namespace

Resolved: proposals were moved

Due to some random quirk in history, there is now a proposal namespace in this wiki. I would suggest to move the proposals there and update pages like Proposal process and Wiki organisation accordingly. What do you think? --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 13:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

What would be changed as the result for viewers and editors? In addition to search hiding proposals by default (if I understand things right) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
IMO proposals should show up in the search by default, so if we decide to move them to a new namespace we should IMO add it to $wgNamespacesToBeSearchedDefault. --Push-f (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

hiding proposals by default

That is not true! The search rank of pages in this namespace is slightly lower than the page rank of other namespaces. It means that if there are two pages with an identical relevance to a search term, the page in the proposal name space is shown underneath the other result. That namespace is searched by default. Additionally, one can use the advanced search to search the namespaces individually. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I got confused and they are searched from what I see, Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
What is "random quirk in history" supposed to mean? --Push-f (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
We had some issue. I requested a configuration change in October 2019 and then a technically enhanced one in March 2021 because other changes were made to the configuration in-between. I do not even recall the discussion back then. It is all linked in the first change request. The requests were not answered for years and now a number of requests has been answered within days. That is what I meant with "random quirk in history". --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah ok, thanks for linking these pull requests. I just noticed that you made a small typo and submitted a PR to fix that: [1]. Until that typo is fixed we shouldn't move any more pages into the proposal namespace because with the config error the talk pages currently end up in the main namespaces when moving a page to the Proposal namespace. --Push-f (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
What would be changed as the result for viewers and editors if this would be applied? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
You could exclude proposals from the search if you want to or search proposals specifically. You could also get an RSS feed just for edits to proposals. So you get more features. --Push-f (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I like the prospect of the proposals ranking a bit lower, to avoid confusing users who don't have a good feel for how much authority an inactive proposal carries. Some of the things under Proposed features aren't about features at all, like Proposed features/remove link to Wikidata from infoboxes and Proposed features/Add Translate extension to Wiki. The Proposal: and Proposal talk: namespaces could also be a home for some of the discussions that currently take place here at Talk:Wiki, with ample room to discuss without bloating an already bloated page. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 08:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
+1. I particularily dislike the Talk:Wiki archival process which regularly breaks all the links to discussions. --Push-f (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
+2. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Tigerfell: what this change would mean in terms of actual actions to be taken? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I originally intended to move all proposals into the proposal namespace. I have not done this yet. It seems like there is no opposition, so I would continue to implement this using TigerfellBot. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 14:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Deprecate status=draft?

If something is actually an incomplete draft or describes a failed idea - it should be moved to proposal space, without redirect.

If something describes actually use (in use), widely used (de facto) or unwanted (deprecated) tag then status of proposal does not matter at all.

In general, I propose to get rid of this status on tag pages and fix affected pages. Is there any valid use for that status? It seems to me that it just encourages putting drafts into main space instead of a proposal space.

See for list of pages with it (permalink). Is there any valid use there that would not benefit from changes mentioned above?

Pinging participants of previous similar discussion @AngocA: @Chris2map: is now listing pages which set status to draft Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I just stumbled over this: Why is the "draft" status value still listed as an allowed possibility on pages like Tag_status#Status_values or on Template:Description?
PS: I also noticed that the markup of pages with the now apparently invalid status "draft" is broken: It shows the category wiki markup (e.g. [[Category:Tag descriptions with status "unsupported “draft” statusHelp translate this into English!"|aeroway holding_position_line]] ) instead of a link to the category, and the "status" field in the infobox suggests to icon for "Help translate this into English", even though the string is already in English.
-- Tyr (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
PSS: Wouldn't the status "draft" at least be desired for tagging proposals which are actually still in a draft state, like this example: ? --Tyr (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
"::I just stumbled over this: Why is the "draft" status value still listed as an allowed possibility on pages like Tag_status#Status_values or on Template:Description?" - mostly because that was recent change with minimal feedback, so in case of good counteraguments it is possible to roll it back. So I changed only what was necessary to start listing it in Category:Feature descriptions with incorrect status value so clearly invalid cases can be fixed. And maybe some valid uses can be found? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
"Wouldn't the status "draft" at least be desired for tagging proposals which are actually still in a draft state, like this example" - I think that tag infobox templates should not be used on proposal pages. But editing templates to prevent category assignments in a proposal namespace is also possible Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I thought that using the info box on proposals could be useful: it's nice to see the taginfo stats, to have the links to external tools and to see how the image and description of the proposed tag would look like. But ok, I guess we could live with using the "undefined" value instead for these cases.
More importantly, I think the way this "deprecation" is implemented is pretty confusing: as it doesn't reflect the documentation and produces broken wiki markup and wrong error messages. Is there no better way to sort wiki pages into categories based on their status value?
-- Tyr (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
If someone has a simpler way to do this, help is welcome! Especially handling of invalid statuses definitely can work better in general and broken wiki markup should be not produced, rather a clear warning Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Note: in case of keeping this value after all, then changes in also need to be reversed. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC) - has only few remaining uses Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I strongly support Mateusz's arguments. It makes sense. It's good that we got rid of this status. I see that draft status is not supported right now and it has been corrected on tag and key pages. So I've corrected other occurrences of this status in places where it still remained, including data items ([2] 69 -> 3). Category:Tag descriptions with status "draft" and Category:Key descriptions with status "draft" are empty now and won't be populated anymore because the template was changed. However we still have Category:Proposals with "Draft" status. maro21 23:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: all 'draft' status occurrences have been corrected

drop status=rejected


That is status of a proposal, not of a tag.

"in use" tag where related proposal was rejected is still "in use" and should not get "rejected" stamp.

Also, this discourages making proposals, as proposal may lead to rejection vote and ugly stamp on wiki documentation page.

Not sure whether we had deliberately bad proposal to sabotage tag and get it status=rejected, but lets not encourage this.

Is there any case where tag page (not proposal page!) benefits from status=rejected being available?

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: I agree that the prospect of a "rejected" proposal might be a discouragement to bringing forward voting. Would a tag that was previously documented as status=rejected be tagged as status=proposed, or status=deprecated? Diacritic (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Diacritic: No automatic change, this depends on a tag. It can status=deprecated, status=in use, status=de facto, or trigger a discussion to confirm deprecation etc Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Right now Key:landuse:secondary would be affected - not sure is it status=deprecated or status=in use or "ask wider community" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Also would be affected and would need an update Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
"Is there any case where tag page (not proposal page!) benefits from status=rejected being available?" I think yes: If the tag was invented in the proposal and wasn't in use before. In that case the wiki should be somewhat prescriptive and make clear that the tag was considered but found to be bad. But of course: A tag should not become rejected by a rejected proposal if it was in use before. For that a deprecation proposal should be necessary which has a high hurdle. --Lkw (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
In this case I would consider deprecated or obsolete as a fitting status Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been thinking for a long time about replying in this thread. In the meantime dealing with other statuses. Yes, I agree with Mateusz that this is a PROPOSAL status, not a tag status, and tells the user nothing about whether or not to use the tag.

We have many "negative" statuses: deprecated, discardable, obsolete and... rejected. The difference between status=deprecated and status=rejected is that for deprecated tags we usually have an alternative tag to use, but we don't have it for rejected ones.

Status=rejected looks for a user like "the tag is rejected so it should not be used". Then the question arises "Then what to use instead?". Such a question is answered by status=deprecated, because then it says what is a replacement for that tag.

The same with abandoned status - a proposal can be abandoned, but not a tag.

Let's analyze as an example the vote on amenity=training. The tag had about 3,000 uses before the vote, then there was a vote that did not pass. But the status of the tag doesn't change because of it: [3] People in the vote didn't say that the amenity=training tag was bad, because the vote was also about other tags. Often it is the case that the proposal applies to many tags, not one.

If the status rejected were to remain then:

  • It should be called "rejected proposal" or "in use but proposal was rejected".
  • The tag should have exactly 0 uses (currently there is no such situation).

I retagged existing keys and tags with this status:

So Category:Key descriptions with status "rejected" is empty now.

So Category:Tag descriptions with status "rejected" is empty now.


  • Let's drop rejected status.
  • Let's keep status 'rejected' only for proposal. [11]
  • For tags with rejected proposal and minimal usage of the tag let's switch status to 'proposed'.
  • For tags with rejected proposal but when the tag is in use, let's switch to 'in use'.
  • If the tag was rejected in the voting, this is important information and should be mentioned in the beginning of the article but if it's in use, the status would be "in use". maro21 10:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
+1. I was actually going to propose something similar to your solution a while back but never had the time. Although with one difference being I was going to suggest introducing a "planned" status for proposals that are still in the planning stages. Since I feel like "proposed" insinuates the tag has been put forward for consideration or discussion by others when often times it hasn't been. Your suggestion is good though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

drop status=abandoned too

The same story is with status=abandoned. It is a status of proposals, not tags. And all the occurrences of this status on tags, keys and data items have been fixed.

maro21 19:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I have already removed status=abandoned and status=rejected and now removing the remnants. Progress below.

descriptions and documentation:

maro21 16:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! – Template:StatusLang/doc and Template:StatusLang/doc/table/row now are updated, too. --Chris2map (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

All done. maro21 20:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:GPL on images

Resolved: by Special:Diff/2534009. Thanks :) --push-f (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that Template:GPL is used 186 times on images in the File:* namespace.[12]


This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or any later version.
This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. See version 2 and version 3 of the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.

This template should only be used on file pages.

