User talk:AMDmi3

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I have two small suggestions to glosm:

  • for buildings without any height or levels information, assume it is some small building (for example 3 meters high), so it will show at least somehow on the map
my plans are to not make any guesses/assumptions on data which isn't in the base. Such guesses will be erroneous in most cases anyway, but it will look like the area is well mapped and discourage users from editing. That's only for now though - when glosm develop into something more user-oriented this can be done, drawn with dashed lines or something like that. --AMDmi3 21:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to show also towers - those are tagged by man_made=tower and usually they do not have a building tag.
Done, also chimneys. Only area objects are supported for now. --AMDmi3 21:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are the suggestons translated into machine readable code :) :

diff --git a/libglosm-geomgen/src/ b/libglosm-geomgen/src/
index ae2a548..c252619 100644
--- a/libglosm-geomgen/src/
+++ b/libglosm-geomgen/src/
@@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ static float GetMaxHeight(const OsmDatasource::Way& way) {
                return h;

-       return 0.0;
+       return 3.0;

 static float GetMinHeight(const OsmDatasource::Way& way) {
@@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ static void WayDispatcher(Geometry& geom, const OsmDatasource& datasource, const
        for (OsmDatasource::Way::NodesList::const_iterator n = way.Nodes.begin(); n != way.Nodes.end(); ++n)

-       if ((way.Tags.find("building") != way.Tags.end() || way.Tags.find("building:part") != way.Tags.end()) && minz != maxz) {
+       if ((way.Tags.find("building") != way.Tags.end() || way.Tags.find("building:part") != way.Tags.end()||((t = way.Tags.find("man_made")) != way.Tags.end() && t->second == "tower")) && minz != maxz) {
                CreateWalls(geom, vertices, minz, maxz, way);
                CreateRoof(geom, vertices, maxz, way);

--Bilbo 15:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

suggstion for roof name

In File:Roofs.png, the "(needs naming)" roof could be called a frustrum. Also, it's not immediately clear that the second pitched roof (with the ridge across). Maybe it could have an explicit label as well. Cheers, Waldir (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That image may be counted as deprecated. Actual scheme uses slightly different tag values and doesn't use this picture:, you can instead add it there. --AMDmi3 (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi AMDmi3, some time ago you mentioned that it would be helpful to create a tag that is similar to man_made=bridge. I've started writing a proposal, see Proposed features/man made=tunnel. Please review and comment! --Biff (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Изменения на странице Серверы в Рамблере

А вы специально вернули таблицу на странице к состоянию на 17:11, 15 марта 2018‎ ? --Alexander-II (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Наверное нет --AMDmi3 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Glosm-0.0.3 2.png

Is this file using OSM data by any chance? If yes, then {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}} is missing.

Also, attribution/license to credit styling may be needed (unless you are author of it)

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the creator of image File:Roof-types.png ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ" or "this is map generated from OpenStreetMap data and SRTM data" or "map generated from OSM data and only OSM data" or "This is my work based on file -link-to-page-with-that-file-and-its-licensing-info-" or "used file downloaded from internet to create it, no idea which one".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you have taken then you can make it available under a specific free license (except some cases, like photos of modern sculptures in coutries without freedom of panorama or taking photo of copyrighted artwork).

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self|AMDmi3}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, September}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.


Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

(sorry if I missed something that already states license and source: I am looking through over 20 000 files and fixing obvious cases on my own, in other I ask people who upladed files, but it is possible that I missed something - in such case also please answer)

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)