User talk:GOwin

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Regarding use of "Saint" and "St."

I have started a discussion on the talk-ph list regarding the use of "Saint" or "St." in Philippine place names, but this has not been pointed out in the Philippines/Mapping conventions page. While it is clear that "San/Santa/Santo" should be used over "Sn./Sta./Sto.", the case about "Saint" and "St." is not clear-cut on the conventions by WikiProject Philippines. Is choosing "Saint" over "St." should be based on a case-by-case basis, or if the sign uses "St", then use it on the name for the map? This is something the Philippines mapping community has not been aware of. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Whenever there's a lack or absence of concordance in any local convention, I revert to to the global wiki pages. In this case, Invalid Abbreviation Expansion. (Notice the use of "St", without the full stop. Feel free to discuss this further in the mailing list, or the OSMph Slack channel.
I am in the middle of re-writing new sections of the OSMph mapping conventions on Gitbook. Would you be interested in collaborating? I personally feel that the current page has become unwieldy, and some tags already deprecated, but prefer to write in Markdown. GOwin (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I started a new discussion on the talk-ph mailing list, but have not seen any reply. And why not reply regarding that matter? It has been discussed on the OSM help, and yes, we should not expand abbreviations when it will make the name wrong. Looks like that would apply to the name of Dr. A Santos Avenue, or Sucat Road, where expanding "Dr." will make the name unsensible. But I don't know whether it is acceptable to expand "Gen.", "Sgt.", "Fr.", etc.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Source for :for refugee and displaced values

Hello, looking at I was wondering if there was a proposal or other source based on which you added the 'refugee' and 'displaced' values for the ':for' suffix of social_facilities? Thank you --Øukasz (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2020 (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:Volunteer-applicants to CWTS++ listen intently to instructions..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|GOwin}} 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.


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) 16:16, 27 March 2022 (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.

Please, ask for help if something is confusing or unclear in this message.

Please, fix that problem with this uploads - note that images with unclear licensing situation may be deleted.

Attribution may be missing completely or just be specified in nonstandard way, in either case it needs to be improved. Note that using CC-BY files without specifying attribution is a copyright violation, which is often unethical and unwanted. So clearly specifying required attribution is needed if license which makes attribution mandatory was used.

If it is applying to your own work which not based on work by others - then you can select own user name or some other preferred attribution or even change license to for example {{CC0-self}}

For your own work: ensure that it is clearly stated at file page that you created image/took the photo/etc

For works by others - please ensure that there is link to the original source which confirms license and that you used proper attribution, or that source is clearly stated in some other way.

Especially for old OSM-baded maps, made from data before license change on 12 September 2012 you should use "map data © OpenStreetMap contributors" as at least part of attribution

For old OSM Carto maps, which predate license change on 12 September 2012 you can use a special template {{OSM Carto screenshot||old_license}}