Note that the template says: "This work is free software" ... which obviously doesn't apply to images. I think the template should be reworded to clarify that this is a screenshot of free software. --Push-f (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Both the template and the license were not invented to be used with images, to my knowledge. Therefore it cannot fit properly. I would leave the text as it is to match the license. Our templates are not all made exclusively for images. There are better licenses for images that should be used. In the existing cases where the source is GPL, it's just the way it is. --Chris2map (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
@Push-f: I took a second look and I didn't quite get your point at first. Now, I added "This is a screenshot" to the template when it is applied on filepages (in the File: namespace). I think this causes less confusion, too. What do you think? --Chris2map (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


Resolved: fixed

I propose to remove "Duplicate content in a file format which is better suited for the content (e.g. SVG instead of JPG for drawings or charts)" section. There is no need to handle or mention it specially and I see no reason suggesting that it should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

+1 I support the proposed removal. Besides, there is a typo at the end of the first section "which are using Wikimedia Commmons." --Chris2map (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)



I'm thinking about creating an SHACL (the W3C Shapes Constraint Language) page at SHACL here on the Wiki. But I would like to know opinions upfront, since the page is a bit more generic. The idea would be both a very short introduction of what SHACL is and how it could be used with OpenStreetMap with examples, to work as a gentle introduction for people interested in the topic. But anything more specific (e.g. more detailed uses) might need more specific page. So if it gets used let's say for how to convert Infoboxes and textual rules (too complex for allowing convert Tag/Keys automatically into SHACL by script) into stricter validation checks, dedicated page for that could exist. Would take some time, but how to group the related pages would become relevant. --EmericusPetro (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

On the fly I would say with subpages, i.e. SHACL/Subpagename --Chris2map (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I will mark this as resolved

Web scraping specific pages of the Wiki


I'm aware at least the Infoboxes of the Wiki are web scrapped for metadata about the tags and this information can be taken from TagInfo. Could I do the same for something that's not the infoboxes, then invite people to edit the pages in the Wiki if they want to update the external release? Also, there's some way to know recent changes, so not even need to try downloading what's already cached?

My use case would be RDF reusable code snippets which cannot be automatically generated by other means plus GitHub automation to basic validation then compile the result files that would be used by ready to be used in software. For example, sense at least some version of the Elements in RDFS/OWL and other more top level reusable definitions, such part of what was proposed on Persistent_Place_Identifier, like some way to express equivalent as a search query on own database (e.g. the suggested approach from Relations_are_not_categories). That's it the use case --EmericusPetro (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"Could I do the same for something that's not the infoboxes" yes Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
"then invite people to edit the pages in the Wiki if they want to update the external release" - yes, as long as you ask them to map according to OSM Wiki rules (breaking OSM Wiki to get desired effect in external tool is not welcome) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
"Also, there's some way to know recent changes" - I would try parsing OSM Wiki dumps or checking api version of Special:RecentChanges Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@EmericusPetro: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: Great! About the "(breaking OSM Wiki to get desired effect in external tool is not welcome)" if I do draft some generic parser, based on feedback on Talk:Taginfo/Parsing_the_Wiki, I believe is better discuss ahead of time the way parsing is done and how the intermediate results are exposed (I'm thinking in document the output with JSON Schema + JSON-LD). Also, I'm less concerned with the tool or particular service, and more the conventions, so it could be ported to other programming languages --EmericusPetro (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick update. Pretty much early draft, however I think I can generalize the idea! This means it could be used by any other kind of tooling, not just the ones related to persistent identifiers, RDF, etc. But first I need some days to decouple some parts instead of writing in a single monolithic full thing. However, is viable expose codes on <syntaxhighlight lang=""> / "<source lang="">, the wiki tables as tabular format, then both an documented JSON of what to expect of the exposed metadata, and also some sort of zip download of inferred files on any page (for tables use CSV), just by using the page title. --EmericusPetro (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Taginfo usage counts

Do we need taginfo usage counts in value listing? It seems for me to not be crucial info and it further overload OSM Wiki pages, makes them even more unusuable on mobile devices.

Taginfo usage counts are shown in infoboxes of specific values already and putting more weight on raw usage counts seems to not be very useful.

I would propose to remove them from value listing rather than adding them

@Cyton: who added it to

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I didn't think about the server strain. I'm still new to editing the wiki. I think I'm going to create another personal page for it and remove the infoboxes which I have added.
Cyton (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Why does the template "Taglist|tags=bicycle_parking" only render two values and not more?
why is the Bicycle_parking template not a Taglist?
Cyton (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Taglists have multiple issues. For example: it is not documented what is the data source (see ), there is no ability to provide custom text/images, they are build dynamically by JS what is sometimes quite laggy, random bugs on data format accepted elsewhere on wiki, once sometimes goes wrong it is unclear how their content can be fixed. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
"Why does the template "Taglist|tags=bicycle_parking" only render two values and not more?" - no idea, I do not understand how Taglists work Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
It is less about server strain, more about overloading user with too much info at once. For most people reading tag listing is overwhelming already: adding bunch of numbers is not helping with this Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
"Why does the template "Taglist|tags=bicycle_parking" only render two values and not more?" - See Template:Taglist/doc: "The list will not contain all tags, but only those documented on the wiki. To be more specific: The tag page must exist and contain the Template:ValueDescription info box. This use is probably not what you want in most cases, because the list can and will change without you noticing and you might get strange tags in there you didn't want to have. So it is better to write down exactly what tags you want to have in this list." --Chris2map (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
In this case, I think the "taginfo" column can stay, because the table doesn't have that many rows. But I would remove the "element" column, because the values in the cells are the same - they refer to the key and don't differ for different values.
And to answer your question why Taglist only shows 3 values - because there are only 3 articles on the subject - see Key:bicycle_parking "Documented values: 3". maro21 21:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The edit was reverted, so the thread is
? maro21 21:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Image on Commons, does not work


Any idea what is going on with ? Note and Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it takes some time for the new photos to be indexed. They were added today. maro21 17:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed that the QuickInstantCommons extension [13][14] caches much more aggressively than the InstantCommons extension we used previously. This is frustrating, but I guess it's a reasonable sacrifice for fixing the performance issues we were seeing before. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Dealing with articles for deprecated tags that have zero usage

I can't remember the specific tag right now, but a few days I was searching for a tag that happened to have a similar one that has an article for it, which is depreciated, and the tag is unused. Yet it still came up pretty high in the search results, if not as the top result. Which seems pointless since the article doesn't have any documentation and no one is using the tag. Going by past experience there isn't the will on the part of some users to delete clearly useless articles like the one I'm referring to. At the day tough they serve literally zero purpose and no one is going to read them anyway even if they do. So would it possible to come up with a similar solution for this to how proposal pages are being treated by having their own sub domain so they don't pollute the search results or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully the wiki page for the deprecated tag has a prominent link to the replacement tag, so that should make it pretty harmless if searchers find the deprecated page first, right? JesseFW (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Can you be more specific which search is resulting this problem? Using RelatedTerm template is one of ways to fix it, without having specific case it is pretty pointless to discuss it in vacuum. Also, anyway currently zero use tags sometimes reappear or have some useful info on page. Again hard to say without specific case. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
@JesseFW: It doesn't really have anything to with the articles causing harm or not. People having to sift through multiple articles that aren't relevant to what they are looking for before find the correct one isn't helpful regardless of if it's technically damaging to anything. It's called having a half usable website and caring enough about people's time to not force them into wasting it by making them read articles that they didn't search for. Based on past experience and your comment it seems like usability isn't very high on the priority list. That's fine, but intentionally making OpenStreetMap obtuse as possible isn't really helpful, if anything it just turns people off from using the Wiki.
@Mateusz Konieczny: I'll try to find the original example. I disagree that just because a tag might be used again that it means the article for it should come up at the top of the search results or really be included in them to begin with. There's zero reason articles for depreciated tags that have zero usage can't be archived or something. It's not link there couldn't just be a link to the archived copy in the article for the new tag on the off chance that anyone wants to read it. Although at least IMO the chance of that ever happening is essentially zero. Even if it did though, the preferences of the two people who might want to read it later shouldn't come at the cost of degrading essentially everyone else's user experience. That said, if you want to put a certain amount of time it cool. I'd be fine with only moving or archiving articles for tags that haven't been used in X amount of months or whatever. I could really care less just as long as people don't have to sift through worthless, blank articles to find what they are looking for. Although the point in articles is to "document" how a tag is being used, which can't really be done with a tag that has zero usage and there's no guarantee that if the tag is ever used again that it will be used in the same way it was before being deprecated. So at least IMO the articles shouldn't really exist to begin with, but I'm willing to compromise by just having them archived or dealt with in another way besides deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
"that it means the article for it should come up at the top of the search results" - I have not claimed this, and changing that would be fine. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't saying you did. It was more just a general comment to help clarify what exactly the issue with having article with having blank articles for depreciated and unused tags is since it seemed like I could have been clearer about it in my original message. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Provide specific articles, then I can write something more. I have changed the title of this thread - tags can be deprecated, not depreciated. maro21 19:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: not actionable without specific info Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: whoever wanted to comment commented already, I think Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

What is your opinion about possible paid editing? I am asking as I am planning new possible grant that may involve things specifically related to OSM Wiki.

While it would be beneficial and enable doing more improvements it also has some problems.

  • For start, I am already quite effective on OSM Wiki and maybe being more active and crowding out others is a potential problem.
  • It may discourage others from editing - after all if someone is doing the same/similar things and gets paid, why I would do it for free?
  • Anything else?

And please let me know if you think that this reasons or other are serious anything to make this a bad idea.

Benefits would be that I would be able to do some things that would be otherwise unfeasible to me (after all, how much time can be justified as hobby? likely less than I spend on OSM Wiki).

  1. Improving Mediawiki black magic
  2. finding images that have problematic copyright status, and replacing them with ones that are not worse (or far better) and have a clean legal status, then requesting deletion of old ones (for potential targets see ones listed on User:Mateusz Konieczny/cleanup as used on OSM Wiki - scroll down till you see yellow ones)
  3. Asking people to clarify licensing status of already uploaded files
  4. legal research (what kind of things we can even keep as "fair use"? What are limitation of "fair use"? Is English-Wikipedia style fair use even option for OSM Wiki goven its juridistriction? Which juridistriction is even applicable in case of OSM Wiki?)
  5. Write tool that make easier to find case where existing low quality tiny image used on OSM Wiki can be replaced by superior one ( maybe using and at Wikidata to identify possible depictions? )
  6. Write easy to use tool to make (2) or (3) easier to do by others?

My previous grants for OSM work was GSoC for OSM Carto development, for StreetComplete work.

If you are in any way disliking this idea, thinking that paid editing in any form is bad - or that any of proposed activities is not obviously good idea - please let me know (if you are for some reason unwilling to post here feel free to PM me via OSM private message).

