User talk:Mateusz Konieczny

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)

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)

Re:Source of file

Hi Mateusz, the image was generated only by OSM data, it was a screenshot from JOSM. I had initially uploaded the image to my account on a free social network that no longer exists called gnewbook. Here you can see other similar images from the mapping event in 2011. --Ovruni (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mateusz, the file Mashhad History 2008-2011.gif which I used in Mashhad OSM wiki page is produced by myself via a web page that produces a .GIF file of mapping history of a location over the time. Unfortunately this useful site doesn't works yet, but I know that we could download and use its images whenever and where ever we want.

A place to drop of books does imply a place to pickup books…

That would be an amenity = library as stated in the proposal. If anything your opposing vote might indicate that more tagging options might be needed for self service pickup options that can be on or offsite of the library.

I would however state that 99% of the time the pickup location for books would be the library itself and pre-Covid 99% of all locations that offered drop off options still required going to the library itself to pickup and drop off books. Hence why this has been the focus for of the tagging proposal.

I respect your vote and thank you for your feedback. I just wanted to offer this perspective and see if I’m misunderstanding or understanding your objection so that if I need to revisit this for future votes I know I’m addressing all concerns.

Thanks, JPinAR JPinAR (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@JPinAR: "That would be an amenity = library as stated in the proposal" - where it is stated? "99% of all locations that offered drop off options still required going to the library itself" - I agree, but some places have such cases and leaving such obvious gaps almost always leads to misuse of approved tags Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I will consider a follow-up pickup location tag especially since now pickup via kiosk has become a thing. Thank you for the constructive feedback and community contribution. JPinAR (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@JPinAR: That would be really helpful! It would be nice to avoid repeat of say historic=wayside_shrine that is used for all shrines, not only wayside ones. I managed to push man_made=cross forward but it was likely too late to solve historic=wayside_cross from being used for all crosses Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Getting compound key documentation from the MediaWiki API

Hi, this is sort of tangential to the discussions we're having over in Talk:Wiki, so I'm splitting this off here for convenience. It sounds like you're building an interesting tool in Python. I'm surprised that you're finding it necessary to scrape user-facing pages, even from Python. If something about this wiki led you to that approach, versus something more structured, please let the administrators know so we can look into improvements. In general, scraping should be a last resort, so that in the future we don't end up constrained by what's essentially tagging writing for the renderer scraper.

I was just going back and double-checking one of my suggestions to make sure I wasn't misleading you. The following code is a port of the compound key description stuff in Module:Tag – everything but the language name fallback. It requires the Requests package, but there's also a built-in json module if you need to work with a different HTTP client library. I wouldn't be surprised if this runs faster than scraping the 404 page using something like BeautifulSoup.

#!/usr/bin/env python3

from itertools import product
import requests

key_parts = "construction:turn:lanes:both_ways".split(":")
# Enumerate all possible slices of the key, putting longer slices before their subslices.
key_part_range = range(len(key_parts))
key_part_slices = [key_parts[s:e] for s, e in product(key_part_range, reversed(key_part_range)) if e > s]
# Convert the slices into article titles.
titles = ["Key:{0}".format(":".join(s)) for s in key_part_slices]

# Query Wikibase for the data items' descriptions.
params = {
    "action": "wbgetentities",
    "format": "json",
    "sites": "wiki",
    "titles": "|".join(titles),
    # The OSM key name is always stored as the English label.
    # It needs to be part of the response so we can associate keys with their descriptions.
    "props": "labels|descriptions",
    "languages": "en",
request = requests.get("", params=params)
response = request.json()

# Annotate the key parts with their descriptions.
remaining_key_parts = key_parts
items = []
for qid, entity in response["entities"].items():
    # Omit missing data items.
    if type(qid) != str or "missing" in entity:
    label = entity["labels"].get("en") and entity["labels"]["en"]["value"]
    description = entity["descriptions"].get("en") and entity["descriptions"]["en"]["value"]
    key_part_slice = label.split(":")
    # TODO: Actually search remaining_key_parts for a common slice.
    if description and key_part_slice == remaining_key_parts[0:len(key_part_slice)]:
        del remaining_key_parts[0:len(key_part_slice)]
        items.append((qid, label, description))

