Talk:Wiki/Archive 8

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Exclude OSM-Wikibase edits from Recent Changes

How can I exclude the Wikibase ("OSM Wikidata") from Special:RecentChanges? hideWikibase doesn't work: --Furusato (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you can use the filters and exclude the "Item" namespace. --Dcapillae (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Gadgets and Extensions for Microgrant Applications

Hi, I am Geoffrey, a member of the Microgrants Committee. We have added the Probox Template to the OSM Wiki copied from Wikimedia's Rapid Grants to be used for the microgrant applicants like this one. We would also like to add Join and Endorse buttons to the template to make it easier for the community to endorse or join they want to support. Adding the Join and Endorse buttons requires to add the Meta:AddMe page gadgets.

The Microgrant Program is starting this year, and is expected to continue every year, depending on the number of applications that come in, it means that the template and its extensions will be used on several pages. Add the buttons can also be used for endorsing other proposals like the Tagging Proposals.

We would also like to install the DynamicPageList extension that would allow us to automatically create a list of applications under the different categories ie Open, Draft, Funded, Withdrawn, Ineligible, Not Funded. Please let us know if there is an other easy way to do this that is already existing.

I would like to get your feedback and help to get these gadgets and extensions installed, if it is established that they are necessary and can be added to the OSM Wiki -- Kateregga1 (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for code review

After rationalising {{StatusLang}}, statuses whose translations into the language of the page are missing are no longer highlighted like thisHelp translate this into English!. I have written an extra routine, getTranslation, to do what StatusLang needs including wrapping English text with {{TranslateThis}} when there is nothing in the language of the page. I would appreciate any comments. --Andrew (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Unconfirmed users that want to upload images to the wiki


In the forum, there were two cases ([1], [2]) of users that wanted to upload images, but they are not in the Autoconfirmed user group. Wikipedia seems to have a mechanism to grand "confirmation" to those users manually. It looks like it is based on administrator's judgement, there seems to be no formal criteria, because everyone can get the permissions anyway. Do you think it would be helpful if there were a similar system in this wiki? --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 14:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This comes up relatively often, and I do think the inability to upload images is a little confusing and off-putting for new users. So anything that reduces this effect is welcome. Is the consensus that that restriction of image uploads to autoconfirmed users is still necessary? --Tordanik 15:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
We can try changing settings - in the worst case we may switch back and making OSM Wiki more welcoming is a good idea. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.--Jeisenbe (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. I started a thread at openstreetmap/operations/issues/488 to get replies from the system administrators. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 17:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
And thanks to Tigerfell for making Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Tigerfell: It is merged, thanks to all involved! Is it now fixed or is it necessary to do also something else? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome. If someone needs account confirmation, they can approach any administrator or bureaucrat. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: seems to be no longer needed, I am planning to archive this section Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Renaming "Abandoned" to "Archived" in proposal template

See for discussion about this. Please comment only there to avoid fragmenting discussion, this is intended only as notification Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Bot policy

Is there any clear consensus or documented rules about running bots on this wiki? Especially about bots active only for some language? In my case potential bot would edit only on pl: pages Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No, do not not think so. I wrote down some details and linked to a discussion at Bot#Wiki bots. I would say best practices include creating a separate bot account (so people can distinguish the bot and the owner) and documenting the bot's actions beforehand, but that is mainly a wish derived from Automated Edits code of conduct. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 22:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

2017 wikitext editor

Has anyone considered adding the 2017 wikitext editor extension? It is very nicely compatible with the visual editor and is great for new users who find the default source editor overwhelming. I'm currently using WikEd. Berrely (TC) 14:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Berrely: The 2017 wikitext editor is behind a beta flag, but you can't opt yourself into that beta unless BetaFeatures is installed. Fortunately, you can click the OOjs UI icon highlight.svg icon in the toolbar to enable the same syntax highlighting in the traditional textbox, just without dialogs for templates and such. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Implement floating column and row headings for long & wide tables to improve usability

I find that when I am reading a very long table with many columns I have to keep scrolling back to the top of the table to refresh my memory about the type of information contained in a column's cells. It would improve usability enormously if, once the column-heading row scrolled out of sight, this row would detach itself from the table and float within view. The same holds for very wide tables. As soon as the row headings scroll out of sight, the row-heading column would similarly float. hfinger (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hedleyfinger: MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Sticky table headers implemented "sticky" headers for tables that specifically opt into them. Unfortunately, it's a bit specific to one of the larger tables on this wiki, but maybe it would also help for the table you have in mind. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Harmful edits at Tag:historic=aircraft

Could one of the admins have a look at historic=aircraft? Russian speaking user Sowa1980 is modifying it by copying (possibly machine translated) documentation from German and/or Russian translations, and is throwing away valid documentation in the process. Their edits have been reverted twice (by Ungoose and myself) and they are not responding on their talk-page. I think there may be a language barrier. Perhaps someone who speaks Russian can have a look? --JeroenHoek (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Unfortunately, I do not speak Russian either. I think Yurik does. I added the page to my watchlist and I will monitor it. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 20:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I got a response on their talk-page, but it's in Russian. Google Translate suggests they are adding improvements in line with other historic=* tags, and that they doesn't see what's wrong with the edits. I'll leave the discussion to some proficient in Cyrillic writing though. :) --JeroenHoek (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
TBH, I am not exactly sure what they meant by their reply either. The reply in Russian somehow feels auto-translated as well, but could be due to other things. Assuming good faith, but may require some back-and-forth for mutual understanding. --Yurik (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Not "they", bust just only Sowa1880 :) He have made JOSM preset for historic technique and under this reason changes all associated wiki pages to the state that he personally considers correct. There was no any discussion about it in russian forum, Telegram channel or anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnakinNN (talkcontribs) 14:17, 23 March 2021
In this case, the word "they" is used when you do not know the gender or sex of a person. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 13:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for explanation, I didn't know it before :( AnakinNN (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Seems solved? In general, to contribute to text of language OSM Wiki pages in some languages it is necessary to be able to communicate in this laguage. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting ban for Sowa1980

During the last months user made vandal edits to several russian pages (I've reverted that ones, which I've noticed):

I'm native russian speaker, so I would like to explain the overall situation with this user. Sowa1980 is headache of all russian community :( He shows together after together by word and deed, that he doesn't recognize any local consesus, introduces his own tagging schemes (which are oftenly conflict with established ones - for example, he points in his diary, that "name" tag must be used for full official name of feature), principally creates multipolygons with one member (despite to recommedations in best pratices). And the worst - he reverts any edit of other mappers, who tries to bring data to recommended state (so they're being returned to "his" state). This actions are also accompanied by charging from him in "vandalism". This situation already have led to things, that other OSM members don't even try to edit anything in areas, which are being "watched" with Sowa1980 (currently these are regions of Tambov and Irkutsk).

He have already several bans from DWG (by mavl) for rudeness and controversial reverts (and eventually got ban in @ruosm channel in Telegram - main channel of russian OSM community).

Now he tries to single-handedly edit russian wiki pages to "legalize" his own mapping practices.

I am asking for a long-term or a permanent ban for Sowa1980.

AnakinNN (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

maybe put a message on user talk page ?
On the pages for which I know the language, the last modification made is indeed totally fanciful (start_date heavily used -> monument_date 0 use)
Marc marc (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly - his changes do not describe current tagging practices, instead of this they are pushing without discussions his desired tagging practices. For example, edits of historic=aircraft page - old scheme separated construction of aircraft (aircraft=fixed_wing/helicopter/...) and role (aircraft:role=fighter/transport/...). And it would definitely be noticed in case of discussion. Instead of this we have "standartization for standartization". I've noticed this on his talk page, but, frankly speaking, I'm not sure if this will have an effect (based on the experience of previous communication with him in russian). AnakinNN (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I can confirm that was misleading and Polish used was gibberish below typical autotranslator level. Fortunately it was reverted already. Though official warning may be better than immediate ban? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
For the first time (before this moment Sowa1980 didn't get any warnings in wiki, that's true) - ok, it may be enough. But it should be clear official warning (not to be treated as personal opinion of one person) with strong reminder to the base: OSM is not his personal project, but community project. No one can just come and start to setup his personal rules for some tags/objects/territories/... without preliminary discussions and reaching consensus. I've also reverted russian-language pages for historic=* objects to avoid misleading of new members by undiscussed practices. AnakinNN (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Note that Sowa1980 made now bunch of completely unexplained reverts Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Mateusz! And also thank you for reverting these changes on russian pages. Yes, he just try to return all these pages back to his versions. Also please note, that Sowa1980 didn't answer to any of questions on his talk page - nor in english, nor in russian or any other language. Are you sure that warning only will be enough in this situation? AnakinNN (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Well... I tried something very similar and Wiki admins ended making no decision in either direction: neither banned nor refused to ban. At least that problem got smaller as RTFM reduced editing rate. So I mentioned a warning option partially to icrease chance that they will do anything at all this time. Still, I think that "this is a final warning, you are obligated to communicate in case of conflicts in way undestandable to others (English on English pages, Russian in ru: pages, Polish in pl: pages), reverts without explanation are unacceptable" should be done first Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, got it. What is the next step of procedure? Should I request somebody from Wiki officials to make this comment or I can do it by myself? In the second case - how Sowa1980 will be sure that this is official warning, but not only my personal opinion about his actions? AnakinNN (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Addition. Sowa1980 again reverted wiki pages to his state, now with comments - "because start_date has no specifics, replaced by more accurate tag" (monument_date). It was his personal decision, no discussions. I've returned back with reason, that decision about "some (widely used) tag is wrong or inaccurate" should be made in community, not individually. It's unfortunate that it started to look like some kind of edit wars in history of that pages, but give up and allow user make any actions he wants - even worse. I've also made note both in English & Russian on discussion page that user sholudn't interpret OSM as his personal project and "Any tag you like" principle as green light to change existing tagging schemes in personal order.
JFYI: Today user got 4-days ban from DWG and during discussion in his diary mentioned, that "five people from ru-osm chat is not all ru-osm community and can't make decisions". Although questions were mostly not from mappers in Russia. It seems he does not consider necessary to dicuss any tagging questions with others. AnakinNN (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The final:

