User talk:Aharvey

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is there something you are missing from or find objectionable in Sidewalks and footways (with knobs on)? You are welcome to create a new Map Paint Style of course, but it doesn't seem to do much different, nor does it explain what makes it different. I had to fork the original Map Paint Style by cobra because they seem to have stopped contributing to OSM. --JeroenHoek (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, actually I hadn't seen your SidewalksAndFootways style before, indeed I just checked and it looks like you only published it 5 months ago. I picked out my JOSM Styles earlier than this so at the time your one wasn't available so I'd been using the Sidewalks one we both forked, I found it lacking so made some fixes which I just publish now, all without seeing your fork. I'll try it out now and see how it works. --Aharvey (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like I just wasted my time with SidewalksPlus since you've pretty much fixed all it's flaws. It replaces the OpenSidewalks + SidewalksPlus style combo. I've noticed a few discrepancies which I'll try to report in more detail. --Aharvey (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to let me know of any flaws in the Sidewalks and footways (with knobs on) style. --JeroenHoek (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@JeroenHoek: The only thing I found lacking was the OpenSidewalks JOSM style puts a red circle where a highway=footway + footway=crossing node intersects a road where the node isn't tagged highway=crossing. This is helpful as it helps users spot errors where they need to set the tag on the node so the road knows there is a crossing just by looking at tags on its way nodes. Secondly I prefer the blue style for crossings OpenSidewalks uses rather than the darker green from your style, just because blue is much clearer to distinguish from the existing sidewalk ways. --Aharvey (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


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

Are you author of image  ?

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

Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

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

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using ?

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: I've added the license now, wikimedia does not make it easy to work out how to do so. --Aharvey (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2021 (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:Fibre reinforced polymer grate suface.jpg ?

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|Aharvey}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, August}} 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) 13:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)