Right now I am in extremely early stage, basically I am looking at list of my ideas for projects and thinking how can I spend more time on things that I wanted to do anyway.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that the paid edition is not a problem as long as it respects the rules of the project.
I also think you do a good job, so having someone like you more often would only be good for the project.
Also, the fact that people are paid to improve the Wiki should be mentioned, (in my opinion this should be an obligation, like English of French Wikipedia for paid contributions)
I don't think you'll "crowd out" other people, there are just too few people (in my opinion) who improve Wiki and that we can't do anything about. The trick is to be open enough to accept constructive criticism (but this is not specific to paid contributions)
I wouldn't find my guide (NKMG) less accomplished or valuable because someone paid updates it, on the contrary, it improves the quality of the wiki and the resources available to contributors and that's the main thing. — Koreller (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
My 2 cents:
  • If you list previous grants, you should mention the OSMF microgrant you've received as well.
  • I don't have any objections to paid editing on the wiki, and I trust you to be transparent about it and handle any conflicts of interest responsibly.
  • I'm personally not convinced that the image cleanup work has a net positive effect for OSM, and I'm even more doubtful if it's the best possible use of your time. But that's for you and the people with the money to decide.
--Tordanik 15:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Moving the Category page will not add {{Category redirect|

Resolved: Feature, not a bug. Workaround provided. Duja (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If I move the Category page (for example when renaming/translating the page name), only a simple redirect #REDIRECT [[:Category:...]] is create, but not add {{Category redirect|...}}. I have to remember it and add it manually afterwards.

  1. Could this insertion be automated?
  2. If there is already a redirect to the page I am renaming, it will only fix #REDIRECT [[:Category:...]] but not {{Category redirect|...}}. -- Lenochod (talk) 11:33, 30. July 2023 (UTC)
This change should make category moves use {{Category redirect}} from now on. Thanks for the suggestion! – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen: First of all, thanks for your work.
Today I tested by renaming the page Category:Fi:Translation not complete to Category:Fi:Keskeneräinen käännös what you programmed:
  1. The added code before changing #REDIRECT [[:Category:...]] should be correctly embedded on this page, because it does the redirect to the renamed page if so it is not newly inserted into {{Category redirect|...}}.
  2. The correct format of {{Category redirect|...}} is without Category:, for example {{Category redirect|Fi:Keskeneräinen käännös}}, so the link in Category:Fi:Translation not complete is in red and not working. Just FYI, {{Category redirect|...}} doesn't do the redirect itself, it checks if there are any site links on the page where it's located. If so, it will automatically insert a link to Category:Fi:Translation not complete. And then I clean this up. -- Lenochod (talk) 9:46, 4. August 2023 (UTC)
@Lenochod: Thanks for giving this a try. I'm unsure if this particular MediaWiki message supports complex logic, so I instead modified the template to function correctly whether you include or omit the Category: namespace from the first parameter. This change will also convenience anyone who needs to add the template manually, since it can be difficult to remember which templates require the namespace and which ones don't. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 17:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen: Point 2. about {{Category redirect|...}} seems solved.
What does it look like with point 1.? Now, #REDIRECT [[:Category:...]] is not automatically inserted, so there will be no automatic redirection to a new page. See my test: Category:DE:Error_reporting. -- Lenochod (talk) 10:30, 25. August 2023 (UTC)
@Lenochod: Oh, I didn't realize you were expecting MediaWiki to automatically redirect the user away from the category page. I'm unaware of any wiki that implements a custom hard redirect for categories, in part because there may still be subcategories, pages, and files categorized under the old name. If we change it to a hard redirect, I wouldn't be surprised if HotCat and other gadgets would break. (With a soft redirect, HotCat automatically adds the page to the new category if you enter the old category.) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 10:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Archiving this page

Being a small wiki, I realize that we do not have written policies for a lot of stuff, and archiving this page seems to be one of those. Skimming through old archives, it seems that we only archive sections tagged with {{Resolved}}, but as a result we currently have a lot of old jun... um, not-really-resolved discussions that make this page hard to navigate. Would anyone mind if I archive stuff older than, say, 6 months, regardless of being properly resolved or not? Duja (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I would keep it, this page is not large enough to be problematic. Are there any cases which are unsolvable rather than waiting for someone to resolve them? And for cases like where idea makes sense but so far noone protested and noone did anything, and there are no real blockers to it: you can ping account who raised it, and if they do not care about this issue anymore and do not respond in say a month and noone is interested in doing anything with it - resolve section then. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, there are likely several resolved section. I quickly found 2 after reviewing just few of them. That would be nice first step Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I also tagged half dozen more, although I still think the page is overlong. A lot of that stuff is just stale, or moved to another venue such as Github. On Wikipedia adminboards they aggressively archive threads after a period of inactivity (up to a month), perhaps we should just transfer and run an archive bot here, with somewhat looser settings (6 months)? Duja (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I would mind. If the thread is unresolved, then it should stay here, because in a while someone will start another thread about the same thing and the discussion will be in several places. If the topic is resolved, it can be archived, if it's not, it stays here. This Wiki is not Wikipedia, here time passes much more slowly. maro21 17:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of keeping unresolved posts and sections here. --Chris2map (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: No archiving until the thread gets some kind of resolution. Duja (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Special:Upload - "content in a file format which is better suited for the content" can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons

"content in a file format which is better suited for the content (e.g. SVG instead of JPG for drawings or charts)" - can we move that out of "should be uploaded to OpenStreetMap wiki"? This type of file can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Assigning additional new data administrator for data item tasks

Resolved: --Chris2map (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! IMHO it would be good to have a second data-admin (user with administrator rights for data items) as mentioned here. For now only one user (Yurik) has to fulfill this role. Granting him a vice (runner-up) would be fair, wouldn't it? Is there an established process or example how to initiate this? Who can set admin rights? I assume the other wiki admins could. Maybe several of them could consult on this? --Chris2map (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki:Bureaucrats can set admin rights Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
It would be great to have more than one data item administrator around here. There are a lot of opportunities for new properties that would go beyond merely mirroring what's in infoboxes, and probably a lot of things that should be cleaned up in the meantime. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
+1, especially because Yurik seems to be inactive. --Push-f (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone has idea for which specific person should be selected? Maybe User:Minh Nguyen? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: I'd be willing to serve as a data administrator in addition to my current responsibilities as an administrator. I guess there would need to be a straw poll somewhere, similar to the process for adding an administrator. As a first step, I created Wiki:Data administrators, since we should have a page about each of the roles on this wiki. Regardless of who you'd like to nominate for this role, we can hold the straw poll on the talk page there (so it doesn't get buried here) and post an announcement here and in Template:News. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 00:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen: I'm already watching notifications for Wiki:Data_administrators. My account is too new to OpenStreetMap, and I am still learning the specifics of the OSM data model (so I will not even try to propose myself for something like this). However, what we could start doing for Data Items property is have discussions similar to Wikidata. 3 references of such discussions (which actually shows that admins mostly respond to consensus) there: , and so people like me and others could comment if need. But I do agree that is always good idea have at least one backup. --EmericusPetro (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Wow the @Minh Nguyen: already have experience on this xD! Sorry, I just noticed moments ago. He proposed tabular case data (P8204), OpenStreetMap numeric user ID (P8754), OSM Name Suggestion Index identifier (P8253) and others on Wikidata. I'm very sure he know the drill EmericusPetro (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh yeah, not to worry, I wouldn't act unilaterally without discussion when creating new properties. We already have enough avoidable deprecated properties like (DEPRECATED) excluding region qualifier (P27). – Minh Nguyễn 💬 08:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that it would be fine if you would nominate yourself? Or are you waiting for someone else interested in data items to start the process? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I see it the same way and support the nomination and designation. @Minh Nguyen: Are you still willing and if so, are you going for the bureaucrats? Or should / may I contact them with a nomination request? (In case I would ask and ping the following bureaucrats here on Talk:Wiki and simultaneously write email messages: Harry Wood, Lyx, Pigsonthewing, Steve). --Chris2map (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I support Minh Nguyễn. Let's do it. maro21 20:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. Andrew (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chris2map, Maro21, and Mateusz Konieczny: Thanks for your support – yes, I would be willing to clear some of the backlog of data item administrator tasks. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Yurik: Before we go ahead asking for an additional data-admin, I want to ask you for your view on that. - My motive is to share all tasks, duties and burden. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my thanks and respect for your great work in providing the data items in OSM! Regards --Chris2map (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chris2map: thanks for the ping, I'm all for increasing the numebr of data admins. Thx! --Yurik (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Yurik: Wow, that was quite instant! Thanks a lot for your quick and positive response! --Chris2map (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Request @Harry Wood, Lyx, Pigsonthewing, and Steve: Dear Wiki Bureaucrats! As you can read in the comments above, we hope to add a second "data admin" to handle the data item tasks. We would also already have a candidate: At Mateusz Konieczny's suggestion, Minh Nguyễn has agreed to take on this task. – Therefore, on behalf of the users involved (Mateusz K., Minh N., Push-f, EmericusPetro, Andrew (Wynndale) and Chris2map (me)), I hereby request that the data-admin rights be assigned to Minh Nguyễn. – Kind regards --Chris2map (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. --Lyx (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@Lyx: Thank you for the straightforward handling! @Minh Nguyen: Congratulations! --Chris2map (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@Lyx: Thank you, and thanks to everyone for your support. I'm working through some of the low-hanging fruit that has been requested lately. I'll be traveling the next couple weeks, but please ping me if you're blocked on anything and I'll do my best to respond. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 08:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Add TemplateStyles Extension

Resolved: Stale, not sure if this is a good idea. Duja (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


I am looking to redoing the Main Page however I require css. This extension allows for separate stylesheets.

Any objections?

