User talk:Angoca

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Prueba de zona de discusión

Esta es una prueba de cómo se ve la zona de mensajes directos para discusiones.

--AngocA (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Esta es una respuesta a este ejercicio... --rodrigo (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi,

I usually do not delete redirects such as WikiProject Colombia/PreguntasFrecuentes because they might help people to find the page they are looking for. Most of the redirects are created automatically when someone renames a page. Thus, links on other webpages such as https://forum.osm.org still work with the old link.

Cheers, --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 14:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tigerfell, Thank you for the explanation. I supposed something like this, because you do not delete all my proposals. I am just organizing the Colombian pages, which were a disorder.
Best regards, --AngocA (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing notes

Re: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Organised_Editing/Activities&curid=228335&diff=2272088&oldid=2270590

Are you closing older notes without verification or fixing them? Solely because they are old?

It is normal that there are many notes present and waiting for local verification. Please do not close notes solely for being old or made edits blindly based on unconfirmed notes.

It is fine to close notes that are outdated, unclear or useless but "keeping just a small quantity of recently opened notes" is highly harmful.

Have you discussed it with local communities at least? Using all methods specified on contact channels? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mateusz.
First of all, we trust in the notes. I mean, we believe they were created with a purpose, to indicate a difference between the map and what is on the ground. Based on this, we do not need to go to every single note place and verify the content of the note to see if it is correct. If someone wants to make vandalism, it won’t create a note, it will do the vandalism directly on the map.
Second, when we say that we process notes, this means we read the text, we analyze it based on local knowledge (that's why I don't close notes from other places than Colombia), we perform a change on the map, and finally, we close the note. Even, if the note is not clear, we leave a message asking for more details. However, sometimes we know we will never receive feedback, especially when the note is anonymous. In this case, we leave a message, and we close the note. For us, the notes are the best interaction place between map users and mappers, and in a global context, we have forgotten this. In fact, we are trying to revive this, and we want to make sure, our map users are heard, but this can only be done by processing the notes few days after they have been created, not years after.
Third, we have already done this activity in Colombia, last year we resolve thousands of notes. The Colombian community was more than informed. We invited all Colombian mappers, and many of them joined us. We notified them by mailing list, Telegram channel, wiki, and events. We received comments and we did adjustments in our activity. But the community agreed with us to close all old notes. Now, based on the Colombian experience, we are extending this initiative to other Latin American countries. And regarding the Latam community, it has been also notified; in fact, in our first meeting of this year, we agreed that we will do a Notathon periodically. For this, we have created the event, we have published in different places and the people who assist to the events know how to proceed with the notes.
By resolving notes, we have involved mappers in this OSM feature, and it had given us the opportunity to work together, to tighten our efforts for the same purpose, by working locally.
Finally, by leaving old notes opened, this does not provide anything. No one will see them, no one will go to the place and verify if this is correct. This is not Germany where there are thousands of mappers looking for details to map; instead, we are just a few, and there are many problems in our maps, even bigger problems than notes. By processing notes and processing them on time, this will make our Latin American maps more updated, with a community of mappers integrated, and the map users heard. And when a user is heard, he will continue contributing to the map, or he can even become a mapper.
(We already discussed this in the https://t.me/osm_notes_latam channel.)
--AngocA (talk) 14:57, 28 February 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:Case4-normal.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 (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

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

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified March 2022}} 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.

Help

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) 20:30, 25 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:Image 2022-02-08 12-15-14.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 (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

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

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified March 2022}} 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.

Help

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) 15:58, 28 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:Case11-normal.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 (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

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

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, May}} 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.

Help

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) 22:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick reply! If you are author I would strongly encourage {{CC0-self}} or at least specify {{PD-self}} "PD" covers wide variety of cases Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)