I suppose there's no need to do anything with this wiki account right now - there's a good chance that Sowa1980 will lose interest in any wiki editing because of impossibility to make any actions in OSM database in the next 10 years. But in case of repeated vandalism I think he should be banned immediately at least for the same duration. AnakinNN (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I actually forgot this request but today I remembered it again. As AnakinNN already wrote I do not see a need to block this user for the following reasons:
  1. I have given the user a warning (see talk page), and he replied to that. I think there should be a temporary block as an additional warning first.
  2. The controversial edits were aimed at justifying editing patterns in OpenStreetMap. The user is blocked there, he stopped editing the wiki, and there seems to be no motivation to continue here.
  3. Some of the issues listed above relate to OpenStreetMap itself. Blocks of wiki users and blocks of OpenStreetMap users are separate matters.
There was a conversation with DWG about the matter but it is solely my decision. I guess some people will not agree with me or say that this decision was made too late. The latter is definitely true, but as I said I forgot about it. When I looked at the request today again I wanted to finish it off and present the argumentation so you know that it did not ignore your posts. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 21:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

April Fools' Day

I don't find this kind of jokes funny at all. I consider it disrespectful to the work done by the wiki contributors. --Dcapillae (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, obvious joke pages like intentionally absurd proposals are fine but vandalism with "April Fools" as justification is not. (reverted already, author was asked to avoid doing it) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
You reminded me of Tag:amenity=bikeshed. As I recall it, some people did not like the joke. Now the page has two warnings on its top. What do you think about a template "April fool" that displays a warning? It could even disappear on 1st April and re-appear on 2nd. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Seems a good idea to me Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: see Template:April fool --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Overinflated infobox

Is having super-wide infobox for anyone else or is it just me? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

For me too, on mobile Firefox. -- Chris2map (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
At first I thought there was a non-printable character somewhere, but blanking the page and pasting only:
| key           = hgv:national network
| description   = test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test 
does the same. So it's probably an issue with the data item.
I also once stumbled upon the data item issue here: DE:Tag:boundary=postal_code with "Bad item: Q16019=*".
So it's a data item issue or Jeisenbe used magic and put a spell on it :D. maro21 18:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Fixed in [3]. maro21 18:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: no idea what was going on but at least is fixed - thanks for help! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Follow up vote on small improvement of the proposal process --PangoSE (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The link did not work for me. Same link again but using an internal link Talk:Proposal process#Lets reform the Proposal process!. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 18:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Providing an offline-version of the Wiki

Moved to Operations Github. --Kai M. Poppe (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Statistics


Is there any place where I can find statistics on how many pages are in a particular language on Wiki? maro21 15:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly. It also depends on the mechanism to determine the language of a wiki page. There are currently two strategies. The first one uses the prefix the other one uses the page language setting at Special:PageInfo. You can list the pages with a specific prefix via Special:PrefixIndex. I have not found a mechanism to count pages using the language setting or special pages. There might be a way using the API. The language setting is mostly interesting for right-to-left (RTL) languages which would otherwise need some templates like Template:Fa. If you want to know how many pages there are with missing translations, you can use one of the subcategories of Category:Pages with missing translation. Hope this helps. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 09:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
So I created the statistics myself and created [[Wiki:Statistics]]. maro21 20:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Add Navbox GNSS to all pages, mentioned in it

I'm creating a navigation box for an wiki pages, connected with GNSS: User:Vazhnov_Alexey/Navbox_GNSS. I'm planing to add this navbox to all pages, mentioned in it (exception — if the page already have some navbox or special style for a page).

Any objections? Concerns? We can also discuss this in forum. --Vazhnov Alexey (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved: Created here: Template:Navbox GNSS. Adding to pages. --Vazhnov Alexey (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Replace Simple image MediaWiki extension with MultiMaps extension

I would like to replace Simple Image extension with MultiMaps extension. Simple image extension is broken since at least 23 February 2020. Currently, the extension lacks a tile stitching service (Firefishy/SimpleMap/issues/4). There were problems with the previous service provider as well (fossgis/ and fossgis/ Noone is willing to provide the service. I would like to finish of this outstanding issue and get to a positive solution.

As a result, I propose an automated edit using TigerfellBot. I wrote down the details at the user page. Are there any comments or concerns? --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 17:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

So you want to replace for example:
<map lat="51.485" lon="-0.15" z="11" w="300" h="200" format="jpeg" />
{{slippymap|lat= 51.485|lon = -0.15|width = 300|height = 200|zoom =11}}
? maro21 18:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
No concerns from me. --Chris2map (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: Automated edit finished, will continue reviewing in the next days, OWG already removed the extension. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 22:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Redirects for linking from Taginfo

The page Key:jetski:rental saw some reverts recently and that is why I would like to know if there is some common opinion about creating redirects for supporting links from taginfo to the wiki.

Background information: Taginfo searches for wiki pages with the format Key:abc or Tag:abc=def. Sometimes the second page does not exist because the tag page includes all information already or the information is trivial such as yes. Some users then create a page Key:abc=yes which redirects to Tag:abc while others dislike that and mark the page for deletion.

I would like to formulate some guideline, so that the reverting stops. Are there any objective reasons why one option might be preferable? --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 15:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is willing to code a fix for Taginfo issue 248 this argument goes away because Taginfo would no longer need to use documentation pages.--Andrew (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I need to, but will be happy if someone else would tackle that. I will be happy to consult. Ping me on OSM slack (user nyurik), or can do a video chat. --Yurik (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wynndale: That is even better! Are the Taginfo maintainers willing to merge such code? I am skeptical, because I emailed System-users-3.svgJoto (Jochen Topf on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.) on 26 November and asked him to unlock the conversation, but I never received a reply. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 17:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Changing Taginfo to stop using OSM Wiki and replacing it with data items is a terrible idea. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I would say that such redirects are useful only if redirects leads to a different key Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Preferences: remove option "Mark all edits minor by default"

In the Preferences for this wiki, there is an option under "Editing" to "Mark all edits minor by default". I've now seen 2 users who are rather frequent editors who have (unintentionally?) used this setting, and therefore all their major edits to pages are marked as minor. It seems to mean that this option is a bad idea: there are no wiki editors who only make minor edits 100% of the time. Is it possible to remove this option? --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"only make minor edits 100% of the time" - and even if someone makes minor edits 99% of the time then not switching checkbox during bigger edit is still not helpful. Though I admit that I completely ignore major/minor distinction. The most problematic edits are from people willing to (deliberately or by mistake) writing incomplete/misleading edit description. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I often use this setting when I propagate a minor change on several pages (like translations or categories). Additionally, bots often make minor edits only. I also stopped using the minor edit flag as an indicator for reviewing changes. It is possible to disable the option and the English Wikipedia did this [4]. One would have to set
$wgHiddenPrefs[] = 'minordefault';
in the configuration and reset the setting for all users in the database. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting ban for RTFM

Due to

I am asking for a long-term or a permanent ban for RTFM.

I am considering his/her legal threats to be hilarious, and damage done by that editor was easy to fix.

But wasting time on reverts is not productive. And such legal threats may scare some other users.

I would be fine with RTFM editing wiki, as long as such problematic behavior is stopped.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The comment with the link to not a direct legal threat (but still not acceptable behaviour anyway). It's just general legal counselling about defamation and libel. However, the comment used on User_talk:Rtfm is a legal threat and no user on this wiki should face any in personal disputes with other users. I propose to ban his account on this wiki until he revokes this threat. Nobody should "learn" that expressing and keeping up legal threats is permitted for contributors to this wiki. --Nakaner (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, he repeatedly insults the intelligence of other users, calls people who ask him not to insult others whiners, and makes claims everywhere that people are just paid editors with bad intentions. Which is semi-related to the whole sabotage thing, but a different issue IMO. Really, none of his actions should be acceptable. Especially considering the warnings and recent block (that didn't seem to help). More so though due to him making legal threats about defamation while repeatedly accusing other users of things. Which is completely ridiculous and shouldn't be tolerated. Even if there is no explicit rule about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pinging active moderators (checked block log and deletion log): @Lyx:, @Tigerfell:. I am not entirely sure is this thread the best solution, but I have no better idea what would be preferable. Posting on mailing list/diary seems worse, tracking down admins and contacting them privately seems to not be better (maybe it would be better). I am pretty resistant to this type of harassment, but it is slowly getting irritating to me. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I have asked User:Rtfm for a one week cooling down period to allow me time to look into this. --Lyx (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for a quick reaction. And sorry for dumping this on moderators, hopefully I was not misrepresenting the situation. I will also avoid engaging this user (no posting further complaints on their talk page, I will try to avoid reverting their edits for now etc). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Lyx: - sorry for bothering you, but what is the status of this thing? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for being so slow with this. A short status update: I have received comments from some people involved in this dispute as well as one of the other admins, and started to check the text on and history of the pages involved. However, I am not finished yet getting a complete picture of the situation and the events leading to it. As far as I can see all people involved acted responsible in the meantime and did not attack any of the others, thank you all for this. I know that I already needed far more time than I initially expected, but I hope you can still grant me some more time. --Lyx (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I am perfectly fine with waiting longer, I just wanted to check is it progressing at all. I understand that it is tricky to do and the most irritating kind of drudgery for multiple reasons Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Lyx: ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
What do you think about (mass) edits like this ? user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Rtfm: please keep this discussion focused on wiki issues. In case of mapping issues, please contact DWG instead. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 12:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not side with the notion of the ban. I shall give a thumbs up on Mateusz Konieczny's most recent offer of a compliment to a OSM editor as of late. No further comments. EnBoldenTexts (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

He should have just been banned when Mateusz Konieczny made the complaint. Since a year later he isn't any less of a problem. There's zero indication that he's had any willingness to improve his attitude in the meantime. Let alone is he any more willing to work with people to find a consensus now. He's still doing 99% of the things on the list of behaviors. It really hasn't helped that the admins have repeatedly, with rare exception, pandered to him in the meantime either. If anything he's just been emboldened to do the things Mateusz Konieczny complained about more. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved: Was blocked today for 1 year Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Modify the osm wiki media software to get instant access (focus) to search box after opening the main page

See title "Modify the osm wiki media software to get instant access (focus) to search box after opening main page".
For better understanding please compare to wikipedia main page: Go to then the centered search box is in focus (the cursor is blinking there) and you are able to instant type in your preferred search string, same behavior would be nice for :-) . Or and even for the sub-pages, e.g. --MalgiK (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@MalgiK: The multilingual portal automatically focuses the search box because it's the focal point of the UI. The downside is that the arrow keys don't initially scroll the page; you have to tab out of the search box first. Since the search box is off to the side and easy to miss, stealing focus this way isn't a great usability tradeoff.