--Lectrician1 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Custom CSS is possible now, it just needs to be installed by an admin. I had to do this for my taginfo box replacement project. No need for a separate extension AFAIK. @Minh Nguyen: --ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Minh and I discussed this. However I run into the issue of not being able to test the css and how it looks on a page before I commit to the actual page. I want to use my user pages to test both the Main Page Wikitext and CSS combination. Not being able to test means going through a admin is practically unreasonable. It's also nice to have publicly-available css stylesheets for easy reference and changes. All Wikimedia projects have this extension and it's been very handy to work with in the past before. --Lectrician1 (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense, I had no problem testing my CSS without any special extension. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Following up from our private conversation, hopefully your browser's built-in developer tools provide the facilities you need to prototype style rules for the main page. TemplateStyles is a nice extension to have, but it is already technically possible to implement something similar without TemplateStyles by writing a user stylesheet that an administrator can turn into a gadget or copy into MediaWiki:Common.css. Gadgets and sitewide stylesheets affect every page for every user, so it's important to scope style rules, for example by prefacing each ruleset with .page-Main_Page .bodyContent. Even then, there is extra overhead loading any page on the wiki, so consider inline style attributes if possible. TemplateStyles is nice to have because you can express more than style attributes but without adding overhead to unrelated pages. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
How can other users see the programmed css for a page after an admin has added it. What if they wanted to redo the main page after me in the future and reference the old css?
In my opinion, using browser tools is going to be much more of hassle for me than just having the easily-installable TemplateStyles.
I also just thought of another conflict I might run into. If I'm using templates on the main page that rely on their own css, will the css I program for the template and main page show up? Templates render based on their source page and if the source page has no css, I'm not sure this will work. The template won't be able to pick up any css references either since it's only coded presence on the main page will be {{Frame}}.
--Lectrician1 (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay I tested my "possible problem" and turns out css does work for templates that are transcluded on another page.
However, can we please just add the extension out of convenience?
Evey time I want to change the wikitext, I have to copy and then reinsert the css into into my browser developer panel. There is a lot of Wikitext I'm going to have to change for the main page. This is going to be a big hassle.
Also, as I noted before, it's nice to have the css stored in a file everyone can easily reference, rather than wherever an admin has to store it ingrained in the page. --Lectrician1 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lectrician1: Any reasons to do that? Enabling all extensions possible is asking for a trouble. Also, can you finish FAQ project where useful info was lost/hidden before starting a new one? Also, please do not spam extension requests on openstreetmap/operations - posting there about every single extension you found will just make more likely that OSM-wiki related requests will be ignored in bulk. In general, feel free to start 24387427248427842784287 projects - I am also guilty of that - but, please, avoid opening issues on for example openstreetmap/operations until there is confirmation that it is a good and necessary idea. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: I'm still thinking about FAQ. I also gave this 2 weeks after the last piece of discussion on this before posting an issue on the operations repo. That was plenty of time for people to respond, in my opinion. Also, this is not being implemented is limiting me from doing something on the Wiki, so I felt it was important to post it. --Lectrician1 (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support This makes sense to me, considering that as CSS becomes evermore granular as it evolves to meet the requirements of responsive design the practicality of using inline style declarations is diminished and will only continue to do so. TemplateStyles was one of the best reactions by MediaWiki to managing the growing complexity of producing web content that I've seen, and has improved the usefulness of templates on all of the MWF sites I contribute to almost without exception. It's also easy for the higher-privileged users to "ride herd" on with it compartmentalized on its own page rather than on the template itself, requiring nothing more than the standard abuse mitigation tools like page protection. I see others have suggested that editors use their browser's Dev Console instead, but that has a much higher barrier to entry and does nothing to address the larger issue which (as I see it) is: producing functional, dynamic web content now requires rather finely-tuned CSS declarations in many cases and our options are to start to find ways to create and manage them or to see the usability of our content diminish without them. —RScholar (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Authentication from

Resolved: Now described at Develop/Single sign on. Duja (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: Develop/Single sign on is linked from Wiki page Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


OAuth login to Wiki is a Top Ten Task

PluggableAuth looks like a suitable extension for this.

I'm surprised this hasn't been implemented yet because the configuration for this is quite simple.

You're probably going to have to read into the specifics on your own since the various options for how users can log in can be a bit confusing.

Either way, this works and should be implemented. Here is an example of a Wiki that uses it.

--Lectrician1 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Enabling OAuth2 authentication between and the wiki should be the #1 priority for new features to the Wiki. The lack of this seamless authentication is often cited as a barrier to entry for participation in tagging discussions. Issues that need to be addressed:
  • What is the process for linking existing wiki usernames to usernames in a way that's straightforward for users and not a burden on admins?
  • Will the process be seamless for new users?
  • Do we have an issue in the case of name collisions? (in which an user and a wiki user of the same name are actually two different people)?
--ZeLonewolf (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems that as long as an account on the Wiki and OSM have the same username and/or (not sure) email, then they can login.
  • Yes, it is seamless.
  • I think the emails being the same is the deciding factor.
--Lectrician1 (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
It would be great to eliminate this barrier for participation on the wiki, seems very promising! I've got some questions as well:
  • What does it mean that the process is seamless for new users? Can they just log in using their existing account without having to "create a wiki account" first?
Yes. If a Wiki account does not exist with the username and email that is returned by the client, then a new account for the Wiki will be created and the user can continue to use to login. --Lectrician1 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I understand that the plan for dealing with differences between the two sets of accounts is that users resolve these themselves (by changing their user name and/or email address so that they match, or creating an OSM account for wiki accounts that don't have an equivalent yet)? For that to be possible, there will be a co-existence of linked accounts and un-linked accounts at least for a transition period, right?
Correct. It is up to the users to decide when and whether they want to "link" them. They can do so at any time because the login process will remain the same always. --Lectrician1 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for attacking this long-standing problem! --Tordanik 14:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
PluggableAuth may not be sufficient to address the issue, at it is only a framework to create authentication and authorization extensions on top of it. Also, OAuth2 authentication isn't available yet on the Rails port ( website), which means we cannot use plugins like OpenID Connect. Then, having an explicit link between the Wiki and (vs. an implicit one which relies on the same username across both sites) is the preferred option. Matching via username and email also wouldn't work, because we deliberately don't expose users' email addresses via any API call for privacy reasons. There's quite a bit of work involved here which goes much beyond installing a Wiki plugin. mmd (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mmd: What would you suggest be the steps we should take to making this happen then? How exactly could we establish an explicit link? --Lectrician1 (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, finding that out would be exactly one of the tasks of the Github issue. We probably need some Mediawiki expert and/or more research to work out possible solutions. Think of the whole topic more in terms of a project, rather than some few hour configuration task. Mmd (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I was wrong, for the demo in to work, it took a few hours only (mostly to install a Mediawiki instance and all required extensions). For production quality some more work would be needed, of course. Mmd (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hm ... the goal discussed in some previous conversations, and when writing that Top Ten Tasks entry, was to eventually get rid of the distinction between OSM wiki account and OSM account as far as practically possible – i.e. users would have the same name, and there would be no need (and no ability) to "create a wiki account". How would the process of establishing an explicit link look for an OSM user editing the wiki for the first time? --Tordanik 19:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tordanik: They could sign in with and their account would be created based on the information returned by the OAuth client. This would work exactly the same as when you login/signup with Google on a site and you are able to immedeatly use it. --Lectrician1 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems that further activity would be at - and that is solved as far as we can here, right? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe create Authentication from describing the situation? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
There is Develop/Single sign on. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 12:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This seemed fairly outdated. I removed all of the content which is no longer relevant (which is close to blanking the page). Mmd (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
SotM 2022 presentation Running - Today and Tomorrow by Grant Slater mentions Wiki single sign on on slide 12. Mmd (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Add Page Forms Extension

Resolved: Stale since 2021. Duja (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Page Forms allows users to create forms who's inputted information can then be formatted and inserted into a page.

I would like to use Page Forms to create forms that allow for the easy creation of proposal pages and the management of transitioning proposal stages.

For example, a Page Form could allow:

  • Each of the proposed tags and their used entities, descriptions, and examples to all be easily-inputable and displayed in a standard fashion.
  • Proposal can change stages from draft to proposed to voting to post-vote, all with the configuration of the form. This requires no editing of the proposal itself.
  • Possibly the seamless transition from copying a proposal's data from the proposal to a new page(s) for the approved tags.

Here are examples of sites that use Page Forms.

--Lectrician1 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Proposal can change stages from draft to proposed to voting to post-vote, all with the configuration of the form. This requires no editing of the proposal itself." - how it would be detected?
"easily-inputable and displayed in a standard fashion" - how it deals with fact that proposal may propose one new key or new value or values or deprecate existing tag or change voting rules or introduce new key and deprecate specific value (or values) and so on? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Lectrician1: - have you tested how this extension interacts with all subsets of extensions that you also proposed? And with current OSM Wiki install? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Mateusz Konieczny: I'm going to setup my own install of MediaWiki and test before I suggest we move forward with actually implementing it.
      Also for, "How would it be detected". What I mean is that with Page Forms none of the raw text on the proposal has to be edited. Everything is configured through the form. Selecting an option for a proposal stage in the form should be able to automatically add the voting section to the proposal, etc.
      Form elements are also replicatable so you can setup a field to repeat itself with multiple options. For example, you can add as many tags that you want to propose addding or depreciating etc. IDK if this makes sense :P
      --Lectrician1 (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

copyright violations that need replacement

I would really appreciate help with removing copyright violations. Files were not reviewed for a long time and there is a noticable backlog. We really should not use images illegally - it is problematic for several reasons. (resurrecting as I keep finding such file at rate greater than I can process) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally editable part

Help is needed with handling some illustrations that turned out to be a copyright violations.

You can help by following:

  • open file page of one of files below
  • Go to "File usage" section and open page or pages listed there
  • Replace it with some alternative (preferable) or remove it
    • Note that proposed alternative images are listed at given file pages
  • Save page with edit like "remove copyright violation"

Once file is not used anymore

  • replace {{Delete proposal}} by {{Delete|Unused copyright violation, see file talk page for details}} to let wiki sysops that file should be deleted
  • mark such file as processed by removing it from the list below


For files without replacement:

  • Find acceptable (or better!) image on Wikimedia Commons
    • Or upload file on a free license to Wikimedia Commons / OSM Wiki
    • You can take image on your own and release it under open license
  • Edit file page with note where such image is
    • Or immediately do steps listed above
  • Edit list below and remove this file

If image use is unimportant or impossible to replace - then just remove image.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved: replaced by thread at community forum Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Use Wikibase to document OSM software

Recently I had updated the 3D development page extensively. Through doing this, I realized that many of the software frameworks, map viewing software, and other developer tools that support 3D data are also present on the Software libraries page.
I was thinking, so that we don't have to maintain the same data in 2 different locations, it would be nice if we created data items for each of the software frameworks that described their capable features, language, platform, license, release date, and integration with other software. Then we could show tables using that would derive the data from Wikibase by querying Sophox. Of course, this would require that we fix .