# Output the list of key parts.
for item in items:
    print("* {1}: {2} ({0})".format(*item))


* construction: Used together with the higher-level tags like highway/building=construction to describe the type of feature which is currently under construction. (Q172)
* turn:lanes: A diagram of the turn lane indications on a one-way road. Each lane is represented by a direction such as left, through, or right, and the lanes are separated by vertical bars. Use key:turn:lanes:forward and key:turn:lanes:backward on a two-way road. (Q796)

The code is a bit dense, but it comes pretty close to the original Lua veresion, so let me know if you have any questions about how it works. Hope this helps.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Minh Nguyen:
"I'm surprised that you're finding it necessary to scrape user-facing pages" - in this case I want to verify existence of user-facing pages for and to lesser extent - I want to link specific key pages where documentation exists. So I want to catch cases where all necessary building blocks exist but for some reason user generated compound page is missing, such as where compound page is not displayed
Right now specifically it is a Kotlin code (for ), but it would be easy to adapt. Still, this code cares what is shown to user - so checking generated pages is deliberate. After all, even if data items are listed and compound page lister is broken or disabled by design on some pages: it is still not shown to users. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, the scraping should be workable as long as it isn't coupled so tightly that StreetComplete would be broken by routine formatting changes. Others have been tinkering with the site stylesheets and banner templates lately, so it's only a matter of time before the 404 page gets some interior decoration too. :^) I guess the infobox needs classes/IDs/microformats too. It'll be interesting to see how this feature turns out. iD took a very different approach by hitting the MediaWiki API for data items and displaying that information inline. However, it doesn't have any compound key logic, because arbitrary combinations of key parts tend not to have dedicated fields anyways. Maybe that would change if it ever gains lane-editing functionality like StreetComplete has. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen:: It is less fragile as the plan is to blindly link wiki pages based on simple rules (do not link values of freeform pages such as width=* or name=*, do not link value pages with cycleway: prefix like cycleway:surface=asphalt, link all building values such as building=office, always link key pages and so on). Right now only name:lang pages are not working as expected (as sometimes compound info is not shown). With script just verifying that linked OSM Wiki pages are actually containing info (useful compound pages or existing pages or redirects leading to an useful documentation page), and not running in app itself. Script above may be useful to test whether compound pages are missing some info and just assume that if this info is present then it will be used. As side effect I reviewed keys used by SC and created for example building=pagoda Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
How about subkeys unrelated to names, like change:lanes:both_ways (Q9383) and seamark:virtual_aton:mmsi (Q20907)? Should the individual parts be listed even though there's a pretty comprehensive description in the infobox? Or should the description be repeated outside of the infobox? – Minh Nguyễn 💬 00:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Minh Nguyen: I would also expect listing compound part there, important part is providing links to pages with actual documentation and explanation. Without that I feel that creating OSM Wiki description pages would be substantial improvement and therefore worth doing. I am also considering "dedicated nonempty data item exists for this tag" as reason to create OSM Wiki description page but it is much weaker Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Bot account for mass wiki edits

Hey, could you use a separate bot account for mass edits such as special:diff/2367957?

I think it would be better if such edits wouldn't spam Special:RecentChanges (which by default uses the hidebots=1 filter).

