User talk:Mateusz Konieczny

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

/Archive

Examples for pedestrian roads

Hi, I would like to discuss our edits on the Tag:highway=pedestrian page – particularly this partial restoration of content I had removed. To me, this image depicts a wide, comfortable footway – but that's still a case for highway=footway. Unless there are other arguments than what's visible on the image (e.g. signage), I don't see it as a good example of a pedestrian road. --Tordanik 17:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Station photo

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:railway%3Dstation&diff=next&oldid=2051818 I'm not against the changing of the photo, but the new one shows mostly roofs. Useful to have one which at least shows the platforms. --DaveF63 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@DaveF63: If you think that old one was better - feel free to change it to the old one. In this case I do not feel strongly about this change Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@DaveF63: Looking at it again - you are right, I changed it back Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

amenity=monastery

Hi Mateusz, you have modified the amenity=monastery page which now suggests a tag "building=monastery", but many monasteries I am aware of, consist of several buildings, they are building complexes. Maybe you were thinking about non-christian monasteries? There are also monasteries which are not built, e.g. an hermitage may be just a cave. --Dieterdreist (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

amenity=monastery - I will check it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I see no mention of building=monastery there and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dmonastery&diff=2021728&oldid=1925709 has not introduced it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

train=yes

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:train&diff=next&oldid=1954466 I think that should read: "...and replace public_transport=*". train=yes can only be used as a child tag of public_transport to avoid ambiguity in that tag. Replacing train=yes would still leave the public_transport in tact.--DaveF63 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

But railway=station (or similar) also has meaning of "train stops here" (implies train=yes), and may be also be tagged with (pointless) public_transport tag. I would need to look at it to be sure, but I seem to remember that such tagging was recommended by PTv2 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
A few things:
1. railway=station (PTv1) is completely separate from public_transport/train=yes (PTv2
2. As railway=station "implies train=yes" then train=yes is clearly not required, even if it was compatible.
3. train=yes is only required to clarify the ambiguity of public_transport=station. However as you mention, it is "useless" therefore it's not required. --DaveF63 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

use_sidepath

Due to its considerable use however, routing engines should treat it as a negative access value, though weaker than moped=no.

I understand your reasoning, but I feel the wording creates unnecessary confusion. For routing engines 'use_sidepath' is effectively a hard negative value like 'no'. I think its important that the documentation points this out. It's just that the reason for the 'no' flows from the presence of a (mandatory) parallel path rather than an explicit forbidden sign. I doubt 'use_sidepath' is useful to anyone but mappers (to whom it explains that there is or should be a parallel way), but it exists, so it's better to have routers treat it correctly to prevent them sending mopeds or pedestrians onto dangerous roads. (I'm not a champion of this access-value, but I document it and fix it in routing software to keep the map useful. It's too popular in the Netherlands not to.)

I can't think of any reason for a routing engine to treat it as a weaker 'no', or what that would mean, but if you have an example that might help. --JeroenHoek (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It may depend on legislation in a given country. In some use_sidepath has meaning of "driving vehicle X is outright illegal if there is dedicated way for it along road", for some it is "if possible to avoid driving vehicle X is forbidden on road with dedicated way along it" See examples for cyclist in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath - specifically https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Use_sidepath.png https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Use_sidepath2.png Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not clear to me from the original proposal for bicycle=use_sidepath. The intent of this access-value seems to be that it indicates that local laws forbids the use of the main road which normally could legally be used, were it not that a compulsory parallel way is available. If you can walk/cycle/ride a moped there than *=use_sidepath seems like a tagging error. Routers really should not use these roads at all for the target class. If there are countries where this is not correct, then I would suggest mentioning those countries specifically in the documentation (e.g., “In Poland *=use_sidepath is not a hard 'no', but routers should assign a penalty to ways tagged with it.”). It really won't do to have routing software propose a route over *=use_sidepath in countries like the Netherlands or Germany, where this tagging scheme originated.
In those screenshots I think the mapper is trying to solve the problem of tagging a road that discourages walking/cycling/riding a moped because it is dangerous. It would be good to have tags for such cases (although the legalistic crowd hates mappers making judgment calls), but I get the impression *=use_sidepath is wrongly being co-opted for that purpose. --JeroenHoek (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
"intent of this access-value seems to be that it indicates that local laws forbids the use of the main road" - Note in proposal explicit note that it differs across countries: "legal and access implications may and will vary from country to country." "A router can now decide to propose a route that does not use these type of roads." 21:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
"solve the problem of tagging a road that discourages walking/cycling/riding a moped because it is dangerous" - in such case use_sidepath would be misused Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
"In those screenshots I think the mapper is trying to solve the problem of tagging a road that discourages walking/cycling/riding a moped because it is dangerous" - no, this screenshots show case where cycling on road is legal (and desirable routing), despite cycleway along it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

post office

Hello, you did some changes to the wiki page post office. Most are clear, concerning 2 I have questions

1) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dpost_office&diff=prev&oldid=2099967

You removed the explicit mentioning of not using the amentity=post_office for kiosks, laundrys etc where you can also send (not only pick up) parcels, as well as you removed the link to Proposed features/shop as post-partner. What was the intention? I added both to help mappers in the sense they are pro-actively warned before unintentionally creating wrong mappings (e.g. amenity=post_office;gambling or amenity=post_office + shop=kiosk) and they quickly learn without research that there is not yet an agreed tagging but only a proposal for kiosks, laundrys etc also offering postal services. I

2) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dpost_office&diff=next&oldid=2099970

You removed the link for postal codes research in Lithuania. Why shall it not be mentioned like the ones for India, Ukraine etc?

Best regards --Schoschi (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Schoschi: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dpost_office&diff=next&oldid=2099970 - it was mentioned in "potential data sources" and there is no indicator that it is under open license that would make it an acceptable data source. I have not removed other because I have not reviewed them Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I see, makes sense to me :) --Schoschi (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I reverted https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dpost_office&diff=prev&oldid=2099839 because it made a change to how it is defined without (as far as I know) any discussion. I see no problem with tagging place where you can both send and pick up parsels/post as a post office, even if it is also a laundry/kiosk/butcher/etc. Also, it prominently linked new tag that appears to be just a draft proposal, was not discussed and has a minimal use Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Schoschi: - I now reviewed other listed data sources. If you think that place where you can send and pickup letters/parcels but is also a shop does not qualify for tagging as post office - I would be happy to discuss it as tagging mailing list or maybe also somewhere else like Discord where more people would be able to join Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I added the "don't use for kiosks" into EN page because it appeared to me as if that was already consensus (e.g. the DE variant of the wiki page) and there are strong reasons for it, e.g. kiosks do usually offer only a very limited subset of postal services, using amentity=post_office is at least clearly forbidden for any amenity as we'd have two semicolon separated values in key amenity. Yes, we can discuss again / further on the topic, but as both channels you suggest are even viewable for members only, I'd strongly prefer the official OSM forum - within it, maybe it makes most sense to continue in the existing English thread https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=817269 --Schoschi (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Is "Please do not use this tag for supermarkets, laundrys etc. where you may just pickup parcels." not sufficient? @Schoschi: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
IMHO not, because people (I did this some months ago myself :( ) may still use post_office for POIs where you can send parcels but no other postal service is offered, as they are neither told this does not fit and they have no idea how to tag instead. With the link to the proposal, they can follow the link and quickly read we've not yet an agreed tagging scheme but what current alternatives/workarounds look like and where to find the discussion. --Schoschi (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

So there are places where you may only receive parcels and places where you may only send parcels? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a misunderstanding - at least to my knowledge which is up-to-date only for Germany, in shops+amenities you can only send and receive parcels, i.e. there is no "receive only". --Schoschi (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

In Poland there are also numerous places where you may only pickup parcels and are a regular shop otherwise. If you can also send parcels, what kind of things are missing? Is such place not handling regular letters? What else is missing? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in DE more or less all of these places are not handling letters. Same for postal bank's services. Other postal services are also offered only by some: Selling stamps, offering bulk package handling, luggage transport, identity confirmation. Who is offering what massively depends on the postal service's brand a shop cooperates with. --Schoschi (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@Schoschi: I added "Please do not tag this in places where one is unable to do what is expected from post office (for example - buying stamps).", I have not added explicit "offering bulk package handling, luggage transport, identity confirmation" as such services are not performed at all dedicated post offices. Do you think that something else needs to be changed? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! No, IMHO this is clear and sufficient - I just merged the two overlapping paragraphs to one, i.e. changed the wording, not the content. Later, when Proposed_features/Paketshops is more mature, we may add a link to post_partner so people do not only learn what not to do, but get a constructive help. --Schoschi (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Great, I am happy that we reached stage where we are both happy about the text, hopefully other people are also fine with that version :) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Google using OpenStreetMap data

Re: "When Google stopped map maker? Maybe it was added not by Google employee but by someone convinced to work for corpo for free?"

