User talk:Marcussacapuces91
MS BOT / Robot de nettoyage
Merci de discuter sur les pages du robot User:MS BOT et User_talk:MS BOT.
Je ne viens pas parler du bot en lui-même mais de ton travail à toi et Emmanuel. Je dois dire que même si j'apprécie votre travail jusqu'à maintenant, je commence aussi à m'inquiéter de la tournure des choses, la liste des changements s'allonge et les commentaires sur User_talk:MS BOT montrent que les expressions peuvent parfois être trop larges. J'ai l'impression que vous n'êtes que deux sur le coup et un log montre qu'on arrive à plusieurs milliers de changements, ce qui arrive à la limite du contrôlable (en tout cas pour moi).
J'espère que tu connais le code de conduite des bots: Automated Edits/Code of Conduct et en particulier cette remarque :
(If you do not feel up to the task of reverting everything you have done, then don't start making changes.)
Nous sommes plusieurs à avoir suggérer d'attendre l'API 0.6 qui faciliterait les retours en arrière. Mais si tu continues, fait-le avec prudence. A la rigueur, je préfèrerais que le script soit exécuté plus souvent mais avec moins de changements d'un seul coup -- Pieren 22:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- En fait il s'agit bien d'un commentaire sur le robot...
- En fait, je ne comprends pas bien vos retissances. Nous avons ici une base de données (facilement automatisable, pas comme l'import du cadastre par exemple) et je propose un robot dont la seule fin, pour le moment, est de normaliser les informations déjà présentes. C'est évident que l'action de ce robot va dépasser la "limite du contrôlable", mais cette limite est déjà dépassée par le nombre d'incohérences présentes dans la base que personne n'a les moyens de corriger manuellement. Même moi, je me fatigue à relier des ways qui ne le sont pas dans la base alors qu'il y a bien des carrefours entre eux sur le terrain, à remplacer names en refs et/ou à ajouter les names identiques sur toute la longueur d'une route, à retoucher les oneway aux entrées des "\bRond(-| )Point\b" (oups désolé, le réflexe ;-) ) alors que ces taches pourraient être automatisées, effectivement avec une quantité d'erreurs, mais bien inférieure à celle de départ. Alors le jeu n'en vaut-il pas la chandelle : je suis convaincu que oui.
- Pour tordre le cou au légendes urbaines, passez sur la page de la V0.6 OSM_Protocol_Version_0.6 et vous comprendrez pourquoi le concept du "changeset" est un miroir aux allouettes, en tout cas pour défaire des modifications :
- Changesets are specifically *not* atomic. Given how many changes might be uploaded in one step it's not feasible. Instead we opted for optimistic (client-side) locking. Anything submitted to the server in a single request will be considered atomically, hence the need for diff uploads. Hence you cannot rollback a changeset. Changesets cannot be deleted either.
- Changesets facilitate the implementation of rollbacks. By providing insight into the changes committed by a single person it becomes easier to identify the changes made, rather than just rolling back a whole region. Direct support for rollback will not be in the API, instead they will be a form of reverse merging, where client can download the changeset, examine the changes and then manipulate the API to obtain the desired results. Rolling back a changeset can be be an extremely complex process especially if the rollback conflicts with other changes made in the mean time; we expect (hope) that in time, expert applications will be created that make rollback on various levels available to the average user.
- Je traduit en gros ce qui m'intéresse : on ne peut pas annuler simplement un changeset, en particulier à cause des problème de conflit avec des modifications ultérieures. Donc au mieux le changset permettra de regrouper toutes les modifications, charge à un autre robot de revenir en arrière : comme aujourd'hui en fait. Donc attendre cette version de l'API n'a pas de sens.
- Si vous ne voulez pas de robot, pas de problème, je "fork" dans une nouvelle base française en local où j'appliquerais mes corrections. Après tout, cette base est libre à condition de citer sa source.
- Je copie cette discussion dans la page du Robot, elle n'a décidément rien à faire ici.
- --Marcussacapuces91 09:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Key:enforcement
Done. My fault, I didn't change the page when I started to translate it. Thank you for the advice! --Gwilbor 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Boîte aux lettres de la Poste
Bonjour,
Je viens de voir que tu avais contacté La Poste dans le cadre du WikiProject_France/Emplacements_des_Boîtes_à_Lettre_de_La_Poste.
As-tu eu des nouvelles de leur part depuis juillet dernier ? En farfouillant un peu j'ai trouvé un accès public à la géolocalisation de toutes les coordonnées des boîtes aux lettres, il ne manquerait que leur accord pour un import automatique :)
Par exemple pour Toulouse la carte des boîtes est ici: http://maps.webnet.fr/Parcours2/MainBALSMix.aspx?sLat=43,6043902&sLng=1,448302&id=31555&dept=31 Et les coordonnées au format XML sont ici: http://maps.webnet.fr/Parcours2/GetBALXML.aspx?lat=43,6043902&lng=1,448302<1=43.579520379387574&lg1=1.3902854919433594<2=43.629241689675126&lg2=1.5063285827636719
A+
--Don-vip 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Je n'ai jamais eu de réponse sérieuse en fait. D'autre part, il discussion sur la liste talk-fr avait laissé entendre que les listes disponibles auprès de la Poste était sans intérêt pour le projet (au niveau de la précision attendue en tout cas). --Marc 23:23, 6 January 2011 (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:Controle distance.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".
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}} 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.
Help
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) 08:55, 8 March 2022 (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:MS pylones.jpg ?
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 have taken then you can make it available under a specific free license (except some cases, like photos of modern sculptures in coutries without freedom of panorama or taking photo of copyrighted artwork).
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|Marcussacapuces91}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, June}} 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.
Help
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) 13:11, 17 June 2022 (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:MS Voie Privee.jpg ?
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 have taken then you can make it available under a specific free license (except some cases, like photos of modern sculptures in coutries without freedom of panorama or taking photo of copyrighted artwork).
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|Marcussacapuces91}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, August}} 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.
Help
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) 22:54, 5 August 2022 (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:Controle vitesse.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 have taken then you can make it available under a specific free license (except some cases, like photos of modern sculptures in coutries without freedom of panorama or taking photo of copyrighted artwork).
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|Marcussacapuces91}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, August}} 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.
Help
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) 07:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)