User talk:Geozeisig

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Filing cabinet icon.svg Archiv

Standard tile layer legend

Hi,

Thanks for updating cemeteries on Standard_tile_layer/Key, but there are still some old renderings which have less dense patterns now (I mean File:Landuse cemetery jewish.png and File:Landuse cemetery christian.png). Do you plan to update them too?

It would be also great if somebody continue to update this page, since I try to concentrate on osm-carto development and lack the time to do everything I could even there. Could you take care of this? --Kocio (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I can take care of it. Of course only as time permits. But hints if something has changed are very welcome.
Can it somehow be used as a legend in carto?--geozeisig (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Great! That's why I plan to at least keep adding TODOs with links to the changelogs.
I'm not sure what's the best solution with such unusually big legend, but I hope we can find it. I invite you to take part in a discussion in osm-carto repo. --Kocio (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The examples of area are different sizes, many 125 x 125 some 100 x 100. Should they not be the same? Which size would be nice? For areas that have only one color you can also resize later, but if they contain a pattern it is not so obtimal.--geozeisig (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There's just a few of 100x100, so it might be easier to replace them, on the other hand smaller tiles would make the legend shorter, which would be more comfortable for users (less scrolling), so smaller tiles would be better solution to me, however more tedious. --Kocio (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
On the website Key:landuse the rendering is 100x100 where the images are reduced from 125x125. So pictures in size 100 would also be an advantage here. But for a legend, even smaller pictures would be good. What would you suggest? --geozeisig (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I forgot about scaling images in HTML! That would make it much easier. I don't know what size is good, so just do as you think would be the best. You might even make a template for showing these tiles, so you would set the size only in the template by default and all the pictures would have the same size, which could be changed just by changing the template (- I hope I speak clear enough). --Kocio (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Then I would prefer 125x125. There are only a few. I would re-upload the svg file.--geozeisig (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There is entrance=yes Rect.svg and entrance = main Entrance main.svg. Where should that be arranged?--geozeisig (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There are also some other renderings of entrances, also combined with access (see the test here), so I guess you can just add another section in symbols ("Entrances"). --Kocio (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I would like to divide the page. Maybe in the topics points, ways and areas. Maybe tabs would be useful as they are used on Wiki. I just do not know how it's done. ((:Wiki/Tabs)) is the only thing I found (I had to replace the chambers).--geozeisig (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've made some fixes for shoal, beach and sand in Standard_tile_layer/Key#Areas. It's a bit convulted ("Generic beach or shoal" uses image withe the name sand and "Sand, beach or shoal with sand surface" uses the image with beach in the name), but that's how does it look like now. We should fix the renderings on the definitions for all these tags. --Kocio (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision 1596199 on power=tower

Hi, could you please give details on why the revision 1596199 on power=towerhas been undone please?
I thought it was ok as tower designs have to go on design=*. They are now redundant between power=tower and design=*. All the best Fanfouer (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The revision has been done be Gazer75. I would also like to know why he has reverted it.--geozeisig (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Oups, sorry :) i'll post the same question on its wall Fanfouer (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I didn't fully understand the reason for the change at the time. A big page edit could at least had a note in summary why it was changed. I had no idea all the design examples had gotten its own page now. It was also strange that the tower:type= is now said to be bad tagging for power towers. This has to be a mistake. We need to be able to use that key to tell if a tower is a branch and so on. The values for for this one on towers will not be the same as for com tower types anyway. Gazer75 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Please, explain why you are doing edit if it deletes large part of the page, "update" is not only useless - it is misleading Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The page design=* and tower:type=* contains the information. The information should not redudantly stand in two places. There have been other improvements that you can not list individually. So I marked it with update.--geozeisig (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
In that case it would be preferable to make content removal edit with "removing content duplicated from design=* and tower:type=*" and minor updates in a separate edits - so it would not look like a mistake Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Please, stop removing descriptions

Describing amenity=bank as "bank" is useless. Description "A financial establishment where customers can, among other services, deposit money and take loans." is more helpful.

In the same way describing tourism=picnic_site as "picnic site" is useless - please avoid edits like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:tourism%3Dpicnic_site&diff=1608777&oldid=1607241 or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:leisure%3Dfitness_station&diff=1608778&oldid=1603459

On topic of adding public requirement - is it discussed anywhere? I am pretty sure that it was not discussed recently on tagging mailing list Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