Over on the Vietnamese Wiktionary, I wrote a simple gadget, on by default, that automatically focuses the search box when you start typing, but the initial focus is still on the overall page for things like scrolling. I think the gadget makes the most sense on wikis where search is the main way to navigate – in fact, that wiki's front page puts the search box front and center – but less sense on wikis where you spend significant time on an individual article.

I installed the gadget on this wiki, off by default, so that you can enable it in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets if you like accessing the search bar this way: check the "Automatically focus the search box when typing outside a textbox" checkbox.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Minh Nguyen: Thanks for detailed long answers. I agree the situation on the wikipedia main page is a bit different compared to our osm wiki main page. In this case I would be happy, if the osm wiki main page would have a similar design, or even at least the search box in the center and the other things around :-) Cool, i tested your/this gadget. For an older browser i use, it works not 100% well, the focus is actually send to the box, but the first letter appears twice in the box. However for the Firefox browser it works as expected. Then i was trying to write you this response by using the wiki source code editor (not the visual one) and the focus was also moved from the edit box to the search box when i did start typing. So i switched off the gadget now to be able for writing you. So the gadget isn't usable if a person who wants to use the wiki for searching pages and editing pages one after another. Any additional hint to solve this? --MalgiK (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I was afraid the gadget wouldn't quite work here – another reason I left it off by default for now. I wrote the gadget back in 2011; both the wiki and browsers have changed quite a lot since then. Are you using the syntax highlighting option in the source code editor via the Syntax highlighting button? That editing surface is similar to the visual editor, which I haven't tested yet. (As it happens, the Vietnamese Wiktionary steers editors away from the visual editor, because each entry needs to follow a rigid, template-laden format.) I'll see if I can find some time to look into it again, but key handling is not my favorite aspect of scripting. ;^) In the meantime, hover over the search box to see a tooltip that includes the shortcut key for focusing the search box. (It depends on your operating system and potentially a browser setting.) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 08:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen: Thanks a lot for additional information in this regard. Switching off the syntax highlighting option actually helps and hovering the mouse over the search-box shows key combination ALT-SHIFT-F on my machine, which also works. So it seems there are some workarounds, but i think it still would be interesting to get a central located search box on the main osm wiki page ( which has the focus for text input similar to wikipedia main page ( If there is a todo(which)-list for the osm wiki, i would appreciate to put this request on this list. --MalgiK (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

New Taginfo Replacement

I've always been annoyed with the following limitations of the Template:taginfo boxes:

  • Awkward extra padding that you can't get rid of (due to IFRAME implementation)
  • Doesn't include the total count of nodes+ways+relations
  • Doesn't list the name of the tag in the taginfo box
  • Sometimes doesn't load

I've built a proposed replacement with the help of @Minh Nguyen: based on AJAX which fixes the issues above. It is currently installable as a user script for testing but my hope is that we could install it as a gadget. The new template is called {{taginfo2}}.

Screenshots and local-user install instructions can be found here: User:ZeLonewolf/TaginfoTest. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The limitations above have also frustrated me and others over the years, so this replacement is an encouraging development. {{Taginfo wrapper}} was only a partial workaround; this reimplementation goes much further. I'd also add that {{Taginfo2}} is easily localizable (with the help of an administrator), unlike the extension-based {{Taginfo}} template, and it probably won't be difficult to add taginfo to data item pages where they'd also be useful.

I'd like to hear others' feedback about the overall concept before installing the user script as a gadget. This new implementation would only be useful if we install it as a gadget and enable it by default. I also left a code review over at Template talk:Taginfo2, where we can continue polishing the technical details.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it having the same performance? Is it increasing load on taginfo servers? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I re-loaded the page a bunch of times and the performance seems basically the same. Sometimes the AJAX version loads first, and sometimes the IFRAME version loads first. I measured it in Google Chrome and I'm seeing around 200-300ms load times from the US East Coast for the first 3-4 boxes on a page and something like 100ms per box after that. That's just ballparking it from numbers in the network debugger in Chrome. The tag box makes 2 parallel calls to taginfo, and the relation box makes 3 calls. The current {{taginfo}} template+php makes a single call to the taginfo embed API. However, I am not sure how "heavy" the embed API is compared to the stats API calls. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I opened (to avoid accidental DDOS) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The solution with the IFRAME was always a bit wonky. When I built this years ago, it was the only thing we could get to work. I don't remember the details, but I believe it was too complicated then to add extra Javascript to MediaWiki or something like that. I think the new solution is much better from a design-perspective. Some points on this: 1. Having two solutions for the same thing isn't good. So the end goal should be to get rid of the "embed" stuff. Of course it will take some time, but if you start it, you should also push this through. I would also argue that a fallback for when Javascript isn't available isn't needed in this day and age. If it isn't available the box simply isn't there or empty, that's good enough. 2) I don't like the template name "taginfo2", I am sure we can come up with something better. :-) 3) There will be some extra load on the taginfo server, but I don't think this is a problem. The "expensive" part of the processing is the database lookups and they are very similar in both cases, just spread out over more http calls. To reduce load even further (and make the Javascript simpler) we can certainly discuss adding more fields to existing API calls or even adding new API calls. If you want to pursue this, please open issues on with your ideas what would be needed or helpful for this use case. -- Joto (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Joto: I think the plan is to overwrite {{Taginfo}} with the implementation in {{Taginfo2}} once we're happy with it. (For future rewrites of templates, we can use subpages like {{Taginfo/sandbox}} for clarity.) If there isn't a strong desire to maintain feature parity with JavaScript disabled (or in older browsers where MediaWiki refuses to load JavaScript), then the fallback can be a simple link to taginfo.

Unfortunately, {{Taginfo}} is not nearly the only use of the embed: the <osmtaginfo> parser hook is directly used on 480 different pages, so it'll take a bit of elbow grease to completely transition to the overwritten {{Taginfo}}. At a glance, most direct usage seems to be either for value lists that predate {{Taglist}} or for custom tag comparison tables, which ZeLonewolf is also working on improving.

Thanks for being open to extending the API. I'm excited by the opportunities for taginfo-wiki integration that this gadget will unblock.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 10:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to drop no-javascript fallbacks if there is not a need for it. It would certainly simplify the code. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
For tags it's better but for relations worse. I prefer the previous version for relations because it's clear what these numbers mean.
4 511 208 relations
24 535 675 members
These icons for me are not understandable.
Resolved: Relation/member text is now implemented --ZeLonewolf (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
And, if it's localizable, you must remember about decimal separators which are different in different languages. These have to be translatable as well. If it's not possible to change it, you should use space instead of comma. maro21 18:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Maro21: For consistency with the localized messages, the current implementation does format numbers according to the current interface language, which you can set using the link at the language selector at the top of every page or in Special:Preferences. For example, here's User:ZeLonewolf/TaginfoTest in Vietnamese ("352.090.855" and "81,66%"), French ("352 090 855" and "81,66 %"), and Hindi ("३५,२०,९०,८५५" and "८१%"). – Minh Nguyễn 💬 08:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: localized numbers and percentages are implemented --ZeLonewolf (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I feel that old "[More...]" was quite nice and it should be not missing from new one Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Mateusz Konieczny: I suggested adding the "Powered by taginfo" attribution line to provide an explicit link to taginfo, and the links at the top go to the key/tag/relation page at taginfo. However, a user could conceivably assume those links go to the wiki page, since that's the convention everywhere else {{Tag}} is used. So maybe we can change the attribution line to "More details at taginfo" and link the whole footer to the tag page instead of the taginfo home page. Does that sound better? – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Re: ""More details at taginfo" and link the whole footer to the tag page instead of the taginfo home page" - that sounds like a good idea. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting ideas, could we use an additional separator line for cases with tagLink=yes Taginfo2 3.png --MalgiK (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: Footer and UI have been updated with both suggestions. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@ZeLonewolf: I've converted your user script into a gadget. Please remove references to your user script from User:ZeLonewolf/common.js, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, and enable "Embed key, tag, and relation statistics boxes from taginfo". If all looks well, we can enable the gadget by default for all users by adding the default flag to the taginfo entry in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 11:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks good here on my side! --ZeLonewolf (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg I enabled the taginfo gadget by default for all users. Please continue to test in as many browsers as you can, especially because a JavaScript error in this gadget could prevent any other gadgets or sitewide scripts (including the data item UI) from functioning. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 16:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a lovely improvement, thank you! One problem I've run into is that it doesn't seem to be sortable in tables. See my use on Tag:amenity=recycling. Glad for any suggestions! JesseFW (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it can't be sortable because it's not text/number but template. But you can always sort the table manually by the most used ones on the top and set the first column sortable - if someone needs alphabetical order, they can sort the table. maro21 16:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
No, it does sort them, but as strings, not numbers. I think it's just a formatting adjustment needed. I'll see what I can do. JesseFW (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
And now by stripping out the formatting, and just using the underlying AJAX, I've gotten it to work!! JesseFW (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Better description for tag statuses

I rewrote significantly (and exact copy at )

My intention was to have status values description matching actual use of statuses. Review and feedback is welcomed! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved: seems to be no longer needed, I am planning to archive this section Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Integration with Wikipedia is failing

