User talk:Fabi2

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hinweise auf feature Seiten

Hallo Fabi, du hast ja z.B. auf Tag:amenity=social_centre einen Hinweis geschrieben, dass das nicht zu nutzen ist. Das ist sicherlich richtig da es lediglich 135mal genutzt wurde [1]. Auch gegen einen Verweis auf dein Proposal habe ich nichts. Aber es ist erst kürzlich ein Proposal für solche Sachen durchgegangen: Social_facility. Wäre es nicht sinnvoller das zu verlinken? --!i! This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 07:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Social_facility hab ich doch auch verlinkt, da es einen ganz anderen Bereich abdeckt, der Hinweis und die Verlinkung von Tag:amenity=social_centre hat einen anderen Grund: da wurde nämlich die Bezeichnung nämlich schlecht gewählt. Der Autor der Tag:amenity=social_centre-Seite wollte ein Tag für für die Selbsthilfegruppen-Treffpunkt-Gebäude erstellen, hat dafür aber leider soziales Zentrum als Bezeichnung genommen, die eigentlich für alternative/autonome Treffpunkte benutzt werden sollte. Und wegen dieser Irreführung der Hinweis. --Fabi2 12:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Ich hab mal noch ein paar Alternativen eingefügt damit man sich gleich zurecht findet --!i! This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 13:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Vote on Sidewalk as separate way

Hello,

would you reconsider your vote on the linked proposal? I believe you misread it, there's no highway=path mentioned there. If that was not the reason, please forgive me for this message.

--Hanska 21:36, 12 April 2011 (BST)

Yes, really read not through everything first. --Fabi2 22:21, 12 April 2011 (BST)

hausdurchfahrten

ich glaube deine auslegung für hausdurchfahrten als tunnel=yes, die du bei der änderung angegeben hast, stimmt nicht. englische seite sagt aus: "In order to map galleries … or ways underneath a building, use covered=yes instead.". das "or" bedeutet, dass es genau andersrum ist: covered=yes für hausdurchfahrten. also hat die vorherige übersetzung eh gepasst --Flaimo 19:55, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Das mit der Wikibeschreibung ist soweit korrekt, hatte ich überlesen. Aber die aus meiner Sicht ist die Verwendung widersprüchlich. Ich hatte auch schon im Forum einen Thread zu dem Thema aufgemacht. --Fabi2 20:06, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Hausdurchfahrten

Hallo Fabi2, um einen Edit-War zu vermeiden, diskutieren wir das lieber erst mal hier. Du hast deinen Hinweis zu covered=yes mit Verweis auf die englische Seite Key:tunnel erneut eingestellt. [2] Allerdings schreibt diese Seite: "In order to map galleries (tunnels which are open on one side, often found on mountain roads) or ways underneath a building, use covered=yes instead." Also: An einer Seite offene Tunnel werden als covered=yes gemappt. Zudem werden aber auch "ways underneath a building" als covered=yes gemappt. In meinen Augen ist die Verwendung von covered=yes für Hausdurchfahrten eher eine logische Anwendung dieses Tagging-Vorschlags als ein Widerspruch dazu.

Letztlich ist es mir übrigens egal, wie genau am Ende gemappt wird, solange ich einen Tunnel durch den Berg unter dem Haus verlässlich von einer Hausdurchfahrt unterscheiden kann. Der ursprüngliche "Howto map a"-Eintrag gibt die Antwort von talk-de auf meine diesbezügliche Frage wieder. Bei deinem vorgeschlagenen Tagging sehe ich dazu keine Möglichkeit. --Tordanik 19:59, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Eine Unterscheidung von Hausdurchfahrten sollte man aus meiner Sicht anderweitig machen, weil covered=yes wird hier für Tunnel durch Häuser zweckentfremdet. Weil ursprünglich war es für offene Überbauungen gedacht und eine Hausdurchfahrt ist ja eher ein Tunnel als ein überdachtes Objekt. Ok, wenn das unterschieden werden soll, muß man sich da was einfallen lassen. --Fabi2 20:12, 26 May 2011 (BST)
vielleicht würde ein zusatztag helfen um zwischen tunnel unterscheiden zu können die unter dem haus durchgehen und jenen die durch das haus gehen. vielleicht tunnel=<wasauchimmer die englische übersetzung von hausdurchfahrt ist> --Flaimo 20:24, 26 May 2011 (BST)
Auf den ersten Blick halte ich das für eine gute Idee. --Fabi2 20:54, 26 May 2011 (BST)

upload

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

Are you author of images https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:27042010215.jpg https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Jelbi_Station_Elsterwerdaer_Platz.jpg https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:IndoorFireHose-non.jpg https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Kreuzung.JPG ?

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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement) ?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:CC-BY-SA-4.0 ?

If you are the author: please add something like "photo taken, uploaded and licensed by its author {{CC0}}" to publish image under CC0 license.

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

Feel free to ask for help if you need it. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Added now hopefully sufficient CC0 licensing to all photos of me but whithout https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:IndoorFireHose-non.jpg, where in made a trivial automatic exposure enhancement, which is also CC0 licensed. So ask User:JohnSmith for its licensing. Fabi2 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

aerial imagery not specified

Do you remember which aerial imagery was used for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GML_001-shot1.png ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This was the standard imagery of this time: Bing. Fabi2 (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

lawyer:specialty

Hi, you changed the tag documentation for lawer:specialty (hardly used) to read lawyer_specialty (literally unused). Please restore the documentation and consider making a proposal if you want to make this change. —Dieterdreist (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Where is the proposal for lawyer:specialty? Please explain me, how you easy want select a lawyer by specialty, when more the one values are specified in the value of lawyer:specialy=*? There are only a few uses (22 (with 4 from me) + 17) (don't want to do a mechanical edit) and I want not limit this to a one-value-solution as healthcare:specialty=*. Fabi2 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I don’t know whether lawyer:specialty was introduced with a proposal, what I said was that it documented an used tag and you removed this documentation and added something that nobody has used so far. Please restore the documentation that you have removed, thank you. If you want to engage in a discussion about improving the tag I suggest the tagging mailing list or the community site —-Dieterdreist (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I dont´t removed but improved the tagging and documentation, also by adding three new keys. If you complain about the 22 uses (for this (with 17 misspellings) and maybe other keys, this may be just the count of some misspelled writings, which are not documented in the wiki), you should better fix the tagging for the affected objects as a QA edit, where possible. Writing to the tagging list and the following discussion for this few objects will took much longer then just do the edit, if you complain about the usage. If someone adds bad tagging without discussion to the wiki, why this should not also be corrected without discussion (considering the few uses), before it is more used and not only copied to the russian page? Fabi2 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Category mit deutschem Titel in Namensraum DE:

Hallo Fabi! Die neue Kategorie Category:Personen im Gesundheitswesen sollte meiner Einschätzung nach in den DE: Namensraum, also nach Category:DE:Personen im Gesundheitswesen verschoben werden. Gruß, Chris --Chris2map (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Erledigt. Danke für den Hinweis. Ich kämpfe immer etwas mit MediaWiki. Fabi2 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 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:Linie 4.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|Fabi2}} 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.

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) 16:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the partial list of existing licence templates, I now added a licence for every file uploaded by me. Is there a template for JOSM + Bing without ODbl? I need it for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GML_001-shot1.png? Fabi2 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I added an option to specify a free text or alternative license of the data displayed by using parameter data=. See template options. --Chris2map (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)