User talk:Amᵃᵖanda

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi Rorym,

i've seen your lgbt tag. I started a map showing lgbt locations ( using slightly differendt tagging style. Maybe you're interested to participate.

Is the lgbt Tag alredy in use or is it to be removed?


Ogmios 16:51, 29 July 2011 (BST)

RFC Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 2)

Hello Rorym, after the Fire Hydrant Extensions Proposal failed to get accepted, there is now a second part: Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 2). At the moment the RFC is ongoing. It would be nice if you have a look if your concerns where addressed and if you could approve this proposal this time.--MoritzM (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Third party apps

Hi Rorym, I have seen you changed "third party apps" to "Editors" with this comment: (removed "third party apps", that doesn't make sense, 'all OSM editing apps are "third party".) To me it makes sense. Yes, all editors are third party apps, but using our data is not limited to editing software. While there is currently just a hint about iD, there may well be more pieces of software like QA tools, rendering apps, routing apps, etc. for which we might also be interested to show particular hints with regard to this tag (or any other). --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


I think that redirects such as would be fine in case of Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


Please read this section on Wikipedia:

Yes, some consider the term offensive, but not all, and it has legal meaning in England. For findability and clarity it shouldn't be omitted. I have added a clarification and justification for the use of the word gypsy as is common in such cases. For a word to be offensive context matters. --JeroenHoek (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Also note how some Gypsy communities actively use the word themselves. Denying them their own choice of words is considered offensive as well. --JeroenHoek (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright and upload - have you tried tracking down photographer and getting it released under some open license? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure who took it. I think Mikel Maron is the best to ask Amᵃᵖanda (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


Hello! And sorry for bothering you, but descriptions of files you uploaded need to be improved.

You have uploaded files which are licensed as requiring attribution. But right now attribution is not specified properly.

I admit that I have no idea how to correctly format attribution text for such modified OSM logo. What worse, it seems that OSM logo is CC-BY licensed so it seems that technically when one is using it the author name should be clearly credited somehow. As result I am usually not asking people to fix this, but in this case I do it as kind of signal that it is topic of interest for OSMF.

But at least original version and its author definitely should be mentioned.

Is there some guidance how to deal with it? Maybe author of logo can be convinced to give extra rights to OSMF to allow using it without attribution? Maybe it was done already?

It applies for example to

Again, sorry for jumping on you with copyright-related nightmare.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

My apoligies. I think there are 2 issues:
  • The fact that this is a trademarked logo. The OSMF TM policy says I can use it this way, but I outside OSM I must inform people it's OSM trademark, I don't know if that's practical.
  • copyright on the image. The original is cc-by-sa-2, then the scubbx one is I think cc aswell, my changes are cc-by-sa too.
Amᵃᵖanda (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Trademark thingy should be covered {{OpenStreetMap trademark}} already plastered on it (at least for use on Wiki). "the original is cc-by-sa-2, then the scubbx one is I think cc aswell" note that this license requires attributing this authors also on - which is currently missing and should be fixed. The same applies to any derivative work (not sure is it also and how when OSM logo is used on website or banner... Which is why CC-licensed logo is tricky). Who was the original author? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I tried digging into it - there is but author and license are not specified, and not sure whether uploader should be assumed to be the author. I asked them and also put note on about licensing problem and that we likely need to at least track down original author to credit them... Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I am going to start with the assumption that the original OSM logo is CC licenced. Otherwise we have bigger problems Amᵃᵖanda (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)