Old title: WIWOSM having major errors

WIWOSM seems to be having some major errors, with a 2.8 GB error.log file. Please refer to this discussion on Wikipedia. Some help would certainly be appreciated. Sdkb (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion was moved to where it is not present anymore. @Sdkb: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
resolved - anyone who wanted to help this specific user of OSM data already did it, linked discussion is now inactive Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)}}
I'm unarchiving (I hope that's okay) since this is still very much unsolved, as far as I'm aware. The root thing I sought was for clicking on the coordinates at a page like (at the upper right corner or infobox) to generate the same result (with an outline of the campus) as at e.g. I'm pretty sure I did everything I needed to on the map for the object to be defined the same way, but it's still not appearing at Wikipedia after several months. A breakdown is happening somewhere, and it's affecting potentially thousands of pages that have had their borders defined since whenever it broke. I'd be very appreciative if someone could figure out and solve the issue. Sdkb (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: it is not an OSM Wiki issue, and it is offtopic on this talk page. If you want to unarchive discussions, I would recommend unarchiving discussion on Wikipedia, where this bug happens and is on topic. You can also look through contact channels for someone with both ability to debug WIWOSM and time for that. Or even better, looking through WIWOSM documentation for where bugs should be reported. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: Thanks for the info. So is WIWOSM not hosted here? I was told at some point that this was the place to raise the issue. I looked through the contact page, but it is not clear how to find someone to reach out to from that, and I looked through the WIWOSM documentation here, but it makes no mention of how to report bugs. Sdkb (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I see - so I will ping @Master: and @Kolossos: has help link - linking nonexisting page Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: You can also write at - but I am not going to promise a response. exists and seems the best place to report issue. Sadly indicates that it is not being actively developed - but maybe they will respond? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the links, but after trying repeatedly to fix this issue, it seems that there is no one out there able to help. Wikipedia is one of the biggest users of OSM, so it's sad to see such a major failure of integration (on whichever end it's occurring). Sdkb (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Came from Wikipedia to edit maps, need HELP!

Hi everyone, I found that some maps are required to be uploaded to Wikipedia, so I came here to make them. But where do I make them?

I wish to create .jpg/ .png (and if possible .svg) maps of congressional districts (with counties in the background) of the state of Virginia using kml files available at [], which is in public domain. But I don't know where to do it, and what procedure to follow. Can someone help? Thanks. CX Zoom (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that this question seems neither about OSM Wiki nor about OSM, what makes it quite offtopic here. Maybe someone will ask, but I would look for a better location to ask it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Example: Welcome to the wonderful world of OSM. I would try for starters: it's not that active but ime the best place for a big opening qn like this. What you're proposing sounds quite technical for a new mapper but if no help from Forum you can probably find all the info you need on the wiki together with Good luck. eteb3 (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry @CX Zoom: . You can see I'm no expert in wiki mark up. eteb3 (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Widget allowing wiki editors to be rewarded for their work

Rovas rewards volunteers with monetary and (if deserved) reputation-like rewards, for work like editing this wiki. I propose adding a widget to the wiki that would:

  1. allow the editor to automatically track their editing time and have a work report created in Rovas, which would earn them Chrons - the freely exchangeable Rovas community currency. This would work similar to how the Rovas Connector for JOSM plugin works.
  2. allow the wiki consumers to reward (the page, or the whole wiki) creators with own Chrons, or national currency.

Rovas has API support for both use cases.


  • It is a well-known fact that reputation scores can increase motivation to provide more and higher quality work. See for example Stackowerflow. This could lead to better/more wiki content,
  • The OSM project is more that the map data creation. The amount of work that is invested by mostly volunteers into the whole ecosystem is today hard to measure and remains largely invisible. Rovas makes it possible to relatively painlessly create an auditable record of the work. Such data can be used in different ways. For example in fundraising efforts, or as a signal about abilities of the individuals contributing the reports,
  • Possible revenue stream for the whole volunteer ecosystem

If there is interest, I would be happy to provide a specification for the widget - as a start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laznik (talkcontribs) 16:44, 27. August 2021

I am pretty sure that it would be counterproductive. Signed, someone with over 20 000 OSM Wiki edits Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Maybe counterproductive for inhabitants of the richest countries in the world who enjoy the privilege to supply labor to a volunteer project for free. Referring to psychological theories (Maslow, Self-determination theory), I claim that it is a privilege to not have a concern about one's existential needs (food, shelter, health) and be able to engage instead in fulfill their higher level, psychological (non-material) needs that volunteering can address. If, for example, we want to support OSM mapping efforts in under-developed countries where large portion of population is economically deprived, we need to pay them to do so. Additionally, I am "pretty sure" a link between signaling personal characteristics like reputation, skills or pro-comunity orientation and work motivation is well evidenced. I admit, there can be exceptions to the rule, but even the commenter above proves my point by including a reputation-like signal in the form of the number of edits he made to the wiki.--Laznik (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Your rant about privilege aside, paying people to edit the Wiki is a bad idea. Not that paying people who have important "material needs" $.0000001 pennies on the dollar to edit the Wiki would have any effect on their lives. Positive or negative. If anything, it would just be taken asan insulting kick in the face. Especially if it was framed how you have stated it. "Hey, under-privileged person in a third world country. We know your lower on Maslow's hierarchy of needs then us and have no self-determination, which was likely caused by our countries in the first place, but how about we pay you 0.0000001 cents to edit the Wiki since your clearly incapable of editing it in your free time due starving to death and all?" Cringe. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Currently one can get 0.68 Eur/hour for their work in Rovas, which would be a great deal for a huge number of people (see for example here). The Rovas exchange rate is determined by the market and to predict what would it look like if the app was used by orders of magnitude more people is difficult, but there are some data we could use to get an idea about the potential. First, volunteers generate over a trillion USD/year in economic value that should be benefiting the most economically deprived, but it is not. I believe we - volunteers - can capture a portion of it and distribute it where it is needed most. Second, the Rovas rules IMHO provide a more efficient charitable donations distribution mechanism than the one we have today. It is a substantial stream of money a large portion of which never reaches the targeted population. On the recipient side of the equation that determines the exchange rate is the fact that there are technological barriers for a rapid adoption, which would initially constrain the adoption rate and therefore also pressure on the exchange rate. --Laznik (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Good for Rovas. Clearly you missed my point though. Which is that paying people tiny amounts of money to the Wiki isn't going help them out of poverty. If they are going to edit the in the first place. Since clearly have more important things to deal with. As you've said yourself. More importantly though, it wouldn't improve the Wiki any to pay people to edit it. As I can guarantee 99% of the edits will be either contentious, low hanging fruit and not add anything, or just outright vandalism. Seriously, what would stop someone from adding a word to an article, deleting it, adding it again add nauseum just to rack up micro payments? There's enough of that crap on here already and no one to clean it up as is. Made worse by the fact that most attempts correcting things turn into petty bickering, threats, edit wars Etc. Etc. It just exacerbates things to add money to the equation.
If you want the Wiki to be improved, then either do it yourself or at don't add to the already exiting extremely toxic environment by attacking other users just because they said how many edits they have made. That kind of BS only turns people off of editing. No one is (or have to) endure being endlessly harassed on here by making contentious edits just to feed their family. Seriously, suggesting otherwise is just neo-liberal imperialist drivel. The same as acting like the third world's problems are somehow resolved the second they get a Starbucks or McDonald's. It's not our job to right great wrongs. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
"Possible revenue stream for the whole volunteer ecosystem" - you have not explained who would fund it. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I guess it has to do with Rovas rewarding people for editing or something. My guess is that Rovas is probably one of those worthless "block chain can solve everything" type things that "tech bro" libertarians like to create so they can feel better about the fact that they leach off the third world working poor by "giving a penny of every $100 we make off this ponzi scheme to the Congo" or some crap. Not to say Laznik's original suggestion to use it wasn't good faithed, but such things are never as egalitarian, effective, or worth implementing as they are made out to be. I don't blame Laznik for not knowing that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
reply to Mateusz: In short, we have to stop giving our work away for free. This sounds like a non-starter, but I believe it is not. An explanation requires more words than I can reasonably expect people here to read, but I will write about it soon elsewhere and post a link here. There are however some real-world examples. A "soft" approach is where the ad block can be removed by paying with own work, or euros (go ahead, try it). A hard(er) approach can be seen at, where to read the ski reports one also has to pay with euros or own work. The nabezky experiment is seasonal (winters only apparently) and has been running for 3 seasons, while the freemap got the ads block about a month ago. The nabezky site has been generating between 400 and 600 euro in about 4 months, and the freemap site seems to perform similarly. Admittedly, these are short-running experiments and we do not have enough data to make definitive judgements, but the revenue is about an order of magnitude higher than revenue from ads has been bringing at that visitor level (10000 - 15000/month). It is not a normal subscription either, as people often pay more than they have to if they have the chance. I believe seeing the option to pay with own volunteer time is the factor that makes them do it. Please notice that the ability to pay with own time is also the key to making a volunteer product not free AND available to anybody at the same time (anybody can volunteer). --Laznik (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Why would anyone want OSM to not be free? That's the whole point in it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Changing OSM's "business model", as it were, is far outside the scope of this talk page, which is primarily for technical and logistical discussions related to the wiki's operation. Broader discussions are better suited for the talk and osmf-talk mailing lists, though I don't think you could expect this idea to get a much warmer reception there. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 18:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The time tracking/rewarding widget addition which I am proposing here, does not require a change to the ODbL license, as the examples of the actual solutions I mention above clearly show. A change in the license would IMHO help a lot, but we don't need it to benefit from the addition I am proposing.--Laznik (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments in local time

