User talk:AntMadeira

Pt:Tag:amenity=funeral_hall

Hi there. I've seen your translation for amenity=funeral_hall. I'm a bit worried about the image you used, which shows a building called "casa mortuária" that really looks like what we have now defined as amenity=place_of_mourning, i.e. for viewing a dead person individually or in small groups in the days before the funeral, not for the ceremony with all the guests together at the funeral. Also, when I look for "casa mortuária" on the internet (with very limited knowledge of Portuguese indeed) I seem to only find such chapels of rest or viewing rooms or however you might call them, not large halls for funeral ceremonies. So I'm wondering whether halls for funeral ceremonies (other than churches and chapels, obviously) are really known in Portugal and/or Brasil, so that using a known expression rather than an ad hoc translation ("salão de cerimônia fúnebre"?) might put people on the wrong track.
At any rate, could you update your translation under "Morgues, mortuárias, etc." by deleting the part referring to Proposed features/Place of mourning and adding a link to amenity=place_of_mourning in the second sentence (as in English)? That would already help to avoid confusion. Vollis (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Vollis. Thank you for your contact. Rest assured that this was debated on the Portuguese community and that the wiki reflects what's common practice in Portugal (I won't speak for Brazil here for various reasons). A funeral hall (casa mortuária) is a place for ceremonies, and it usually offers other services, depending on the region (urban vs. rural) of the country, like a place of mourning or even crematoriums. There are even places where they're called tannatoriums (whatever that means...), but this is very recent and (still) rare. "Casas mortuárias" are ubiquitous and although most of them are places of mourning (for those who are not mourned in their homes), they're mainly used for ceremonies, religious or not (again, the difference between rural and urban places). Tagging those places as places of mourning wouldn't be the best practice, since that's not their main purpose, although we could argue that both are present most of the times. The image is from one of those houses, that offers these services, and they're are being built with modern lines in urban areas and getting away from the more traditional religious architecture, which is more prevalent in rural areas. I hope that this helped to qualm your doubts about the Portuguese wiki page. BTW, I edited the wiki with your suggestions. If you still have doubts about this, please, don't hesitate to contact me again. Regards. --AntMadeira (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Great then. For a structure combining a ceremonial hall with "places of mourning", one might want to combine amenity=funeral_hall with place_of_mourning=yes. I've done this elsewhere, where I knew that both are present (437291612 437291612). You could of course argue for the contrary, depending on which aspect is preponderant (amenity=place_of_mourning and funeral_hall=yes - even though we are still voting on the latter...). But I'll leave it to the Portuguese community to discuss. Vollis (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about place_of_mourning=yes. I'll add that to the Portuguese wiki. --AntMadeira (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

New vote on Evaporation ponds

Thanks for voting! There were a few minor issues that were discovered after the vote started, and therefore the vote has been restarted. If you want you can participate in the new vote that was started at Proposed_features/Evaporation_basin. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:53, 17 February 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:Firefox 94HGuh034a.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}} 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) 14:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Mateusz Konieczny:. That particular image was taken from Mapillary. What's the best way to add the proper license? --AntMadeira (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

From looking at Drafts/Media file license chart: {{CC-BY-SA-4.0|Name of photo author}}{{Mapillary}} and include link to image/location Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Please, give me an example on how to add that info to the page/image. --AntMadeira (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Boating_restrictions.jpg has an example - if you are unable to add templates (are you using visual editor or editing page source directly?) then adding author name and link to the Mapillary showing this image and its author would be sufficient (I will add templates) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I got it, but I don't know where to put the link. For now, is under the template box.--AntMadeira (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a good place, thanks! Note that there are at least some other affected images, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mateusz_Konieczny/notify_uploaders/AntMadeira and would be nice to also handle them - is it also Mapillary? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The road images are all Mapillary. The others were done by me. I'll add the correct license template. Thank you for your help! --AntMadeira (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

All "my" images now have the correct copyright statement. --AntMadeira (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

What about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Zona_de_Coexist%C3%AAncia.jpg ? It is copy of a design of a real sign, right? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't remember exactly what I've done with that one. I think I've downloaded it from a public source and made some changes, but I'm not sure. --AntMadeira (talk) 15:37, 27 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:SM Porto.jpg ?

Are you the creator of image File:SRR.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|AntMadeira}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, November}} 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) 18:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Mateusz Konieczny:. These images, like others in the same pages, were copied from public websites of the respective Town Halls. Feel free to edit their licensing accordingly. Regards. --AntMadeira (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I tracked down source of File:SRR.jpg but I was unable to find it for File:SM Porto.jpg or even find the Town Hall website. Is it still existing? (sadly, official pages often use materials not released under open license and as result they cannot be reused - even in cases where they can and should release it under open licenses) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The official website is this but I didn't find it there, I guess. The image seems to have come from here, which states the image origin is this (which doesn't seem to exist any more). For this specific image, you can exchange it for this one, which is from the district official webpage (São Martinho do Porto is a county of Alcobaça district). --AntMadeira (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Taginfo2 template translation

Hi, I'm writing to you because I see that you're an active Portuguese translator. Maybe you will be interested to translate the {Taginfo2} template (only 20 short messages), which is visible in many many places. Most of these messages are only visible when you hover the cursor over icons or numbers. Instructions on how to do it are here: Template:Taginfo2#Translations. The translation will be visible to users who have the site language set to Portuguese. maro21 11:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contact, Maro21. I never did that, but it doesn't seem to be difficult. I'll try to translate those templates. --AntMadeira (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)