> Came here to say the same thing regarding https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:leisure%3Dfitness_station&diff=next&oldid=1603459, the description should be more than just the name. I've tagged a few of private fitness_stations leisure=fitness_station + access=private, so don't agree it should be public only. Aharvey (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're looking for a picnic site on a map with POI and you get a private place that's confusing.
The description in the infobox should be short, a longer is in upper part on the main page.
Describing amenity=bank as "bank" is useless. That's just for the English language. For everyone else, the description is the translation of der value. And the English side is the role model. Therefore, on the English side should also have a short description.--geozeisig (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
"bank" is not a description, even a short one - it is just a label. And unnecessary one given that tag is "amenity=bank". "For everyone else, the description is the translation of der value." - I am not understanding this, can you rephrase? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Geozeisig/Archiv#Selbstreferenzielle_Kurzbeschreibungen - the suggestion that had been made there was to add a new label field to the template to cater Geozeisig's desire to have a simple label for every tag and to leave the description field for what it is intended for - namely to describe the tag in question shortly without being self referential.
This this will probably not happen before Geozeisig has dumbed down the description of every tag page in existence i wonder if there is a way to then rename the template field from description to label and after that automatically restore whatever value description had before he made the first edit to it. ;-)
--Imagico (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Imagico Agree a label field makes perfect sense, description should remain as is. @Geozeisig The issue also with changing description to public only is as far as I can tell that was never discussed. I feel it's mapping for the application. If tagged access=private the application can choose to either hide it or show it but as private.
"before Geozeisig has dumbed down the description of every tag page in existence" - well, I keep reverting him at least on English pages. If he/she continues after this discussion I will try something more effective Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"add a new label field to the template to cater Geozeisig's desire" - I would not oppose this, but I see no value in it. If Geozeisig really wants it he/she may either add it to template or find somebody able and interested in adding this new parameter Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC) After additional info from Imagico (below) I am against it as it would encourage further damaging edits Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice if that new field rendered within div/p html object with specific id so it can be easily hidden with an adblock Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Well - Geozeisig has expressed the understandable desire to translate the tags into different languages. This is somewhat misguided because (a) there typically is no such thing as a 1:1 translation of terms into different languages and (b) tags do not generally mean exactly what their values mean even in English. I explained this in more detail in the previous discussion in German. To give an example - man_made=embankment in German has the description Böschung, Abhang - this is misleading because these terms in German do not imply an artificial structure while the tag in OSM does (the English description is not accurate either but that is a different story). So for properly learning what a tag means - even just in broad strokes - you need more than a single word and allowing that is exactly the purpose of the short description in the template.--Imagico (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
In that case I am against adding label field as it encourages invalid edits. Geozeisig, please stop this kind of editing - it is better to gave proper description than a single word that is misleading or is not explaining situation properly Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this discussion in English is difficult for me.@Imagico I see that a description is often not accurate enough with just one word. But it should be short and definitely include the word (value).--geozeisig (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good requirement, this leads to awkward descriptions (Of the type A foo is a ...), in particular in case the meaning of the tag conflicts with some meanings of the English language term matching the value (like leisure=park) leading to people attempting to fix it because they view it as a false statement. In languages other than English this is not a problem - you can describe the tag with any terms suitable - but in English this is not a good idea. It benefits mapping quality if you eliminate the middle man here - instead of man_made=embankment is an embankment which is a <description in other words> go strait to man_made=embankment is a <description in other words>. An established tag always detaches itself from the original meaning of the English language term used for the value to some extent over time.--Imagico (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
To me, "a financial establishment ..." feels like an attempt to define the meaning of "bank", when the goal should instead be to define the meaning of "amenity=bank". A longer description only makes practical sense if the meaning of the tag is different from that of the English word, which may of course be the case. But where there is no such difference in meaning, it makes no sense trying to paraphrase. --Tordanik 15:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
In languages words have not always a universal meaning, in particular in English which is spoken across very different cultures. So relying on a certain subjective interpretation of a single word is not a very good idea, even if you think this interpretation has universal validity. I explained this in the previous discussion with the term reef and that its meaning is not something you can build on. This is why a description is useful. It puts the meaning of the abstract concept behind a tag into a broader verbal context. --Imagico (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
If this is actually a problem with a particular definition, then sure, point that out. But what I'm trying to say is that ...
  • there's nothing wrong per se with using a one-word definition, as long as it's still correct and unambiguous.
  • a word appearing in the tag itself is not an argument against using it in the definition.
--Tordanik 16:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"there's nothing wrong per se with using a one-word definition, as long as it's still correct and unambiguous." I agree in principle, though I am unable to give any example of any case where it would be sufficient Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
A description does not have to be a definition, it is meant to describe the meaning of a tag without depending on a certain interpretation of the meaning of specific terms by providing a broader verbal context. Often this is done by explaining the function a certain feature has or the way it relates to other objects.
As far as definitions are concerned (which as said is not really the issue here), yes, there is nothing wrong per se with using a one-word definition - but the problem is the author of a definition is universally not able to assess if the reader of the definition has the same understanding of this one word. Therefore a reliable definition likewise uses indirect methods to define things (for example by listing functional requirements to comply with the definition or exclusion criteria - like the famous stream-river distinction). --Imagico (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)