I just installed a gadget, "Comments in local time", that detects timestamps in user signatures and localizes them into your preferred language, time zone, and date format. It's similar to the gadget that's available on the English Wikipedia, but I copied over my rewrite of it instead, because the original version has poorer performance and its options aren't as flexible. This version also uses relative dates and times for recent comments and refreshes them as you're viewing the page. The gadget's documentation includes a guide to customizing the display and tooltip formats further using a user script. The gadget is disabled by default, but you can enable it in your Gadget preferences. I would be open to enabling it by default, but I'm aware of at least one case in which a malformed user signature causes the script to hang, so I would want to be sure there isn't a widespread problem here before taking that step. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ferries - image should be linkable page has image - and you cannot click on it to follow link. Note that image used there requires attribution so it must be linkable at least (which is standard method of giving at least chance to see attribution) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: This change to delink the infobox image was made apparently without discussion, though the part that delinked the decorative OSM logo is benign. I've restored the link. Thanks for reporting the issue. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for tracking it down!
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposals for unused tags

There was recently an accepted proposal for the namespace tags reusable_packaging:accept and reusable_packaging:offer. Both of which are IMO problematic for various reasons. My issues with them aside, one of the things I noticed is that neither tag has any usage in the real world. I could have sworn there was a recommendation somewhere that tags should generally be "tested" before being proposed. I can't find anything about it in the Proposal article though. Anyone know where the Wiki might have said something along those lines? It's also possible I'm confusing the Wiki for something said on the mailing list. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It is recommended, not required and it is valid to vote against with justification that noone tried using this tags Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Of course it's not a valid reason to vote against a proposal. Although, really people can vote against proposals for whatever reason they want. I assume it's mentioned in the "proposal process" article and not the bastard stepchild "proposal" article? I know I said it on the other talk page, but there should only be a single article about proposals. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, Proposal defines the term and provides additional information about it. Proposal process explains the process of writing a proposal. The first page addresses people who want to know something about the term/concept. In contrast, the second page aims at people who want to write a proposal. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 16:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I figured that would be counter. A proposal is inherently part of the proposal process though. So there's no reason they can't be combined. There's zero reason a page can't define how to do something and also show someone how to do it at the same time. That's literally what every tag and key article on here does. Especially since the proposal article is only like three paragraphs long. You can't tell me those three paragraphs can't just as easily be integrated into the Proposal process article.
Otherwise your expecting people to fully read and understand two articles for something that only needs a single article. Also, by having them as separate articles your assuming they are somehow different, unique things. feel free to point out a proposal process that doesn't rely on knowing what the definition of a proposal is or proposal that doesn't involve some form the proposal process being involved. Because you can't do one without the other inherently being relied on and involved. For instance, just creating a proposal page is part of the proposal process and you can't do that without knowing the definition of a proposal (or at least you shouldn't and I doubt anyone would). Plus, having two articles for what it is ultimately the same exact thing is just overcomplication for it's own sake. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Why it would not be a valid reason? "untested, not sure is it going to work" is quite good reason to be against Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know. I guess it would depend on the tag. One that is just an extension of an already existing and tested tagging scheme would probably be OK even if it hasn't been used yet. Something new, extremely narrow, and that might only work in certain places or contexts, like the reusable_packaging tags, should probably be fully research and tested first. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like either thing happened for it though. I don't think it should be on the voters fill in the gaps either. Especially if there is zero chance of a serious discussion about possible problems while the voting is going on. Which seem to be the norm.
It doesn't help that there's zero incentive to address problems after the proposal is approved either. More so because changing anything after the fact can potentially come at the cost of what was originally laid out in the proposal and voted on. For instance, apparently the wording of the reusable_packaging article can't be changed now to include plastic bags because doing so would go against wording that was in the proposal.
That said, generally speaking I don't see anything wrong with a proposal for something like a new shop tag that is well defined from the get-go, and has an extremely small chance of miss use or miss understanding. Even if there's zero uses of it ahead of time. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
"there's zero incentive to address problems after the proposal is approved either" - getting problems fixed is incentive in itself Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: How come there's so many problems that aren't being dealt with then? Please don't answer with anything along the lines of "because no one has dealt with them yet" either. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
If you reject this (true, even if annoying) answer and do not narrow it down then I am unable to answer Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll agree with you that getting problems fixed is incentive in itself when there's one conversation on here about fixing a problem or an attempt to do so that doesn't turn into a toxic pissing match, threats, or edit warring. Until then though, there's zero motivation at least for me to fix things for there own sake. I'm definitely not wasting my time fixing crap or suggesting a fix for anything if I'm just going to be lied about, slandered, and threatened for doing so. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
(1) recommendation against doing it is present already (2) if you want to make it mandatory, feel free to make a proposal for it (proposal process is typically changed by making a proposal about it) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I assume doing a proposal would involve having to announce said proposal on the mailing list? If that's the case, then I'm good. Since it would go against my belief that things related to the Wiki should be discussed and worked out on the Wiki. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: Seems resolved here - Proposal process can be modified but some specific proposal would be needed. Changing process would require discussion on tagging mailing list, adding some extra recommndation would be best proposed at Talk:Proposal process Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Bot request to set page language

I would like to have the page content language of pages beginning with Ro:Moldova/ and Ro:Romania/ set to Romanian. This means they still display in Romanian if the {{Place}} template is changed to use the page content language. --Andrew (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wynndale: can you link manually made edit that you would expect from bot? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: it is unclear what kind of action bot is supposed to be doing - if I am unable to do it manually I am not going to be able to do it with a bot Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Why displaytitle is broken here? - why {{DISPLAYTITLE:Pl:iD editor walkthrough}} is ignored there? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: "Pl:" is a pseudonamespace, a naming convention as opposed to a real namespace recognized by MediaWiki such as "DE:". By default, MediaWiki requires DISPLAYTITLE: to be equivalent to the canonical title. You can have it say "pl:ID editor walkthrough" or "pl:ID editor_walkthrough", but lowercasing an "i" in the middle of the title makes it a different title. This requirement can be disabled by setting $wgRestrictDisplayTitle to false, but the downside would be that the <h1> wouldn't be a reliable indicator of the page name you can link to.

At one point, I floated an idea to replace these language namespaces and pseudonamespaces with subpages, which is the approach long preferred by MediaWiki and various extensions. That would incidentally allow you to lowercase the "i" in "iD editor walkthrough/pl" without breaking linking, but the main benefit would be potentially cleaner search results.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 10:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved: thanks for explanation and in this specific case page can be moved while leaving redirect and leaving English page name in Languages template parameter Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations

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. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, do I see it correctly that all images from the listing Category:GPL files may not be used? -- Chris2map (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Chris2map: Why GPL files would not be usable?Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
At Wiki_Help I read this:
> Note:
Use only pictures from Wikipedia if the license is Public Domain or CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.
You are NOT allowed to use pictures with GNU-License like GFDL or GPL. -- Chris2map (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Added in - asking author makes no sense as they are not alive anymore. This info is at best incomplete as for example CC0 and WTFPL are also fine. I will post on legal-talk mailing list, but I suspect that it should be removed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I removed it as it was dubious and without any explanation Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
But JOSM is on the GPL license, screens of JOSM as well, so should we remove JOSM images because someone once wrote something there without giving reasons?:) GPL is a free lincese and we don't use the images in the OSM database but on the Wiki. maro21 19:45, 3 November 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
    • Note that proposed alternative images are listed at given file pages
  • Save page with edit like "replace 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

Files with replacement found:

  1. - labelled for deletion (Chris2map (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC))
  2. - ready for deletion Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  3. labelled for deletion Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

For files below help is also necessary with finding a replacement images, in such case you can

  • 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


  1. Bar_1.jpg -> e.g. File:HK Central 擺花街 Lyndhurst Terrace sidewalk restuarant bar table n chairs n tender Oct-2011.jpg
  2. Beacon.jpg - comes from FlickR - I think the license is free, could you check?
  3. Fabrics.jpg -> e.g. File:P1080828.JPG and File:BANKMORE Fabrics, Omagh - - 138346.jpg
  4. Trench.jpg - Are File:POL Warsaw transzeja.jpg and File:SKANSEN RZEKI PILICY- transzeja - panoramio.jpg good to replace? maro21 15:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Maro21: File:POL Warsaw transzeja.jpg seems a decent replacement. And thanks for your help! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
But we would have the same photo as for Pl:Tag:military=trench. maro21 21:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Maro21, I'm afraid I have replaced the photo on all pages with the File:Base XXXIV communication trench.JPG, because unfortunately I read your suggestion only now. sorry. Should we still add to the proposed photo? Chris2map (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
It's ok. I meant that if we wanted to replace photos on barrier=ditch with File:POL Warsaw transzeja.jpg, the photo on military=trench would be the same. But you found another photo, so I think it's ok. maro21 20:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This file looks like it was made by the uploader. So I would keep it. Or instead of fixing so many pages, one can upload a new file with the same name. maro21 19:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that is also an interesting problem: how far we can assume that people uploaded own work? Note that I encountered already several cases of apparently own work which turned out to be random images found on internet Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

remove misleading claim from MediaWiki:Uploadtext

"Media files that are not covered by the project scope of Wikimedia Commons, but are useful in OpenStreetMap wiki pages: for example media of State of the Map conferences, Humanitarian OSM Team projects, mapping parties." is not true.