--Push-f (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Push-f: (1) it is actually human reviewed edit (2) at least some editors react to it and change images to a better one, see for example . (3) recent large burst likely will not reoccur any time soon
But I will remember this suggestion and if someone else will suggest this I will strongly move to switching this to unreviewed bot edit
Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Push-f: I switched some fully automated edits (generation of image listings in my userspace) into bot edits. This edits are actually all human reviewed (and sometimes wrong) so hiding them as bot edits is IMHO a bad idea and as promised I do them less often nowadays Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@Push-f: Do you think that currently my editing volume of edits not marked as bot ones is fine? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I would prefer edits such as special:diff/2399716 to be marked as bot edits to keep Special:RecentChanges tidy. --Push-f (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Push-f: the tricky part is that it is not exactly bot edit. It is script assisted, but I am actually reviewing and deciding to do this, see User:Mateusz_Konieczny/notify_uploaders#Example_log - so it is automated in sense of not being done through a regular interface, but not really a bot edit in sense of blind edit based on some rule without review Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The edits by User:MissingImageInfoBot still show up in Special:RecentChanges even when I'm filtering with ?hidebots=1. I am not sure why that is the case, I guess it's because you don't set the bot flag for the individual edits? --Push-f (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
At least file edits should be marked as bot edits, I think. I will look into it @Push-f: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
@Push-f: I looked for and found and fixed some issues related to marking edits as bot edits in my code. No idea is it a full fix, but things should be improving (latest bit edits were still broken, but there was really limited count of them) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Mixed fence.png Nie pamiętam, skąd wytrzasnąłem to zdjęcie, ale Google Photos nie pamięta, żebym je zrobił, poza tym pewnie byłby to JPEG. Najprawdopodobniej wyciąłem clipping toolem skądś. Pewnie będzie bezpieczniej wywalić je i zastąpić innym.

Saddle holder removement

Hi Mateusz, i cannot understand the change where you also remove the saddle_holder. The comment for the change does not explain it. Can you please explain why it got removed? --Strubbl (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh i see, it got re-added again with This version history is so confusing. Do you know how can this happen? --Strubbl (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
@Strubbl: no idea - maybe I edited old page version for some bad reason? Looks like I made some mistake there Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it is more a version history problem than a user problem, because in my change i only added the saddle_holder value and did not change any other lines. But they occur as changed by me, which is not true. Maybe the version history of that template page is broken. --Strubbl (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

OSM Carto / Osmarender

[1], [2] Po czym poznać, że to nie OSM Carto? Ty zajmowałeś się OSM Carto kiedyś, to pewnie lepiej wiesz, bo dla mnie to są bardzo stare screeny, a 15 lat temu OSM Carto też wyglądało inaczej. Jeśli to nie OSM Carto to zostaje Osmarender. Pytam, bo może skategoryzowałem błędnie inne stare screeny. maro21 18:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Maro21: Z tego co wiem to Osmarender - a OSM Carto nie istniało w 2008, patrz Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Uses of access=permit

In [3] you removed my warning against different and unknown uses of access=permit and ask "Are you aware of anything indicating that access=permit has serious use in a different meaning?" . I think I do. I see many people put this like motor_vehicle=permit tag on many forest roads, that are signposted "Only for motor vehicles of National forest authority" or "Only with permission from National forest authority". I really doubt the authority will grant permission to random tourists wanting to park their campervan on top of a hill. I tried to contact the mappers on how they meant it, but they never reply, they often seem to be ocassional drive-by changes from people with few changesets. So as the tag hasn't been approved yet, nobody knows how people use it and what it means for them. I just do not want people slap access=permit on any road with a sign having "permit" in its text, without understanding the implication. We do not need another access=permissive which is a really unfortunatelly chosen word that 50% people use wrongly thinking it means "needs permit" (and one that is not granted "regularly", thus basically it is "private"). I don't know if it is caused by bad translations in editors, or why that is. So let's not create the same situation here. Aceman444 (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Replacements for problematic files

If you don't mind, I'll be replacing/substituting files that were removed from userbox templates and other non-article pages on the OpenStreetMap Wiki (example: replacing this file with this file in the User iPhone template). -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ianlopez1115: That would be really helpful! And thanks for reminder that Wikimedia has such replacements, in future I will try to replace in the first place Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2021-11-03 14-53-52 grocer reduced waste shop.jpg

Cześć. Ten sklep przeniósł się tu: Może można by przenieść tagi z tamtego starego? Oraz mógłbyś zaktualizować link do niego na Wikimedia Commons? Bo wskazuje na usunięty punkt. maro21 20:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Jak wiesz że to taki sam to śmiało tagi kopiuj, ja tego nie wiem. Może napisz do osoby co go edytowała. Co do zdjęcia: to zdjęcie tamtej konkretnej lokalizacji. Może zmienić link do historii? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Wyedytowałem opis zdjęcia nieco @Maro21: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: Jak dla mnie to zrobiłem to co planowałem Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: Proposal vote

I don't even know how to use this page, so, my apologies in advance.

