User talk:Frederik Ramm
hi, könntet ihr bei http://tile.bbbike.org/mc/ neben den einzelkarten auch eine funktion mit 2 karten übereinander machen, bei der man dann mit einem schieberegler zwischen den beiden hinundher wechseln kann? so wie es bei http://sautter.com/map/ mal war. --Kenji 18:52, 12 August 2012 (BST)
You said : we don't want people to think this is Wikipedia where citation is in fact needed for everything
- Well, that's a bit of exageration. Wikipedia doesn't needs citation for "everything" not does it asks for citation when none believe it is needed.
- Anyway, imho that doesn't mean we should let any important page be on display like nothing happened and like every one agrees. That page is partly disputed, lying about that won't help. Nor displaying a red box at the beginning like : this page if full of lies either. I find that asking for clarification while expression a degree of doubt in a rather subtle way is perfectly suited. People will then read those sentences while knowing they'll need more digging in order to make their own opinion. Especially when someone take that for granted and starts displaying big red box with the only reason beeing that it is written on verifiability
verifiability of sac_scale / trail_visibility
Your link to Talk:Proposed_features/Hiking isn't convincing me that a debate is still ongoing about verifiability of those tags, those discussions are 7 years old, points made might be outdated now, and there is a warning to ask people to move discussion to current pages. I should add that if we start countings tags that are controversial about their verifiability, I'd soon find that that page was written by haters of those specific tags, and that doesn't help credibility of verifiability. sletuffe (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
See my comment on Talk:Tag:boundary=timezone.
Probably your deletion request (made by you blanking the tag description pages) is locally undesired for some countries. I think there's space for them, when they are not obviously administrative subdivisions (notably in Russia, Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Greenland, possibly also in other countries).
It should have been discussed with relevant communities, even if they are obviously not needed for most countries (e.g. for Spain or Portugal, they are not needed, just like they are not needed for UK and France even if there are multiple timezones for their overseas).
So I suggest restoring the page but creating a discussion about when to use these relations or not.
- I would consider documenting terrible tags as terrible rather deleting pages describing them. This way, after somebody proposes again a terrible tag it is easy to point him/her to relevant documentation Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there any means to construct aeronautical charts based on OSM Aviation data? Are there any such open source charts a flight simulator could use?
contacting the DWG, to no avail
Dear Herr Frederik, I'm trying to contact the DWG with a rather serious data issue, in Panama. I have written twice to firstname.lastname@example.org and I can forward the mails to you if you require it. the starting point is this selection of changesets, and the fact that there's not just a single user behind them, but a whole group of editors, who organize and give workshops about mapping, who don't seem to understand much about copyright, ownership, and licensing, and who activate their local community, sharing their own understanding of mapping, with the support of the UNACHI university in David, Chiriquí, Panamá.
as a suggestion, please do consider adding some issue tracking software (gnats? bugzilla? Jira?) to the email@example.com email address, so that a numbered issue is generated on receipt of the initial email, and subsequent mails can be written to add information to the issue. as it stands now, I'm very (sorry and) dissatisfied with the experience. Mariotomo (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, we use the OTRS issue tracker at DWG and you will normally get an auto-reply with a ticket number if you email to firstname.lastname@example.org. However, the data@ alias is run on Google infrastructure and it is known to swallow emails occasionally. Can you send your original complaint to data @ openstreetmap.org (instead of osmfoundation.org), then we'll create a ticket created for it. --Frederik Ramm (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
While I appreciate you backing me up about the undisclosed automated edit thing, your whole thing about me not having the "right to single-handedly mark a feature as deprecated" was completely uncalled for and ridiculous. Last time I checked this is a community run project, one that I'm a member of, and people add the depreciation banner to articles all the time. It has nothing to do with them, me, or anyone else having having special "rights" to do things that others don't. If only certain users should be using the depreciated banner then it should be restricted to admins. But it's not me or anyone else that uses it if it's not. Also, you don't know who I talked to before I made the edit or what I was basing it on. FYI the edit had nothing to do with me thinking I had the "right" to do anything. I figured the tag was deprecated because the article has recommended people use other tags for a while now and it's usage has essentially bottomed out over the last few years to nothing. Which I think fits in fine with what Deprecated features says a deprecated feature is. Your free to disagree, but it was in pretty bad form IMO to say what you did about it. I was just following what Deprecated features says and using a banner the Wiki provides. If you think the wiki is wrong, maybe next time take it up with whoever runs the wiki or post about it on the discussion page of the article you disagree with. Either would have been a better way to handle the situation. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)