User talk:Geozeisig

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Filing cabinet icon.svg Archiv

Standard tile layer legend


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)