Initially, my objective was to follow the whole Proposal process, and we, in fact, discussed the issue in the Discussion page of the proposal as well as in the old forums. Realistically, I wouldn't expect much more feedback, but I still think I can defend my proposal against anything they throw. Right now, I think it's already a de facto keytag used from Washington State to Guatemala City, and I could anticipate it to grow even more into Central America, maybe even South America, Canada and Europe. The thing is, after the old forums went cold, the Mexican community of OSM didn't show up in the new discussion space (Discourse?). Don't blame them, I contribute to OSM frequently but not constantly. The proposal is almost finished, at least the main part. The main_ingredient key, I think it's useful but maybe too long. I just haven't been able to make the time to finish the proposal process. So, whatever happens first, I guess.


Responded on User talk:CENTSOARER Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated Features

Hi Mateusz,

Where does it say that it is required that deprecation must be discussed? on the Deprecated_features page, I can't find any information about a requirement to discuss when a page is deprecated, only a recommendation. Should I update that page to include that clause? --SherbetS (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

For obvious cases (where everyone agrees and noone has doubts) it is not required. Here it seems less obvious to me @SherbetS: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

parametr wikidata

Znalazłem stronę, z której twój bot nie usunął parametru wikidata= i zastanawiam się czy może być więcej takich przypadków. Wiesz dlaczego ta została pominięta? Oraz nie wiem dlaczego ten artykuł nie pojawił się w kategorii Category:Wikidata parameter waiting for removal from infobox... maro21 16:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Maro21: z tego co pamiętam to bot brał strony do edycji z Category:Wikidata parameter waiting for removal from infobox - więc jak coś tam nie trafiło to nie było edytowane Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

More details about SC in notes are not related

Hi Matheusz

This part, "StreetComplete has support for splitting roads (for example, if surface changes road can be split in two), marking shops as vacant, tagging new POI that replaced shop, deleting no longer existing point POIs (unless they are part of way or relation)..." is not related to OSM notes. It can be considered as advertisement for this app.

Currently, this application has the most text in the apps list for OSM notes, but the focus of this app is not around OSM notes; in fact, I consider notes as a secondary option. Please rewrite the whole description to be more concise, emphasizing only the part about notes.

The other application description is very punctual because SCEE performs the same thing around OSM notes.

Other applications, like OSMAND, have many options, but that list only explains the notes part. The same is true for Result maps.

Lastly, a link to the application wiki page is available in the first column, where the complete description will be. At this moment, only a small paragraph explains the SC OSM notes. AngocA (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned it there because some people create notes when they could make direct edit with SC. If you think that it should be removed feel free to do so. Maybe it should be moved to SC page? "It can be considered as advertisement for this app." I think that it is not a problem by itself. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Object set for explicit adding an information box (similar to PossibleSynonym)

Thanks for your double check. What is your opinion: How many objects (with wrong element type) must be present so that adding such a box would be OK? --MalgiK (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that edit was reverted, so may be better to discuss elsewhere? But I would expect if adding changeset comments/notes at every single affected location takes just several minutes then putting effort into making banner, maintaining it, catching attention of everyone reading page... Merely to encourage someone to do this - which takes less time overall in the same place - seem to be not really optimal. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
For now I reverted this with additional explanation - but if anyone thinks it is not convincing then please let me know whether you prefer to discuss it at Talk:wiki or at official forum Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"there is no need"

If one person needs food and another person needs food, and a third person doesn't need food, that means there is a need for food.
I would like you to agree that the above statement is true. maro21 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If one person needs food then it does not mean that best way to solve is to put huge billboard announcing this. Would you prefer to discuss it on Talk:Wiki or ? @Maro21: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Do you think the following sentence is true or false? "If one person needs food and another person needs food, and a third person doesn't need food, that means there is a need for food." maro21 23:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
It can be true or false (for example maybe the third person has enough food to feed the first two). It is also utterly irrelevant and a failed analogy to putting overly complicated banners in OSM Wiki. I would be happy to discuss it, probably with wider audience - but I am not interested in weird allegories and will not reply to another allegories on this topic. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)