Thoughts? Lectrician1 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lectrician1: I think your proposal is actually a use case for a more generic use of Wikidata:Listeria! On my sandbox page I'm already drafting some SPARQL queries (for now mostly to Wikidata, not yet to Sophox) but I really like the idea of make your proposal more generic! Maybe sort of allowing changing the endpoint, like what happened with when I was proposing have a Template:WikidataSPARQL which is not necessary anymore. Also, the alternative of a more generic, means tests could start with or without Sophox/sophox/issues/27. The property proposal by @Wynndale: could occur parallel to the preparation of equivalent to Wikidata:Listeria, however sometimes the queries would be federated or we might need to discuss where to use as reference store. For example, Wikidata already have some OpenStreetMap local chapters (see User:EmericusPetro/sandbox/List_of_OpenStreetMap_local_chapters) updated by others so by create them there, we make available for a broader audience. EmericusPetro (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
That would make some sense. As a first step you could draw up a list of properties for the new data administrator to set up. --Andrew (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a more structured way of maintaining information about OSM-related software libraries. Years ago, there was an attempt to harmonize this wiki's software pages and keep them in sync with master tables such as Comparison of iOS applications. This effort relied on Tordanik's TTTBot to scrape individual articles' infoboxes, but once that bot stopped running, these tables fell into disrepair and eventually people also lost the motivation to maintain the infoboxes. Outdated values are especially noticeable with mobile applications that publish releases or change prices frequently. There's also a lot of discontinued software that doesn't age well, making any table seem less relevant. (In 2016, I split out these master tables from articles such as iOS and Android in order to present a less maintenance-intensive gallery that intentionally doesn't go into as much detail.)

Ideally, we would aim a little higher and contribute this data about software packages to Wikidata, to the extent that Wikidata would accept it. For one thing, this would result in less duplication of work, since the most well-known OSM software is already on Wikidata, such as Overpass Turbo (Q62057787) and Open Source Routing Machine (Q7096221). Moreover, Wikidata items can take advantage of much better integration with the Wikimedia ecosystem: Vespucci (Q60050619) can state that it's named after Amerigo, and if not for a spam filter bug, Github-wiki-bot would be able to automatically update Organic Maps (Q107078602) with the latest version number as soon as it's released.

I'm reminded of how this wiki can accept image uploads, but we direct users to upload all but the most ephemeral images to Wikimedia Commons instead, so everyone can use them. The difference is that this wiki isn't a client of Wikidata and doesn't have federated properties enabled, so wiki pages here can't automatically pull values from Wikidata. To me, this would be a decent reason to maintain software items in our Wikibase instance, but we should keep the properties to the minimum necessary to serve this wiki's infobox and navigational needs. If we really need up-to-date version numbers and consider a basic Wikidata link insufficient, then we could rely on a bot to keep the infoboxes up-to-date, reminiscent of TTTBot but based on Listeria. However, I don't consider the version numbers to be a pressing matter, since Wambacher's SoftwareWatchlist already has that covered and even posts updates to the new Discourse site. [15]

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The UnlinkedWikibase extension came to my attention today via the Wikibase Telegram chat. [16] It claims to give arbitrary pages here read-only access to arbitrary Wikibase items on remote Wikibase instances. I have no idea how that works, but it sounds magical. Unfortunately, it's still a beta extension that the sysadmins would need to countenance installing despite their qualms about Wikibase or Wikibase Client. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
(Rocha here) My comments
+1 to as far as possible/reusable, we use Wikidata, so this benefits a broader ecosystem
+1 to set up automations. I'm comfortable with a bunch of programming languages and even do code on the public domain. Could help with this.
+1 to we have a plan to "keep things updated" (maybe automatically synchronize things from different sources etc). I think that even if someone like me created the automations, we should have a backup plan assuming I could not provide a response in time. Actually document the whole thing preparing for it.
+1 I do not have this ready now, but in theory it would be viable to let something mirroring some data from Wikidata to the OSM data store.
Said all this, extra comments:
A: I believe that even if items are on Wikidata, for things that are sort of very relevant to OSM (but not about the OSM data itself), for example, we could have sort of "WikiProjects" like the, but for for itens like User:EmericusPetro/sandbox/List_of_OpenStreetMap_local_chapters, which both explain how to query the data, how to "update it" etc. Also, such sort of WikiProjects could allow feedback if someone needs more complex use, so we have examples and shape the data for all them.
B: Since SPARQL is very powerful, if we start to have very important things on Wikidata, I could create generic configurable scripts that monitor potential vandalism/drastic human error. However, minor errors (like labels) might generate too much false positives, so would only worth under small periods (also, Wikidata allow protect items for new accounts, but this rarely is necessary; but yes, we can request permanently lock some items, even if are on Wikidata and not here)
C: Since I'm new here (and not sure the whole Data items history) if setup some WikiProjects, it will tend to be for things not already done by something else, and then do a good documentation on how people can keep updated it. The heavy work already tend to be done at start
EmericusPetro (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Is there some reason to not do it in Wikidata? Would they delete items about minor software? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: They wouldn't as a general rule, but based on the notability guidelines (which are much laxer than Wikipedia's), administrators would delete items that don't say much of anything and aren't used by other items. For some of the tools we document on this wiki, it would probably be difficult to come up with anything to say on Wikidata. But many of the tools would be plenty notable enough for Wikidata. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 11:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
"The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." - I wonder is public github/gitlab/codeberg repository good enough Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC) @Minh Nguyen:

@Mateusz Konieczny: To satisfy this notability criteria, you'd provide at least one reference or external identifier, as we do for many items that NSI needs. However, the source code repository (P1324) property isn't considered a property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316); after all, one can create a GitHub repository just by clicking a button. Fortunately, there are many other sources to draw from. For mobile applications, App Store app ID (P3861), Google Play Store app ID (P3418), or F-Droid package (P3597) would suffice. I think a property proposal for a Transifex project ID or similar would probably get approved easily. An OSM mailing post by the author announcing the software would probably work as a reference, considering that Wikipedia has a {{Cite mailing list}} template for just this purpose.

Note that there's an alternative notability criterion, structural need, which is sometimes easier to justify. For example, if another notable item links to it with depends on software (P1547), then it's notable too.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Minh Nguyen: So you cannot create wikidata items for say individual waste baskets, even if they have some individual ids? From reading that rule it seemed that proving existence is enough and there is no need to demonstrate importance Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: Your interpretation was correct, but you do need to prove its existence somehow. If it has an ID that's assigned as part of some scheme you can identify, then create an item about that scheme (providing a reference about it) and add a catalog code (P528) statement to the wastebasket's item. As a protection against misinformation, Wikidata doesn't let you just handwave about "local knowledge", and it generally doesn't accept user-generated content as authoritative references. There's an ongoing discussion about NSI, which is borderline, being curated based on user-generated content in OSM. However, I've never had a problem with using Mapillary or KartaView images as references. (I try my best to add flag:wikidata=* to every flagpole I map. Sometimes a Mapillary or KartaView image is the only reference I can find for an obscure flag design.) Alternatively, you can take a photo of the wastebasket and upload it to Wikimedia Commons, then satisfy the structural need criterion either by adding an image (P18) statement to the item or by adding the item to the image's "Structured data" tab.

The difference between the wastebasket and the GitHub repository someone created by accident is that proving the repository's existence by linking to the repository is sort of a circular argument. By that logic, Wikidata could double in size tomorrow by creating an item about every existing item, but that would obviously be impractical. This guideline exists to ensure that people focus on creating non-empty items that can stand up to scrutiny.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

My opinion on this: the Wikidata tends to get more upset with things that could resemble self-promotion, in special as brands, see . For software, even a sort of "minor" software, as long as it is somewhat used, this might not be as problematic. The likely more danger here would be sort of intentional obvious spam (think for example if editing Wikidata makes even frontpages of other sites or apps shows that link) --EmericusPetro (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: I think that the major issue here is having something like Listeria, even if at first just using Wikidata. This use case in special (software) might already be allowed there. But the Listeria equivalent is a strong block for this feature, so we should already do some planning here. For example, I noticed that some people that already work with OpenStreetMap data items also edit things related to OSM on Wikidata, but by having Listeria here this would incentive everyone! --EmericusPetro (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@EmericusPetro: should be resolved first, base Wikibase is causing technical problems big enough that sysadmins want to get rid of it. Convincing them to enable more Wikidata extensions is extremely unlikely before that problem will be fully solved Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: Listeria is a bot, not an extension. It would be up to someone to run the bot on their own machine, Toolforge (which is open to OSM projects), or perhaps the OSM dev server. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: So I took some time to write some points (even small parts of it would be too much on Talk:Wiki) on --EmericusPetro (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@EmericusPetro: Is there anything to do it here as far as OSM Wiki is concerned? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: Humm... I don't know if others have a different opinion, but I don't think so. I have no idea if there is any actionable answer to what was commented here. At least not soon. It may end up being left open indefinitely in the current situation. EmericusPetro (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: Marking it as resolved as there is nothing actionable here - feel free to revert this Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed automated edit

I would like to propose an automated edit in the wiki. It will move all proposals into the proposal namespace. A detailed description is available from User:TigerfellBot: Section 'Task Proposal namespace'. Are there any questions, comments, objections ... ? --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 13:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you publish source code running this edits? Will you also update links in data items/infoboxes? (or maybe leaving redirects is good enough? We need to keep them anyway as proposals are linked from outside wiki) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
In general I agree, it makes sense. (this move itself was discussed already on this page). I guess that proposal instructions should be also updated. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I have not programmed anything yet but I plan to use Pywikibot's Movepages script. I actually forgot the Data Items. I hope that redirects are sufficient. I will update Proposal, Proposal process, and Wiki organisation manually. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
So do I. There are some redirecting pages in Proposed features/. What about those? A few simple ones with mistakes in writing in their names, I marked for deletion. --Chris2map (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I plan to leave all redirects as they are. When you move pages, new redirects will be created and User:Redirect fixer will handle the existing ones if users do not intervene. I dislike deleting redirects because it might break externally used links and I do not see a benefit in deletion. If I break a redirect I will probably fix it manually i. e. not in an automated fashion. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that's good. I would also not move the redirects to the new namespace. Just leave it as it is. Except for the ones with very simple typos, which the creators themselves would have deleted immediately if they could. --Chris2map (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tigerfell: What is the status of this? Do you have source code now? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

No progress yet. I hope I will find some time (+ new computer) in mid/end April. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 12:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@Tigerfell: What is the status of this? Do you have source code now? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
This was done in May already. I can not understand your recurring requests for source code. As I already wrote, I used the move script of Pywikibot which you can find here. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 12:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a suggestion to move French pages, too. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 11:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
This is obsolete, someone else was faster than me. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 12:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: done already as far as I can see Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

When to use what tag status in articles

Hi. Does anyone know when to use what tag status in articles? Like say someone creates an article for a tag with 3 uses that were mapped by a single person who probably also created the article, would that make the status "proposed", "in use" or something else entirely? Say an example like that is "proposed", then where's the threshold that makes a tags status change to "in use"?