I was offered a chance to be approved as a unpaid mapper for Google a while back, when I had been still adding photos and POIs to Google Maps. I believe if you are a trusted volunteer contributor you can still get access to update street names and perhaps even geometries, though I decided not to give a corporation free labor anymore. I suspect that you are right, these changes were probably copied from OpenStreetMap by a volunteer mapper who did not properly understand the copyright issues. --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

New vote on Evaporation ponds

Thanks for voting! There were a few minor issues that were discovered after the vote started, and therefore the vote has been restarted. If you want you can participate in the new vote that was started at Proposed_features/Evaporation_basin. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Add_Node_List.JPG

Hallo, ich vermute das deine Änderung nicht korrekt ist. siehe w:GNU_General_Public_License#Copyright --Reneman (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Spam inbox

The spam messages came from a user without a valid username. So, there is no user page and so no "report user" (Name of the user: "Kimberly_31231"). It was not my intention to delete anything useful.

Bicycle parking on way

First, no thank you for the revert, second what "accept data item in this case" of your comment means ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:bicycle_parking&diff=next&oldid=2099493

data items. I am going through cases where OSM Wiki and data items have conflicting entries (scroll to bottom of User:Mateusz Konieczny/automatically generated list of various issues on OSM wiki). In nearly all cases OSM Wiki is right and data items are wrong, but sometimes OSM Wiki text needs to be changed. And I am pretty sure that in case of bicycle parkings tagging as way is neither useful nor really needed - tagging as node or area is always superior. But if you think that this or another of my edits is wrong, feel free to revert it (preferably with an explanation). @Florimondable: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
More than 10% are on ways! So your opinion is just yours, please don't change wiki page against common usage, or it could be called vandalism. --Florimondable (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@Florimondable: - multipolygons and closed filled ways go into "area" field, "ways" is only for unclosed and unfilled ways Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
And? You're trying to push your opinion alone, against the main tag page bicycle_parking. For instance, for what ##### reason do you think that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bike_racks_at_north-west_of_Westfield_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1041057.jpg can't be tag on a way, instead of a node? Seriously? I'm bored of this wiki where people push their opinion alone without any discussion, and against the usage! So please, stop this stupid edit war and revert your edit. By the way, I don't know why you think a closed way is automatically an area for bicycle parking.--Florimondable (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@Florimondable:
"And?" It means that "More than 10% are on ways!" is not relevant at all as vast majority is representing areas
"By the way, I don't know why you think a closed way is automatically an area for bicycle parking" because in all my OSM activities related to bicycle parkings, and all non-OSM bicycle-parking related activities I have never seen or imagined parking which representation as closed way would not be an area. Are you aware of any parking where sane representation would be a cloded way and it would not be an area? Can you link its photo? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, there is a lot of bicycle parking drawn with closed way in order to represent an area. Anyhow, that’s not the main point, the point is simple : people do draw a way and tagged it with bicycle_parking key. That’s a real usage of the tag, and what you think about it doesn’t matter, because the wiki is not here to express the opinion of one contributor, but to documment the current usage of the contributors. So I ask you again, revert the modification you’ve made in order to reflect the current usage of the key.--Florimondable (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Florimondable: "people do draw a way and tagged it with bicycle_parking key" - also unclosed ways? Is it tagging with some real use? If yes, them feel free to change it. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course with unclosed way, that's was my comment on the first revert. Next time you can check it before with overpass.--Florimondable (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Enytially.png

Thank you, that's what I wanted this logo to band from everywhere because this logo is very valuable so I violence this logo.

If you wish to contact me about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Enytially.png - please post on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny and use understandable English or Polish Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop removing claims from data items

Removing claims makes our knowledge base harder to parse and also conceals the discrepancies you’re introducing by only changing the wiki markup in English. --Andrew (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wynndale: I remove only incorrect ones. Having no claim at all is preferable to having an incorrect one Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Could you instead of removing the claim, if applicable, correct the claim instead? Especially since many of those claims you removed could have been fixed in the same amount of time. --Mxdanger (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Changing data items to correct values takes more time, due to frustrating and fiddly JS-based interface. And anyway, as soon as data item bot is running again this values can be easily imported from OSM Wiki. If someone is interested in resurrecting Wikidata bot I would be happy to help. One part is figuring out how to deal with complicated structure of data items and I am unable to help with that, as I gave up on this due to irritating complexity present there. But I can provide either Python code parsing infoboboxes (turns out to be quite easy, as there are parsers of MediaWiki markup) or parsed infoboxes in some standard format like JSON/CSV/etc ready for further processing like adding them to data items. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wynndale: BTW, if someone is interested in resolving serious conflicts between English version and version in some language, or between given language and data items - I can generate for them list similar to User:Mateusz Konieczny/automatically generated list of various issues on OSM wiki (right now I generate it only for English) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)