Such images are within scope of Wikimedia Commons. See or

I propose to remove this line. It is fine to upload such images here if uploader prefers to not deal with Wikimedia Commons but we should not discourage uploading them there, especially with false claims Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: The message's language dates to 2016, when perhaps there were fewer files about OpenStreetMap (as opposed to screenshots of OSM) on Commons. Nowadays, you're right, there's a lot more room for OSM-related content there. Even individual icons from the osm-carto project and images from editor tutorials would be well within Commons' scope, especially as a lot of what the wiki documents would be within Wikibooks' scope. Is it worth still mentioning the possibility of something that doesn't fit in Commons' scope, without giving specific examples? – Minh Nguyễn 💬 08:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen: The only things that would fit "Media files that are not covered by the project scope of Wikimedia Commons, but are useful in OpenStreetMap wiki pages" are decorations of user pages which I would not encourage (though it should not be a valid deletion target is used and properly licensed). Even File:Global Relative Share Pie Chart.png could be uploaded to Commons Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: Fixed in Special:Diff/2226836. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen: Can you make "Make sure to note the file's relevance to the OpenStreetMap project in order to avoid questions about whether the file falls within the Wikimedia Commons project scope." as subheading of "Media files that are covered by the scope of project scope of Wikimedia Commons (summary) - these should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons."? Right now it reads like it applies to all files (below do/don't listings) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: Done in 2227225. Thanks for catching that mistake! – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen: I thought about if it is intended to apply to Commons uploads or if that is supposed to apply to OSM Wiki uploads. Now it refers to OSM Wiki uploads while referencing Wikimedia Commons policy Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: Oops, third time's the charm: 2227621. I opted not to use the full sentence, because it's actually redundant to the main instruction to upload to Commons, which already links to that project's scope. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Spammer User:Chapitas

The user Chapitas is probably a spammer user (wiki contributions). Could you please check? Thank you. --Dcapillae (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a typical spammer to me, more a vandal. I have blocked the user for now from editing anything except their user talk page. --Lyx (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Rename request

Hello. I renamed in Wikipedia and I would like to rename and open street map wiki. My new username is AlPaD. Thank you! Fffv7787 (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fffv7787: This will require the help of a bureaucrat. You might try reaching out to one of them directly in case they don't watch this page. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Fffv7787 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Just in case of additional requests: Fffv7787 asked the "wrong" bureaucrat (Dorothea). She can do it, that is not the question, but it is actually not her job (strictly speaking). She received the bureaucrat flag so that she can edit some pages like Donations and potentially delegate user rights to OSMF board members so they can do such things by themselves. OSMF does not pay her to handle such "simple user requests" (again strictly speaking). Previous requests were handled by Pigsonthewing, Lyx, and Harry Wood when no account deletion or the like was involved. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 21:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I added info about this trap: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: user is renamed and Wiki:Bureaucrats is now more clear Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

PD-shape to series of images

There is a series of images similar to - without marked license.

As far I know this files are eligible for marking as being below threshold of originality, I also asked to confirm this/

To help you can open and edit pages of such images and add:


and save page.

I planned to do this on my own but I would appreciate help.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

What about when the symbol has apparently been taken out of a photograph? Does the original (unknown) photograph have to be taken into account? E.g. and --Chris2map (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I suspect that photo carries own copyright, though I am unsure. I asked on for help. I know that scans carry no own copyright (though that was debated in UK court for example) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
It appears that "it is quite possible that a copyright can subsist in this photo" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks for pursuing this. I supposed that these images could be tricky. So we should not apply PD-shape to photos of symbols and shapes (even if they seem to have been cropped out)?! --Chris2map (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: for this diagrams, photos will be handled together with other photos Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Media without a license

Note - help there would be welcomed, we have many images without a license.

Many of them are unused and can be flagged for deletion, in cases of useful or used images it is a good idea to ask uploader ( is a case where I was succesfull recently :) )

BTW, is there a good way to find images not tagged with any licensing template - not even {{Unknown}}? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, some time ago I looked at multiple files without a license and marked a few for deletion. I can not judge if it is a huge problem to have files without a license, but if it is (as you say) we should disallow uploads without licenses before spending time on resolving the old cases. Wikimedia Commons already did that.
I have not found a mechanism to find out if an "unused" file is used in an OSM user diary or in the forum. There are Special:ListFiles containing all files, and Special:UncategorizedFiles containing all uncategorised files. Files with a valid license are definitely not uncategorised. With a script it should be possible to subtract all files in the media license categories from Special:ListFiles. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 17:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Good find. We have 22 799[sic!] files without any category, so also without license template and without being marked as having no specified template. Fortunately it seems that noone was using OSM Wiki for storing copyright violations and people are clearly well intentioned - so it is probably not tragically urgent. I processed some (there is plenty of low hanging fruit, like many files clearly qualifying for {{PD-shape}}) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
As I understand it: copyright violations are a problem. Image of rectangle not marked with {{PD-shape}} is not a problem, but without going through images and classifying all it is pretty hard to catch copyright violations. Not sure about well-intended files without license. And it is much easier to get licensing info from uploader day after upload rather than 10 years after upload, so it is preferable to monitor that and catch at least new ones Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
New link: (number of uncategorised files is going down, this one should be active for long) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed bot edit on wiki - request specifying source and license, mark files

There are thousands of files in either Category:Media without a license - without subcategory or without any category at all There are also other files without licenses not caught here.

I propose to run a bot edit that would

Edit would be applied to all files without proper license template or without stated source.

For practical reasons the edit would be limited and skip, at least initially, some files.

I would review each batch before edit to not bother uploaders about cases where all information to handle licensing is stated already (but I will not catch everything!) - and to handle separately cases where default message is not fitting. Review would be using something like

It would be useful as it would notify uploaders about problems with their files and hopefully will result in filling missing licensing data and/or releasing images under free licenses.

In the worst case we would replace problematic images with ones available under free licenses - also an improvement.

Note that this edit will affect about 22 000 existing files and many that will be uploaded in future without properly stating license and source. Right now it is 22 034 files + files that have categories but neither {{Unknown}} nor any license template or are without info about source ([7][8])

Edit would be automated, made using my regular user account. I would review edits before making them (with that image overwiev). I have experience with bot edits (Mechanical Edits/Mateusz Konieczny - bot account - for now edits in mapping database). In case of causing damage caused by bugs in a bot I would do all work necessary to repair it.

Note that message to user will propose to post to Talk:Wiki (this page) in case of unclear copyright situation and message will be send to many users - so it is expected that many will post here asking for help (I am planning to answer them, but help from others would be appreciated).

Please comment of you either support such edit or oppose it.

Please, comment if you have ideas how this message to users can be improved. For example I have seen some promising project to create guide how to select a proper license - linking it once ready would be really useful.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically I support this! Small hint: In Category:Media without a license - without subcategory there are files, already marked with {{Delete}} or {{Delete proposal}}, and therefore might not have to be processed additionally. --Chris2map (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
For {{Delete proposal}} I would likely still process them - if file is not mentioned on talk page of the user then notification to make them aware of it would be likely useful (surprise deletion is not the goal). {{Delete}} likely not as this is either clear case or will be changed to {{Delete proposal}}. And for example {{Superseded by Commons}} files also would be skipped, files with {{Trademarked}} would be also skipped until we have clear decision how to handle copyrighted unfree logos. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
See and for manually made edits showing how such edits would look like (talk page edit had copy-paste problem with overly represented nowiki, sorry for that - it would not appear in bot edits) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I partially oppose it. Adding {unknown} to all UncategorizedFiles is bad. This will not improve anything, it will only make manual verification more difficult. Writing to the authors ok... just consider that most of the images were uploaded more than ten years ago, and their authors have already retired from OSM Wiki...

For some of the images from Special:UncategorizedFiles one can add the license without writing to their authors:

  • some of them have the license given in the description, but there is no template
  • OSM-based maps have a known license
  • screenshots from JOSM and other OSM applications too
  • simple shapes can have {PD shape}
  • copies from Commons which can be unlinked and deleted
  • etc.

Your edit would only "move" files from Special:UncategorizedFiles and won't change anything, and would only make things worse.

This above referred to Special:UncategorizedFiles, but I don't mind doing it for Category:Media without a license.

There is another solution to this problem. We can [can we?] find the users who have uploaded the most files. See if there are unlicensed files and write to these people. There is also a user who uploaded more than 1,500 files but we know now, that they can be marked as one a of a free license: public domain or similar, so you can start from them - it will decrease the number of UncategorizedFiles and files without a license.

And you can start from files that ARE categorized but don't have any license template or info and they are not Uncategorized. Such files are not easy to find, or better to say, almost impossible to find manually.

Moreover, I am also planning/preparing a guide how to choose a license for existing files. It won't be finished very soon, but in the future it might help people or authors of the uploaded files to choose the license. maro21 21:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that it would not be fully automated edit. On spotting cases where sufficient information would be already provided I would do proper edits myself. I already found and restated several hundred simple logos while testing my code.

Edit world go like this: generate batch for testing like In case of any images where I can fix problem I would fix them and generate a new batch.

Only in case where all images require help from uploaders I would apply templates and notify uploaders.

Wikimedia Commons duplicates would be handled by mass edit mentioned above and skipped.

For JOSM screenshots, OSM Carto screenshots, iD screenshots I would also simply apply proper templates if possible rather than pinging uploaders.

Marek kleciak images are already skipped and I will generate list for handling them rather than spamming talk page.

Is it resolving your concerns about pointless talk page edits? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Your edit would only "move" files from Special:UncategorizedFiles and won't change anything, and would only make things worse"

Main difference is that authors would be finally notified without plenty of manual drudgery. While doing it manually is not worth it, but automatic applying requests is simple enough to be worth even some responses.

Also, in what case this edits would make situation worse? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"it will only make manual verification more difficult" - it will be done as part of manual verification, I want to automate solely step of making requests to uploaders and marking images as ones where uploader was notified about problem - after quick manual review confirmed that current image fails to explain source or license Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Mateusz_Konieczny/notify_uploaders has edit log in case of actual use Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I admit that tests have higher response rate than I expected, see for example:

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I am starting edits, initial ones will be fully reviewed - when I confirm that everything works well I will start ones where notification runs are not reviewed (but targets will continue to be reviewed). Such not reviewed notification runs (with manually reviewed targets) will not start earlier than 14 days after submitting this proposal. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: I will be making edits (all with review for now as I have some not fully tested parts of code), but at some point notification itself will be more automatic. Still - after manual review Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, on (especially on the bottom) there are many {{PD-shape}} images - marking them would be a welcome help Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC) --Some of them done. Updated offset of listing. Chris2map (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Though note that photo such as File:Wegzeichen Alte2.jpg do not qualify for PD-shape. It is about things like File:White 2 in white circle with Ns above.svg Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Allow users to change their username

I changed my Openstreetmap username last year. After that I tried to change it in the Wiki as well. Unfortunately there is no way to do this at the moment. Is it possible to implement this feature or add instructions on what to do? --Eifelkobold! (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The bureaucrats can do that for you. --Andrew (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: advice given, I created Change username and some related pages Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed bot edit on Wiki - Wikimedia Commons duplicates

I want to automatically mark files as Wikimedia Commons duplicates for processing.