As a side to that, I can't find it right now but I thought there was a discussion about this where the consensus was that a tag has to have at least a couple of hundred uses by multiple people for it to be considered "in use." Which I think is slightly excessive. Although conversely, calling a tag with single digit usage that was added by like 2 people "in use" seems tenuous at best. Especially in cases where the tag is clearly a synonym or possible tagging mistake. Anyway, I'm interested to know what other people think about it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: have you seen Tag status page? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
"thought there was a discussion about this where the consensus was that a tag has to have at least a couple of hundred uses by multiple people for it to be considered "in use." Which I think is slightly excessive." it seems fitting though in large part it depends on a tag - compare man_made=obelisk that would qualify far faster with dual_carriageway=yes where using it for few hours in a single city was enough to pass 2 000 uses and still barely qualify for "in use" to speak nothing about "de facto" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, "in use" does not fit at all in such situations ("someone creates an article for a tag with 3 uses that were mapped by a single person who probably also created the article"), that's an exaggeration to say "in use". maro21 22:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: answered, no further reply Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Templates stop working in page with many table lines

In this page, the state and relation templates stopped working a few days ago, on the bottom of the last table. [see] I've noticed that it's probably due to a limit per page, because if I add or remove lines, the templates appear or disappear accordingly. Is there anything I can do to correct this? --AntMadeira (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Page is listed in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. It appears that there is a limit on template calls that has been reached. I don't think it has anything to do with the table. I don't know if it's possible to change the limit. The only way I can think of quickly is to substitute (insert and convert) the templates using "subst:" instead of standard including. E.g. {{subst:State|c=3|ju=4|ln=3|rl=4|fu=3}} --Chris2map (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I tried as you suggested, but the error persists... --AntMadeira (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
It works but you have to substitute many many template calls to get space from the limit and some more lines working, because each line needs several template calls. This is truly not a solution. In addition, substituting the template:State provides ugly source code to the wiki page. – Meanwhile, I recommend splitting the page into several, e.g. one for each district. --Chris2map (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
This page is too long and too big anyway. I suggest dividing it into subpages. maro21 21:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: answered, Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded tracks pages with this problem already Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Reference group label

Template:Efn is not working as expected: the group labels are showing up raw like "[lower-alpha 1]" instead of "[a]". provides instruction on how to get that stuff to work. --Artoria2e5 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you want to do? maro21 18:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Artoria2e5: Fixed by copying over the messages in Special:PrefixIndex/MediaWiki:Cite link label group-. Thanks for the pointer! – Minh Nguyễn 💬 21:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: Marking as resolved and as archivable, please rever if you disagree. Thanks for a fix! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I bought and configured it to redirect to this site. A little less typing than and a little more memorable. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 02:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Minh Nguyen: nice! There's a redirection bug though which would make this more useful than if fixed. I expect that a url like will redirect to the main page but this doesn't currently work. —seav (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
@Seav: Oh, yeah, I would very much like that to work. I just checked a box to let my host (DreamHost) redirect the site. Maybe there's a way to do it more manually... – Minh Nguyễn 💬 16:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
@Seav: I added a trailing slash to the redirect. Let me know if you're still seeing the busted redirect. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 16:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, and I haven't meet with redirect problem. This domain can let url more short and easy to remember. --快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: I think it can be archived Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Easier access and better understanding of images if they are hosted on Wikimedia Commons

Hello to all,

I would like to change the layout of the page MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here,

This initiative has several objectives:

  • Easier and faster access to the source
  • Allow a better understanding that the file is not hosted on the OSM Wiki but on Commons
Before After
This file is from $1 and may be used by other projects.

The description on its [$2 file description page] there is shown below.

Access to the file on Commons
This file and its description are from Wikimedia Commons.

The last time I raised the subject, there was an unresolved point. Now I see that files not hosted on the OSM Wiki are systematically hosted on Commons, which is why I'm reopening the topic. — Koreller (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

+1, makes sense to me Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
(Last time discussion)
Which sources other than Commons would be technically possible, i.e. permitted? Is it these: But Commons is not on this list. Is there another settings list? If we know the theoretical sources, maybe we can exclude these? --Chris2map (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
How files from this sites are linked? With the same syntax? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Don't know – I tried to link images from wiki but wasn't successful. BTW, wikipedia has a similar display plus an indicator icon to the top right (wikipedia Sharedupload-desc-here, example). --Chris2map (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Do you know who I could contact to make the change? — Koreller (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
@Chris2map: $wgAllowExternalImagesFrom is a more primitive mechanism for embedding images from an external site. All you have to do is stick a raw or image URL into a wiki page and it'll show up (as long as your browser doesn't block mixed HTTPS connections). It doesn't involve the File: or Media: namespace at all. Originally, before this setting existed, Wikipedia would happily embed any external image given a URL, but then people started spamming the wiki with porn, so the developers introduced this setting to lock things down. Most wikis disable external images by URL altogether, because (Quick)InstantCommons is much less confusing to users. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Koreller: To answer your earlier questions: MediaWiki messages are often designed to be as generic as possible, in order to better support translations and also facilitate self-hosted wikis with custom settings. (The openstreetmap-website project could learn a thing or two from MediaWiki about making software more reusable...) This wiki gets external files via the QuickInstantCommons extension. This extension can be configured to get images from any MediaWiki instance, but we just use the default, which is Wikimedia Commons. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
So could you do the change ? Thanks a lot :) ! — Koreller (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen ? — Koreller (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
If I get it right images embedded by the primitive mechanism ($wgAllowExternalImagesFrom) don't have links to description pages. This makes the images from Wikimedia Commons the only case with image description pages for external images. My objection to the suggestion regarding possible other image sources is therefore no longer applicable. --Chris2map (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
So is it all right to accept improvement in this case? — Koreller (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
In my view and on the current knowledge: Yes! (And if sources change in future then simply adjust it.) --Chris2map (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen could you do the change please ? — Koreller (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Koreller: I've implemented a custom MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here loosely based on your proposal. In keeping with your use of OOUI, I substituted the standard OOUI icon for Commons and brought it into the button. The concerns about repositories other than Commons turned out to be unfounded: the message takes a parameter that is automatically populated with the file repository's name (Commons). Unfortunately, we would have to repeat this customization for each of the hundreds of languages that MediaWiki supports, so for now I've only implemented it in the three languages I know (English, Spanish, Vietnamese). Since we still haven't installed the Translate extension here yet, we'll need to manually solicit translations for each of this wiki's other major languages. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this modification :) ! — Koreller (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Should we mark it as resolved? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Minh Nguyen Can you change the page MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here/fr for :

<div align="center">[$2 <span class="mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive" role="button" aria-disabled="false" style="line-height: 25px;"><span style="display: inline-block; position: relative; top: -3px;">[[File:OOjs UI icon logo-wikimediaCommons-invert.svg|x25px|link=|alt=]]</span> {{int:skin-view-foreign|$1}}</span>]</div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: 2.5em;"><span class="oo-ui-inline-help oo-ui-labelWidget">Ce fichier et sa description proviennent de $1.</span></div>

@Mateusz Konieczny Yes I think you can — Koreller (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Koreller: Done, thanks for the translation! – Minh Nguyễn 💬 10:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen: Could you please update the German translation Wiki:Requests_for_administrator_attention#Translations_of_MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here? Thanks in advance! --Chris2map (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@Chris2map: Done, thanks! – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: seems resolved? Please remove this template and comment if anything is left to be done Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Boilerplate text added to highway tag descriptions

I have reverted addition of a long boilerplate text added by User:JAAS over a range of highway=* tag descriptions in English and Spanish. I do not think the word-by-word identical text about OSM principles of road classification belongs to each and every tangentially related Wiki page. The correct place for this is key:highway and/or Highways, and I believe it is already adequately covered in the latter. Tag description pages should be kept as brief as reasonable and up to the point, and in my opinion this addition was a step in the wrong direction, adding a tl;dr bloat to the most visible place in the text.
Even without taking into the account merits of the added text, I think it is generally against the OSM spirit to perform semi-automated editing of Wiki pages without prior discussion, just as we documented in the Automated Edits code of conduct concerning the OSM database itself. Duja (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This one was obviously a human-made edit, not semi-automated editing. And "we don't do mass edits in OSM, either" claim you made in edit descriptions is not true Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: edits seems to be reverted, no active discussion here, can be archived now, I think Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Map of Somalia update?

The government of Somalia has recently recognized a new administration called SSC-Khatumo. Could someone change the map of Somalia please [17] ? Rreooityt2 (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone has already asked at the Community forum. Duja (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@Duja: That community forum seems idle. Does anyone watching this page have the ability to make an update? Rreooityt2 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Rreooityt2: Anyone has an ability make an update. However, to do that, one would need to have 1) a source specifying boundaries of the new region 2) that source has to have a compatible license with OSM (essentially, be public domain) 3) perhaps most importantly, have a clear answer as to political situation in the region. According to Wikipedia, w:Khatumo_State was effectively separated from Somaliland, which in turn separated from Somalia. I have no idea whether the new state effectively controls its borders, or is just a proclaimed entity in the wider Somalia-Somaliland conflict. (Btw, Community forum is not idle, but just like here nobody seems willing to do that given the open issues I listed). Duja (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: has an active thread Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

uploading video

Hi all,

I created a video about how to set up a gopro camera for photo capture that would be great to add to this page: This video is 144MB in size. What is the best place to put this video so I can link to it in the page above?

