User talk:Lectrician1

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Are you planning to proceed with Proposed features/golf cart path? Would it be OK if I would take over this proposal (may include modifying it)? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You can take over. As you can see, I was in the middle of changing the structure of the document. I wanted to give a introduction to the history of golf cart path tagging in the heading Current Tagging. I also wanted to add a Issue Validation section at the bottom for how this issue can be accounted for with the new tagging and solved.
Also, for the highway=link or golf_cart_path=link that I was stuck on, here's a resource. And the whole conceptual link thing (based on Proposed_features/Tag:footway=link), @ZeLonewolf: recommended making a separate proposal (which is what was holding me up). I don't know how you're going to sort through that, since mapping ways that don't exist is usually up to the mapper.

For example, this is a problematic situation. Do you connect them in the middle or not?
--Lectrician1 (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


Hi Lectrician1, I noticed you seem to look for proposals with no recent contributions and set them to "abandoned", for example amenity=research_station. Are there actually arguments against the tag? Many people will be reluctant to add tags which are "abandoned", and in case there is no feature page the proposal is the only documentation of a tag (i.e. it looks as if the tag was abandoned although it is only the proposal which currently has no moderator). There are currently 8 research stations in remote locations like Greenland and Antarctica tagged with this. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dieterdreist: Hm I guess you're right. Sorry about that. I just want to cut down Category:Proposals with "Proposed" status to a list that reflects relevant proposals that are actually being proposed and are in RFC.
Is there another category that can fulfill that status or should I create one?
The proposal status could be "Proposing". It would put proposals with the status in Category:Proposals with "Proposed" status and a new category called Category:Proposals with "Proposing" status. Thoughts? --Lectrician1 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe an explicit "RFC" status? Seems selfexplaining and in line with the tagging ML "RFC" announcements. Or "comments requested"? --Dieterdreist (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Why would an "abandoned" proposal mean a tag is "abandoned"? A tag can be "in use" or even "de facto". ---- Kovposch (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
for good proposals with status=abandoned, why not go to the end of the process ? if not, what's the goal to collect opinions but not to want a vote to show if these opinions have all been expressed and taken into account ?
i find that proposing+proposing would be very ambiguous. proposed for RFC is already quite twisted.
status=pause for proposals that don't progress ? Marc marc (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: road_marking=*

For road_marking=traffic_calming the tag traffic_calming=* has identical meaning so how does "map it first" make sense at all? traffic_calming=* was voted on by the community, and has 682k uses[1]. Meanwhile road_marking=traffic_calming has 0 at time of typing.[2] --GoodClover (a.k.a. Olive, GodClovere, ) (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@GoodClover: Oh you are right, you should use that instead. I didn't notice it. I just removed it from the table now. --Lectrician1 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

tennis court

Hi. There is some controversy on your addition to the definition of tennis courts. Could you please comment on that on the discussion page? -- TZorn (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


Hey, I have seen on the talk oft User:Javbw, that you are interested in reactivate Proposed features/Civic admin - are you still interested? I would be interested too. So we could work together on a redraft? --SafetyIng (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@SafetyIng: If you know how to separate tagging of government vs. religion (think states in the Middle East where government and religion is mixed) and what qualifies as government to begin with (are highway service locations operated by departments of transportation industrial or civic landuse?), then I'd love to help. I do not know how to solve this problem. There are too many things that might fall under landuse=civic. Start a draft proposal and write down your ideas and I'll review them. --Lectrician1 (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2021 (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 author of image File:Basketball court mapped in iD.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".

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)?

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}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

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).

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified January 2022}} from the file page.

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC) has similar problem - which aerial imagery was used here? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The same goes for other images listed at - which aerial imagery was used to create them? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:Mateusz Konieczny Both are Bing imagery and you can mark all of my images as CC0. Lectrician1 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you used Bing for all images on ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny Everything but File:Using highway=path + informal=yes on leisure=pitch.png, which is Mapbox. Lectrician1 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Messy diffs

Your edit Special:Diff/2421252 made many small whitespace changes which makes the whole edit hard to review.

I realize that you probably didn't make these changes intentionally and it's probably the Visual Editor messing up ... which is unfortunate.

--push-f (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah and regarding Special:Diff/2421256, maybe don't remove software if you're uncertain. Blender can be used to generate 3D models with blender-osm (as mentioned on the Blender article), so if you remove the link to Blender you should probably add a link to blender-osm. --push-f (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Push-f I'm like completely redoing the 3D page right now so just doooonnn't touch it. I will add blender-osm. Lectrician1 (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)