Getting rid of files duplicating Wikimedia Commons files is useful as there is no good reason for keeping local duplicates of Wikimedia Commons images. This leads to a pointless duplication of effort and both Commons and OSM Wiki has huge backlogs in processing images.

For example reviewing files for copyright violations, improving descriptions, adding categories needs to be done twice what is pointless waste of effort.

In addition many duplicates on OMS Wiki have poorly stated licenses - many files downloaded from Wikimedia Commons and uploaded here have simply wrong licenses (CC-BY-SA 2.0 file uploaded here as Public domain), there are files requiring attribution and not stating author and so on. While Wikimedia Commons file has a proper metadata.

So I propose edit with following part:

@Reneman: @Lyx: @Tigerfell: - if that would be easier for you and would be processed - I can also generate list of files for deletion rather than filling Category:Labelled for deletion

Edit would be automated, made using separate bot account. I would review edits but not all of them. I have experience with bot edits (Mechanical Edits/Mateusz Konieczny - bot account - for now edits in mapping database). In case of causing damage caused by bugs in a bot I would do all work necessary to repair it.

Please comment of you either support such edit or oppose it. I can continue doing it with reviewing every single edit but it seems waste of time for me. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

How many files are approximately effected? 100? 1000? Regarding File:2014 Meilenstein in der Dresdner Heide.jpg, there is the situation that a user apparently copied a file from OSM wiki to Commons. They stated OSM as the source. AFAIK this is okay, but we need a license review in Commons before the file can be deleted here. Such cases should probably be handeled separately. Reneman once organised such a transfer. Maybe he can explain it better... --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 21:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I would expect around 400, but may be less may be more Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I can add an additional check and ignore ones where upload to Commons was later than upload to OSM Wiki and review such cases manually. BTW, I looked at and it seems fine Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
That sounds good. The upload in question is okay. It is just that the user at Commons can not prove that the upload was legitimate after the file was deleted here. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 13:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

if that would be easier for you and would be processed - I can also generate list of files for deletion rather than filling Category:Labelled for deletion

in my optinion, it depends. In the first case, they could be marked for deletion. I think the second case is tricky because one also has to take into account files referenced on the mailing lists, the forum, and the user diaries. @Chris2map: This is the reason why I am hesitant to delete "unused files" and "unused redirects" in the file namespace that do not have any other issues.
The third case is pretty straight forward, I would just delete the files without {{Delete}}. The current version of MediaWiki:Uploadtext states that "Duplicates of files present in Wikimedia Commons" "should not be uploaded to OpenStreetMap wiki" and even continues with "the file in the OSM wiki will be deleted, because it can be used directly from Commons". For organising, it would be the easiest to have a list of such files and then I would delete all the files on that list. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 13:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
How are you going to find such files? maro21 21:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
There is an API call listing files and their Wikimedia Commons duplicates, if any. I can link code used for that. The API is quite irritating (there is no way to list files only with exact duplicates, so it is necessary to check all files), but it is possible to automate and eliminate drudgery Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
How are cases like File:Balkanabat-Turkmenistan-explorers-statue.JPG which is a hash-perfect duplicate of commons:File:Discoverers-statue-by-Juma-Jumadurdy-Balkanabat-Turkmenistan.jpg handled? This file has been uploaded by the same user as on Commons but using a more liberal license than there. --Nw520 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Good question. For now I marked Wikimedia Commons file as available also more liberal license Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Partially withdrawn, partially done by processing lists of files which were deleted by admins Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Taginfo placeholders for undocumented tags

I modified the following interface messages in English to embed {{Taginfo}} about the key or tag as a placeholder for prose documentation:

It isn't the prettiest change, but the idea is to reduce reader confusion when encountering a tag that lacks its own page, despite potentially being in wide use, even documented elsewhere on the wiki as part of a broader tagging scheme. Ideally, such tags would have their own pages or at least redirects, but taginfo can serve as a stopgap in the meantime. The taginfo tag statistics box is a mainstay on standard key and tag description pages, so it should be familiar to mappers even without explanatory text.

These three messages are some of the most frequently customized messages among MediaWiki installations. Typically, administrators customize them to more closely tie a wiki to companion websites or make the wiki more user-friendly in general. For example, MediaWiki:Noarticletext would be an ideal place to link to or a Requested articles page, while MediaWiki:Newarticletext could link to suggestions for writing a good tag description page or offer buttons to prefill standard templates. At the same time, I personally prefer somewhat utilitarian "not found" messages, which load quickly and don't take up too much space in the visual editor's flyout panel. Does anyone have suggestions for further customizing these messages?

Unfortunately, these customizations only take effect when your interface language is set to English. I've made similar modifications to the Spanish and Vietnamese translations of this message at e.g. MediaWiki:Noarticletext/es and MediaWiki:Noarticletext/vi and can do the same in other languages if desired.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately the taginfo box looks quite strange when the visual editor box is shown, at least in my browser. It is off to the right side but has no white space between the text to it's left, but then there is a large gap below to the left. And the label like "key=value" is not included in the box outline, so it looks like odd text on the page rather than part of the taginfo box.
I think this change will cause more confusion than benefit. If the taginfo box could be updated to show something like "key=value at taginfo" instead of "taginfo [More...]" that would help some, but it will still look odd. --Jeisenbe (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, floating the box to the right isn’t great in the visual editor. I had originally floated it to minimize vertical jumping in case the box takes a little too long to load. The caption is part of {{Taginfo wrapper}}, which was originally intended for a table of these boxes that could get repetitive. We can make a different wrapper that calls out taginfo explicitly. Another option would be to use the |link = parameter in {{Taginfo}} to display just a link rather than the whole box. Maybe that’s best for MediaWiki:Newarticletext, which has this layout issue in the visual editor. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I changed MediaWiki:Newarticletext so that the taginfo box no longer floats to the right. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Another problem: this box is being added to pages like Talk:Tag:railway=yard before they are created, even though this is a talk page, not a tag or key page. Can you fix that? --Jeisenbe (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks for spotting that. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Useful improvement, thanks! Pizzaiolo (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
It is very useful, thanks! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Ghost file

What is going on with File:Slipway.png?

It appears in upload logs but otherwise seems nonexisting:

Logs claim that it was not deleted (unless I somehow messed up that check).

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC) -> just a normal blanked page, not an actual png file. Mmd (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
So why it appears in upload logs? Compare - empty page creating is not being logged as an upload Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The actual file seems to have been deleted. I can not provide more information because the deletion log entry is either missing or redacted. I can only see that there is a deleted revision of this file which I just restored. Additionally, logs can also be missing because changes where done from the backend and therefore not logged (potential example (Who gave admin status to TomH?)) or the logs were not existing in MediaWiki back then. Unfortunately, it hard to find out which version of MediaWiki introduced which type of log. Wikipedia has wiki pages where users "logged" certain actions manually, we do not have that. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 12:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, so I just accept that OSM Wiki has this kind of invisible file deletions and catch null pointers in my script at some specific location without throwing exceptions Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Scammer block request Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: blocked Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

War in Ukraine

Can we forbid changes in Ukraine during war? Some changes like this may help enemy. Enemy will see that that bridge is broken and won't go there. // ЧИ можна заборонити редагування по Україні під час війни? Наприклад ось цей міст уже показаний зламаним. Так, він підірваний, але це може допомогти ворогу, він знатиме, що цей міст підірваний і туди не поїде.--Ahonc (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The combatants have access to military intelligence; they almost certainly know the field conditions before civilians do. Arlo James Barnes (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Not sure whether we have technical capabilities to achieve this effect. And it should be rather raised at but I am dubious is it achievable. But I agree that mapping recently destroyed bridges etc is more likely to help Russians that anyone else (and judging by performance of Russian army: they may not have access to proper military intelligence - they have crushing number advantage but they for example communicate on radio with zero encryption ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: Directed to place where people who can do this are present, warned that it may be not feasible Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

forwarding question about OSM --> Commons import

commons:commons:village pump/Copyright#Can I upload shape files from OpenStreetMap to Commons? Feel free to trim this section if/when the question has been resolved. Arlo James Barnes (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: answered 11:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Mapnik Icon


There is Category:Mapnik Icon which has some problems

  • misleading category name
  • outdated files not worth keeping (old files are in OSM Carto repository of someone is interested in archeology)
  • if someone really want to keep them: they miss licensing info
  • all uses of them are likely outdated, help with replacing their uses with the current icons would be a welcome help

In most cases I would recommend replacing images, editing also associated article if possible and then mark no longer used files for deletetion

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been working on files in this category. Please give me some time. Some of the icons have their .svg equivalents so should be replaced, some are duplicates and should be deleted. These icons usually are CC-0 licensed. maro21 13:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I've already emptied the category. maro21 18:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Maro21: Thanks so much for help! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Canopy action

On the origins of - I'm not sure, and it has been more than 11 years. I do know I visited a few zipline places around Mindo, and it could have been taken then. I cannot find the image on image searches either. If necessary, we could perhaps replace it with something from if the license is compatible? They only ask for attribution, as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnotixe (talkcontribs) 15:00, 2 February 2022
@Arnotixe: images from Unsplash published there prior to 5 June 2017 are fine - see After that, probably no Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Arnotixe: I found,_BC,_Canada.JPG that can be a replacement. Help is welcome in replacing existing uses listed at or finding a better one at - maybe ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I would use the first one you found on Commons File:Zip line arival SuperFly Whistler, BC, Canada.JPG --Chris2map (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: replaced using file with a superior license and what seemed to me working better in thumbnail and more typical situation. Feel free to change to other freely licensed images Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Group naming in upper or lower case