I would recommend Wikimedia Commons Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: I think it can be marked as resolved, comment if it is not Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Relation vs Area strikes again

Template:ElementUsage - used in infoboxes - onRelation does not cover multipolygons (covered by onArea) but links to "general relation page which has multipolygon as the first example relation type" as pointed out in

How we should fix it? Start "non-multipolygon relation" in English and various translations?

Drop display of onArea, onRelation etc?

Something else?

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "strikes again"? I missed the previous strike, if there was one.
I'm inclined to do nothing here. I've read the discussion but I haven't found evidence that anything is seriously broken: the . I think it confuses only those who want to be confused. Duja (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
It is a repeated confusion that is appearing again and again. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
How about removing the onRelation box altogether, and/or splitting it into a separate template? Relation is a nebulous concept, with or without multipolygons included. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of (m)any tags that are applicable to both spatial map elements and non-areal relations (it's mostly either-or). But Someone(TM) should conduct an analysis how many such are out there, and I don't know a simple way to do it. Duja (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm inclined to accept this discrepancy as a temporary issue that will resolve itself once we have a proper area data type. --Tordanik 07:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I've just noticed this thread here. Yes, this topic recurs from time to time. I recently changed the English translation and it now includes multipolygon relations:
use on nodes unspecifieduse on ways unspecifiedmay be used on areas (and multipolygon relations)use on relations unspecified
use on nodes unspecifieduse on ways unspecifieduse on areas unspecifiedshould not be used on relations (except multipolygon relations)
I also wrote in the Wiki FAQ about this: Wiki FAQ#Why the key should not be used on relations?. maro21 17:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: improved documentation, no support for such change appeared Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

New templates for vector maps

There are two new templates for embedding interactive maps in articles on this wiki:

  • {{Vector map}} embeds a map powered by MapLibre GL JS. This template can display several vector stylesheets as well as the featured tile layers for backwards compatibility. It serves as an alternative to the raster-based {{Slippymap}} for when an article needs to illustrate a feature that isn't visible on one of the featured tile layers, which are all raster tile layers. It's also a workaround for {{Slippymap}}'s inability to initially show a layer other than OpenStreetMap Carto, a regression introduced by the migration to Kartographer late last year.
  • {{Map compare}} embeds two such maps with a horizontal slider for visually comparing them. This template can be useful in some articles that need to contrast the approaches taken by different tile layers. See an example of this template in action in Key:expressway#Software support. Another motivation for creating this comparison interface is a proposed redesign of OpenHistoricalMap's portal on this wiki, which would feature a "then and now" box to illustrate the time dimension in that project. (All the better to dissuade mappers from hoarding data about long-gone things in OpenStreetMap, where it doesn't belong.)

These templates rely on a new gadget that's enabled by default for all users. Rest assured, the gadget is only enabled on pages that request vector maps; otherwise, it's essentially a no-op. Since this is a gadget, it'll be much easier to fix bugs and implement new features than if it were a MediaWiki extension, and it's much less likely to impede an upgrade to MediaWiki. MapLibre GL JS was chosen for its compatibility with several popular, publicly accessible stylesheets. MapLibre GL JS was chosen over Mapbox GL JS for copyright, privacy, and cost reasons. It would be inappropriate for a default gadget to link out to a third-party site that meters by usage, especially since administrators like me have no control over or insight into Web traffic. At the same time, any JavaScript code vendored into the MediaWiki: namespace must be freely licensed.

I received permission from the maintainers of the new vector layers to include their stylesheets and tiles on this wiki. It's trivial to add a MapLibre- or Mapbox-compatible layer to the list, as long as it's free to use and its maintainer agrees to shoulder the additional traffic. In the future, the gadget and templates could conceivably support additional filtering or styling options, say, for focusing the embedded map on a particular tag that's the subject of the article. Alternative open-source renderers could conceivably be added as well.

Please report any issues you experience on MediaWiki talk:Gadget-maps.js, Template talk:Vector map, or Template talk:Map compare, so your feedback doesn't get lost amid all the discussion on this massive page. If you prefer not to load the new interactive maps, you can disable this gadget by unchecking the "Interactive maps" gadget in your gadget preferences.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for creating these templates, there are issues with layer "oepnv" (not displayed at all) and layer "transport-map" (same detail zoom level (z19) like on is not working), see --MalgiK (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It is now reported at @Minh Nguyen: - though I guess that we can mark this section as resolved anyway? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: Yes, I've responded to those issues and we can continue to track additional issues on the relevant talk pages. {{News}} still links to this section, so please update the link if and when you archive this section. Thanks! – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen: are you sure? I see no link to this section Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: Oh, I must’ve misremembered. Sorry for the confusion. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 17:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Anyone else getting messages in Hindi?

I have been getting some system messages including edit tags and mobile view headers in what looks like Hindi. --Andrew (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wynndale: I'm not seeing that myself. What do your internationalization preferences look like? – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
My language setting is British English since I clicked on an offer to change to my web settings. I am using the new vector skin but I also get Hindi on mobile. Andrew (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Do you get it also elsewhere? @Wynndale: On wikipedia editing? Other site? Is your phone configured to request hindi version of pages? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I have never configured my system for Hindi or any other Indian script language. The problem has disappeared for me. Andrew (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: lets blame cosmic ray flipping bits in RAM Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

what is the category source? has a category in red.

What is source of that category?

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's the "group" name taken from data item. See translation of Item:Q4704 in polski. --Chris2map (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I fixed/overrode it with Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Slippy maps category


I wanted to change the name of the category Category:Pages with maps to Category:Pages with slippy maps because... we have many pages with maps, and to be more precise, this category groups pages where the template {{Slippymap}} was used. But I coundn't find where this category is added. It's neither in the temlate nor the module. Could someone help? maro21 22:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm also fairly familiar with workings of MediaWiki so I gave it a try at searching, but came out empty-handed. No content page in this wiki contains the text "Pages with maps", so I can't explain the magic behind it. Visible history of Category:Pages with maps only dates back to 20 January 2023, when it was created by Mannivu... out of the blue (i.e. he did not edit any other page to include Slippymap at that time). It's a complete mystery to me. Duja (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know is an automatic category that the MediaWiki software adds to every page that uses a map. You can see that the same category on enwiki has more explanation. Mannivu (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
So it's probably added by the extenstion. If Wikipedia's category has a different name, it means that the name can be changed. But it can't be change by editing the Wiki. maro21 22:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I think I found the place (sources: [18] / [19]) to set the category name:
--Chris2map (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Yay, thanks! maro21 23:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
See now Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on usability of a tool to extract data from OSM Wiki

I created a tool to parse wikitext from wikies such as OpenStreetMap Wiki. It's a Python PIP package ("pip install wiki_as_base") and can run as a Function as a Service. It works with other MediaWikis, does not require installation as a server extension and the command line version both provides local cache, a predictable user agent and uses MediaWiki API (which allows to fetch several pages at once; the tool also handle pagination if you select a category), but for now only a subset of options from Special:ApiSandbox are usable. Quickstart usage of the initial public version is explained here <>. Feedback either there in the diary or here is welcomed! -EmericusPetro (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


Hello, I just created a stub article for OpenRecycleMap: a web based editor dedicated to recycling. Feel free to improve it. --Binnette (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Links to proposals in documentation

A number of documentation pages link to the archived PTv2 proposal. Is it better to link to documentation pages generally? Andrew (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Both may make sense, it depends on context. If it is specifically about proposal - linking proposal may make sense. If it is about how things are tagged linking documentation pages makes more sense Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

KeyPrefixDescription now uses Module:DescriptionFromDataItem

Main article: Template_talk:KeyPrefixDescription#Using_Module:DescriptionFromDataItem --Chris2map (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


Does the Watchlist work for you? When I click on an article, it doesn't mark it as visited, because when I go in again later, it is bolded i.e. marked as unread. It has been like this since December 2 as of 23:00 UTC. maro21 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I was just wondering. Same issue for me since today. --Chris2map (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe even since the last few days. But now it seems to be working again. --Chris2map (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Right now it works for me. Resolved? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it works now. maro21 20:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Update page access control for Template:Taginfo2/doc

Page seems closed (blocked) for editing, please open access for changes. --MalgiK (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

BTW, it affects more pages. There seems to be a problem with the cascading protection of page template:taginfo2. Several substituted pages are not editable although they are listed as not protected or semi-protected only. --Chris2map (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks chris for double checking and confirmantion. Is this the right place to report/address the issue? --MalgiK (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
A move to Wiki:Requests for administrator attention would be more appropriate, IMO. --Chris2map (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Rather Template_talk:Taginfo2. Add {{Edit request}} and description. Something B (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Chris and Something B. I assume Wiki:Requests for administrator attention is the better place, because i prefer to open the page for access instead of controlled editing... --MalgiK (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Unresolved: But i just opened a request for unprotection, see Wiki:Requests_for_administrator_attention title: "Request: Unprotect page Template:Taginfo2" --MalgiK (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
It seems to be resolved here (resolved by finding where request should be made) but it can stay here I guess for some time Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Seems resolved also there, right? See{{Template:Taginfo2}} @MalgiK: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Resolved: Now I could save an edit see: --MalgiK (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Deep magic in templates and categories


Does anyone knows why

Pages unavailable in tag descriptions for key "building

adds itself to and what is its intended purpose and what went wrong there? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The same for

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Because Tag descriptions for key "building is before the colon and is treated as a language code prefix. There is no list of correct or incorrect language codes - any text before the colon is treated as a language code.
For this, the name of the category is wrong - "building:" is not a key. If anything, it's a prefix. Or more like a key used as a key compound.
The problem here, however, is that all the categories are empty and will remain empty because they were created without thinking things through.
Let's take for example Category:Tag descriptions for key "building:levels" - does this empty category assume that entries like "Tag:building:levels=0", "Tag:building:levels=1", "Tag:building:levels=2" will appear there? There are several thousand of these categories and in several languages! Categories that will always be empty and are completely unnecessary.
E.g. Category:Tag descriptions for key "image" will always be empty, because [image] is a tag where you provide a link to an image, so each value will be unique.
Categories are there to make it easier to find a group of articles that have something in common. What we have here Category:Tag_descriptions_by_key is something ridiculous and unreasonable. Not only does this not help to find a way through the maze of articles, it makes it even more difficult.
So the template (or module) that recognizes Tag descriptions for key "building" is not the problem here, and that is not where it should be fixed, but simply remove this category. maro21 14:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I marked bunch of this categories for deletion (say ), but deleting all pointless will not empty categories with this broken template call Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
The problem no longer exists. maro21 23:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Users by geographical location

Is there any point in such categories?

Maybe it would be better to remove them (but it often requires editing talk page of various users)

Or should we create more of such categories that are used without creating them and then ignore their existence? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the existence of these categories. Do you? maro21 14:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Main negative is that they are quite pointless and not useful at all, and what is attempted using them can be done better in other ways. Though it is a not a very big negative. I mostly wanted to ask before I will mass create them whether someone is opposed (to save time on first creating them deleting them) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: no support for getting rid of them as of now Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we want these categories? lists missing categories - that should either stop being requested or be created

From 2072 to 2747 we have bunch of "Users in Adendorf‏‎" and similar added by Template:User box.

Maybe we should stop Template:User box from creating categories for cities? Or add city category only when it exists? Or maybe create bunch of categories and then ignore them as pointless? (or maybe there is some chance for using them for something useful...)

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

PS See also about similar problem for Place template Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This template no longer generates categories for cities (I edited it), I plan to create categories within Category:Users by geographical location for remaining ones Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Links to

There are still a number of links to the soon-to-be-decommisioned help site (,,, Some of them can be left pointing to whatever archive the ops put up but there is room to tidy up. The answer_link links deserve to be tidied anyway. Many of the linked questions are old:

Andrew (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (

I don't know how to help. How can I find the wiki pages containing links to --Chris2map (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
What are you asking for in this topic? If there are links to given somewhere, that means they are valid or have been used as a source of documentation, so why would we remove them? maro21 22:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The site will be turned into static html archive, not switched off. Links should remain working. Why we need to do anything? I propose archive this section due to very long link list that does not actually require taking an action Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
May be move (archive) at --Chris2map (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Why it would be useful there? I propose to move it archive subpage like any resolved thread Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Resolved: this does not actually require taking any action Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)



‎This user has vandalized this page

--Jemily1 (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. maro21 16:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Help with German translation, Aerowest imagery


Could someone who speaks German find out if there is information about the license of the Aerowest imagery here: DE:WissensWert/Luftbilder#Anleitung_für_die_AEROWEST-Webseite? I need the license for this file. The uploader is inactive. maro21 15:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

After reading DE:WissensWert/Luftbilder and I can tell that there was a explicit contract with to enable the derivation of geometric data from aerowest aerial imagery for OSM. The contract was temporary and ended 2012-07-15. There was some effort to make a subsequent contract. But I couldn't find any note that a new one had been signed. However it has been noted that the use of the imagery is tolerated until the subsequent contract will be concluded. And till now the access hasn't been terminated.--Chris2map (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Mateusz Konieczny/unusual shop values reports

I started running bot generating some QA report.

Sorry for not asking before I made this reports, but I want to ask now: is it fine to run such bot edit? It is limited to my user space

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's helpful. However, the link to this is worth providing in the forums of the communities, so that mappers can see it. Few mappers look at the Wiki. maro21 23:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I created also threads at community linking wiki pages - see and for Poland Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Resolved: I consider this bot edit as approved Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Is shoulds and shouldn'ts to use JOSM still valid or is it out-of-dated?

Hello, I started to edit Cs:JOSM by translating from English and some from Slovak, but is these shoulds and shouldn'ts still valid or is it out-of-dated?

You should use this offline editor if:

You are going to change a large set of data You want to change data without having any immediate effect (try something out). You have taken photos during your track and want to display them on the position they were taken. You want to use an offline editor and going to edit an area, which you believe other people are currently changing. JOSM supports merging changes and conflict resolving from changed areas (remember to do a download prior every upload).

You probably don't want to use JOSM if:

You just want to name this one street. Use the online editor. You don't want to install an application. You edit the map from behind a firewall that prevents JOSM working properly (e.g. from your place of work). Your machine doesn't match the Requirements below. AF HAF KARTOGRAF 12:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@AF HAF KARTOGRAF: - yes, this still sounds accurate to me Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Resolved: Seems resolved Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Strange phenomenon on Talk:Data_items

This is a real mystery to me. The Talk:Data items page displays the {Languages} template with links to... Talk:Wiki and {{Talk}} in the language-dependent UI, even though this template doesn't work that way. None of the templates are in the page source! I thought maybe the {{Archives}} template was causing this, but no. I tried adding {archives} to e.g. Talk:Verifiability, but there it only adds archives, so it works fine.

The {Languages} and {Talk} templates are visible on the page, but in the revision comparison and revision view they are not: [20].
They are visible in every version of the page, even the first version: [21].
I also tested it after logout and in other language versions and they are also visible. maro21 23:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I thought about this for several months before writing this topic, and now 5 minutes after writing I discovered the reason... maro21 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Is it then resolved? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Resolved: marking as resolved Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

New wikidata parameter round

Resolved: Edit nears its end Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that filling of Category:Wikidata_parameter_waiting_for_removal_from_infobox was a bit buggy: empty parameters failed to appear there.

I have now fixed it. I plan to continue running edit to make edits like Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Mateusz, do you use any automation for such tasks? I downloaded and tried AutoWikiBrowser. Probably the best non-Wikipedia instructions are available from Fandom wiki ( I configured the OSM wiki in settings and I could browse categories, such as the one you mentioned above. However, I cannot login to this account through AWB -- I get strange error The "login" module requires a POST request. I suppose something should be configured in this Wiki to enable AWB editing (the help page suggests "logging with a bot account", which I'm not sure is a thing on OSM wiki). Duja (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see you have User:Mateusz Konieczny - bot account but I don't know which kind of scripting it uses. Duja (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) - a Python script. It is using some libraries (especially for parsing wiki syntax and making connection itself) but no scripting framework. I tried using AWB and pywikibot from what I remember but it suffered from severe case of frameworkism and poor documentation, it was easier for me to write own tool over guessing how to fit magic together and understand what is going on. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to say that I'm willing to help out, but manually opening and editing 500+ pages just to remove a parameter that does not display anyway is not particularly entertaining; mapping trees in a savanna would be better spent time. AWB looks like a promising tool to automate the job, but I don't know what it takes to run it (warts and all) on OSM wiki. Duja (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Then do not worry: it is already automated. I posted this section to let people know (and give opportunity to protest) that automated edit will run again Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah OK. I thought you were soliciting help; but upon re-reading this section it was not the case. Actually, I inferred that from this edit summary of yours, but it was just a generic one. Still, it would be nice to have AWB working... Duja (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
You gave information, but it's a pity that you didn't wait for others' responses. I would have reported that other parameters that are not already in the template, such as "image_caption", could also be removed in the same edit. In that case, why this announcement one day before the bot edits? maro21 20:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Because it was announcement/reminder about already approved bot edit, not proposal/approval for a new bot edit. If I would be removing image_caption or other parameter I would wait far longer for reactions Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Mysterious category

What adds in a and categories? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Dubious in combination with Template:Fix --Chris2map (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Resolved: Thanks! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Spam accounts

There have been a lot of spam accounts created today, a lot of them are promoting ambulance chasers. Some of them are waiting hours after creating their accounts. Andrew (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say that 90% of accounts here are not users. I would block creating new accounts and do it manually - a user would need to give a link to their account. This is a small wiki and there is a small group of people who edit here and it would stop all spam and fake accounts. maro21 22:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
1) it would not block ALL spam accounts 2) it would be very significant hurdle for new editors Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the huge number of user accounts and creations of accounts with a large quota of users without any edits. Maybe we could connect the accounts (to have an existing OSM account for creating a wiki account). But it is also fair to keep barriers low to contribute to the wiki. --Chris2map (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: seems resolved Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


Wiki meta blacklist ( has added \bforms\.gle\b

It's still a useful tool to handle participants to an OSM event, for example. Could it please be whitelisted in ? --Richlv (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Richlv: - may be a better place for it (though I already posted without effect...) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@Richlv: The Meta spam blacklist intends to include any URL shortening service, including, due to privacy and security issues. We've reluctantly whitelisted TinyURL because Sophox uses it for long, complex links that otherwise would be difficult to include in wikitext, but otherwise I'd be hesitant to whitelist a URL shortening service. If you need to link to something on Google Forms, can you link to the full URL, which isn't blocked? – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Resolved: Answered: use full URL, link shorteners are being deliberately blocked. Please write if using full URLs is problematic for some reason Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Rewriting tag-linking templates in Lua

I've proposed rewrites of three commonly used templates for linking to tag description pages and am looking for some feedback or testing before I deploy them sitewide:

This is related to a recent discussion about pages becoming too complex for the wiki to perform well. I can't promise that it'll solve all the issues related to page performance, but it's a start and comes with some other minor benefits.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this! It is basically invisible until it breaks, so I want to let you know that it is appreciated! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Resolved: Thanks, I've gone ahead and deployed the changes. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

missing beirut sector maps

i am not sure if you're still active, but i wanted to ask if you could still find the remaining Beirut sector maps that are missing from the openstreetmap. those being: Zarif, Sanayeh, Horch, Hotel Dieu, Sioufi, Ghabi, Corniche el Naher, Mar Maroun

thank you

Who are you trying to contact? This is general page for discussing OSM Wiki issues. Maybe you wanted to make use of Notes? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Resolved: not fixable by changing things on wiki, not enough info to help this person Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Extra nowiki

See say


Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Minh Nguyen: can it be related to changes in tag template? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
We've already kind of reported this at Template_talk:Tag#Edit_2024-05-07_broke_template. I guess Minh is going to address this ASAP. Duja (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: Fixed. Reminder to self: don't go to bed right after literally changing all of OSM's tags. :^D – Minh Nguyễn 💬 14:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

{DE:Tag}-template broken

The German community recently found out that the much-used {DE:Tag}-Template doesn't produce proper code anymore. It looks like highway::[[DE:Key:|]]:[[DE:Key:|]]=cycleway; instead. The template hasn't changed in years, but is used very, very often on German subpages. Can someone figure out what broke it, and how it can be fixed? Nadjita (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nadjita: Fixed. See Template talk:Tag#Edit 2024-05-07 broke template for details. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 17:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)