May you help me, how English naming of the groups is meant to be: Upper or lower case? - On Category:Key descriptions by group most of them are written in lower case. But in KeyDescription boxes the name of the group is displayed in upper case. So several keys and tags have |group= entries in upper case. That leads to an issue with the categories, due to case sensitive categorization. For instance see Category:Key descriptions for group "restrictions" and Key:opening (since I've changed group to lower case, the key is in the category). There are many more keys in group or category Restrictions. --Chris2map (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems that most categories use lower case. I have not yet seen this as an issue because there is also Category:Restrictions which is also linked to the input in "group". MediaWiki always capitalises the first letter following the namespace. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 22:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Would it be OK then if I note on the doc of templates Key- and ValueDescription, that English group should be noted down in lower case? Because most of the categories :Key description for group "<group>" are created in lower case, the categorization processed by the Description template otherwise doesn't work. --Chris2map (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 19:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Chris2map: are you planning to update etc? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a specific plan for this at the moment. --Chris2map (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
So is group parameter case-sensitive and is it better to use lower-case? I just want to know how it works. maro21 21:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The group and the link to the category with the same name as the group works with both, upper and lower case initial letter. That is, as far as I understand it, because mediawiki software automatically checks and switches initial letters of page names to upper case while linking to a page. The problem is with categories, so page names, which don't begin with the group name, but contain the group name at another position. Then the initial letter of the grop name is not the initial letter of the category page name. Because of this, the category name and with it the group name is case sensitive. – The categories for key and tag descriptions have been and are created manually. Most of them containing "group" names in lower case. Because the group name is at the end of the category page name and not the initial word, links to those categories have to be in same notation and same case, mostly in lower case. (Examples: Category:Key descriptions for group "properties", Category:Key descriptions for group "buildings". An exception is Category:Key descriptions for group "Lifecycle").
So there are 3 options IMHO: _1.) Create the description categories twice with lower and upper case "group" names and set a redirect to one to the other. _2.) Watch out the notation of the group and categories and write down the matching case, lower or upper. _3.) Enhance the description box templates managing the categorization to check if lower or upper case category exists and automatically use the existing no matter if lower or upper case "group" name. – I would prefer number 3, maybe in addition to a definition to English version, that group name paramter however should always be entered in lower case (in order to have a simple and clear practice). --Chris2map (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: I think it can be safely archived now?Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

PD-shapeification help

Most of images at User:Mateusz Konieczny/notify uploaders/Malcolmh qualify for {{PD-shape}}. Help would be welcomed, images listed there are without license templates for now.

Add {{PD-shape}} to image pages of files with really simple graphics to help (one below threshold of originality) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Done some of I think are safe. --Chris2map (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: Thanks User:Chris2map! I processed remaining obvious now, not entirely sure how to deal with remaining ones. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We need a screenshot of a parking lot


Does anyone have a well mapped and nice looking surface parking lot in their area and could take a screenshot? We need to replace this file File:Mapping-Features-Parking-Lot.png - this is how a parking lot and roads looked like in 2009, currently there is no yellow backgroudnd color. And this file is used on a very large number of pages, including e.g. amenity=*, So instead of unlinking it manually, we should override it and upload a new version. Thanks in advance! maro21 16:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

E.g. [9] --Chris2map (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded another one: File:Mapping-Features-Parking-Lot.png. Hope you like it. Otherwise please change it. --Chris2map (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this one is good! Thanks! maro21 18:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Add CategoryWatch Extension

"The CategoryWatch extension extends watchlist functionality to include notification about membership changes of watched categories."

This would be extremely helpful to users:

  • Who want to be notified when a Proposal is added to one of the Proposals_by_status Categories. A major convenience would be for users that don't want to subscribe to the Tagging Mailing list but still want to be notified when proposals become open to voting.
  • Who monitor a Place Wikiproject's categories
  • etc.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectrician1 (talkcontribs) 00:29, 7 January 2021‎ (UTC)

I second this. Would be very useful to me, who generally avoids the mailing lists. --GoodClover (talk)
+1 if this extension is not introducing some huge complexity Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken I've already requested that about a year ago: openstreetmap/operations/issues/351. --Nw520 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Request by topic author openstreetmap/operations/issues/497 --Nw520 (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: nothing to do here, right? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Document wiki:symbol use - proposed bot edit

Some files like may appear to be useless and not used, but they can be referenced in tags. See for example

I propose to create a new template for OSM Wiki that would allow recording such use outside wiki and to automatically add it to affected file pages

From looking at it would affect about 2000 file pages

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that would be very helpful with regards to deletion requests. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 20:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I imagine something like {{File referenced outside OSM Wiki|link=|description=It is used as value of {{Tag|wiki:symbol}} and this file is linked by some relations in OSM database}} Any preferences to changing format, name or description? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I've thought about such a template before. It's not necessary, because one can just write the text "This file is used outside the Wiki [on a user diary or other place]", but the advantage of the template, of course, is that the text can be changed in the future. So this would prevent the file from being deleted as unused. So such template is a good idea. Some of possible names:
  • {File referenced outside OSM Wiki} [yours]
  • {File used outside the Wiki}
  • {used outside the Wiki}
The shorter the better (so it can be sometimes typed manually), but we can always create redirects as aliases. maro21 19:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
For me main benefit is that template can be easily detected automatically - what makes easier to skip such files in processing or process them differently Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
+1 {Used outside the Wiki} --Chris2map (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tigerfell: @Chris2map: @Maro21: - see and What you think about it? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's ok. maro21 18:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the marking of such files is important. The template fits. I just have tried to add a title - proposals see --Chris2map (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we should add a header to the template (e.g. == Notes ==), so notice box doesn't show under Licensing, like it happens now. --Chris2map (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I am fine with that, feel free to edit Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: bot is ready, with edits initially happening on a smaller scale. As a bonus I will fix some breakage in OSM data, like in Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't your bot have a bot flag? maro21 20:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Asked already one of Wiki:Bureaucrats on (note that this edits I would do anyway manually or semi-automatically) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: It is now making edits for this task with a bot flag Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

bot plans subthread

I made initial steps toward bot. For example this edit was made by an automated script.

One thing that needs to be done is adding ability to Template:Unknown to pass some text as parameter that would put image into Category:Media without a license marked since 2022-12 (or maybe Category:Media without a license marked since December 2022? With one extra category Category:Media without a license marked since December 2022 or earlier. I would welcome help with doing this part Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: w:Template:Current is an example of a template that optionally takes a |date = parameter; if omitted, a bot will come along and fill it in. w:Template:Copyvio is an example of a template that automatically adds a |date = parameter, but you have to remember to subst: the template. The magical date insertion functionality works because of {{safesubst:<noinclude />CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} inside that template. Hope this helps. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For now I decided on more verbose {{unknown|subcategory=author notified December 2021}} resulting in Category:Media without a license - author notified December 2021, I think that it is fine. If someone thinks that more magic would be a good idea or that my mediawiki code is poor feel free to change it. Though I think that having minimal amount of magic is preferable and my plan is to anyway apply most of notifications with bot (I will go through an approval process for it) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

JOSM screenshot template


An additional question: I used screenshots in JOSM with the Carto-Map as a background. I've understood the explanation at the template that {{JOSM screenshot without imagery}} may apply to this case as there are no aerial images or photos used. Or do I have to use {{JOSM screenshot with imagery|{{OSM Carto screenshot}}}}? --Segubi (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

{{JOSM screenshot with imagery|{{OSM Carto screenshot}}}} is preferable, but it is not a major problem as {{JOSM screenshot without imagery}} already mention OSM data on ODBL license and OSM Carto is very permissively licensed (CC0) and is using only OSM data and Natural Earth data that is also permissively licensed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Currently this results in a doubled mentioning of "Contains map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, made available under the terms of the Open Database License (ODbL)." I assume this could be corrected in the template - but I don't know how. I try to forward the suggestion to Chris2map who created the template. --Segubi (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I fixed the templates. maro21 20:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Other group of files - here is another group of files. This group of files is group of downscaled images from Wikimedia Commons and other wikis.

Where file is on Wiimedia Commons (typically under the same name, just without 800px- at start) - replace uses by full image and mark downscaled for deletion

Where file was deleted on Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation - - remove uses and mark for deletion

If source is unknown - ask uploader Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

More here: maro21 21:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Just applying {{Superseded by Commons}} where applicable may be good enough, maybe I will make some file replace bot to automate the drudgery... 09:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi! How do we categorize and handle images such as user certificates like [10]? I think they are a mix of no. 4, 5 and 6 of grouping listed above. And under which license the uploader / author could publish them? - Should or could we have a simple copyrighted content for use by user on user page only license (template)? --Chris2map (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, for example is a derivative work of at least NAKHA logo (likely) and three photos, each requiring documenting license. Not entirely sure whether we can and want to allow unfree copyrighted content on user pages. And this one is on Naksha 2021 which is not an user page anyway. Note that example certificate with unfree photo of human would likely not qualify for fair use as it can be replaced with a freely licensed photo. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Whew! How do we proceed? Does it require discussion in forum and/or mailing list (though IMHO the stage is here)? I wouldn't resist if we excluded such images without exceptions to user pages. That would make things easier. - While I'm pondering if there could be a way to have exceptions for user pages. But the image files should be clearly and reliably marked for that exceptional use case. E.g. the image should wear an imprint or watermark and the file name should contain a default part (like "user-only-(c)-image_..."), even better would be a new namespace (like "User_file:" instead of "File:"). But I can't see how we could implement or ensure such a marking. --Chris2map (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
There are two parts (1) can we legally hosts such files (2) do we want to allow hosting such files. I am unsure about both (1) and (2). Main problem is that allowing unfree images can end with many illustrations having various strict restrictions while big part of Wiki is to make this content freely usable. Maybe for now have some separate template? {{Unknown}} and {{Unknown license for OSM content impossible to replace}}? With note that status of such material on OSM Wiki is not clear and is not resolved? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
"Does it require discussion in forum and/or mailing list (though IMHO the stage is here)?" - I think that discussion limited to this page is sufficient as it is OSM Wiki specific (unlike tagging), though if someone wants they can notify others that this discussion exists Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)