User talk:Mateusz Konieczny

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Polish standards of cacle lanes

@Mateusz, in pl.wikipedia i've found this link: I used it adding Poland to the list of at least two types of cycle lanes, but with my poor knowledge of Polish language I suppose that that source does not distinguish two types. Can you help me by adding the Polish terms and perhaps explaining what are their common features and differences?--Ulamm (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


@ Mateusz,

in that article some aspects had been forgotten. I've been able to add them in the English and German versions, but I'm unable to add them in Polish.--Ulamm (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Mateusz, why do you object against a way of tagging that provides reliable information under the condition of the uneven standard, which is inevitable in any opensource project.--Ulamm (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Soft lane

@ Mateusz,

  • if renderers and routers understand "bicycle=lane", "bicycle=soft_lane", "bicycle=strict_lane", "bicycle=shared_lane" as I have proposed in my vote and already before, "bicycle=lane" does not become wrong.
  • In countries, where all bikelanes are obligatory and/or reserved, "bicycle=lane" remains sufficient.
  • If in a country, where there are variuos kinds of cycleways, or where a new kind of cycleway recently has been established, "bicycle=lane" is no more sufficient, it is not more work to change "bicycle=lane" for "bicycle=soft_lane", than to add an access-tag.
  • But if such a facility is absolutely new (or previously has been forgotten) in a road, it is less work to add one tag than to add two.--Ulamm (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "if"
    • maybe I missed it but it seems to not be mentioned in proposal
    • I agree that it is a problem and it should be solved somehow
    • Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
My answer you can read in a small general article that I've begun to write before I've read your statement.--Ulamm (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

MapCSSTagChecker - Validator

Hi Mateusz, why did you add a new link to a page about MapCSSTagChecker to there? Wrong URL? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I added link to page about this topic on JOSM wiki (it has so information that is not appearing here and is more likely to be updated). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, but don't you think it would be better to link to a page one level more up? To ? The MapCSSTagChecker page is just about the technical details. But the JOSM/Validator page is about the validator in general. Please comment here on this page, I watch. :-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, I changed link Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, fine! I first thought you linked to the special page intentionally. I made another minor change (keep the categories always at the page ends to make them easy to find). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Text layout of discussions

Dear Mateusz,

please understand, that starting a line with a big dot is a measure to visualize the structure of a single post.

New posts are marked by another distance from the left border of the page, like wave-lengths in broadcasting.

Hoping that this hint does not prevent a good co-operation

best regards from --Ulamm (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"track" description in Template:Map Features:highway

Hi Mateusz, since you made some of the listed edits you may be interested in Template_talk:Map_Features:highway#track:desc_change_docu_and_suggestion. … just in case you do not watch this page. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


I guess "residential" was just a typo here and unclassified was meant? If yes, just re-add the sentence. If you want residential to "connect other towns" we should talk :)--Jojo4u (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

taginfo embedding


Your move of Lanes and complex intersections visual approach

The page contains key issues that to this date don't have an adequate solution; it needs active discussion, not a dump to the bin that you went for without discussion. The usage of template out of date is by far enough to show that anything contained within is to be handled with care and pretty much discouraged for live edits (but in need for discussion nonetheless).

It served one particular purpose very well, namely to portray the different concepts possible to micromap junctions. Afaik, wrt to lane mapping at junctions, Lanes was never properly integrated with Relation:restriction, both apart only solve half the issue to proper abstract way right and shape to be observed at a given junction. While development (and oppinions vowed) has come to a stop in this area for years now, it's not a reason to start throwing away old work that might be picked up for one reason or another in the future.

As I'm not allowed to restore the page, I request you to do this. Also, besides ignoring the tag "out of date" on the page, in your summary you only quote selective parts - if the whole thing is read there is no encourangement to map for mapnik: The unconnected ways are a mapnik beautification measure, drop them if you do not like them. It's an interim. See variants below for alternatives to this. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

oneway_type and dual_carriageway

There is now a draft proposal for oneway_type=*: Proposed_features/oneway_type by User:HalverHahn - this looks like a good chance to incorporate dual_carriageway=yes. I already suggested it on the Talk page and might as well include it.--Jojo4u (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

waterway=wadi deprecation

Hi Mateusz,

Was there discussion for the tag deprecation ?

I assume decision was made based on Wikipedia definition only (which is not always complete and can be different in other languages). This remarkable dry land and desert feature is not intermittent water nor valley in common. I assume not much wadis can be found in Europe and should not be used over there, but the rest of world is free to go. Africa, Arabic countries, Israel, Central Asia etc.

I was using this tag in render for some time and was happy with its existence (>11000 times use); very surprised it has been deprecated. Please note stream + intermittent do not describe this feature. It is more landform / relief related. And yes, sometimes it may run lot of water )

I am about to restore Wadi's wiki and perhaps change status "in use". Will add some extra-description so mappers in Europe won't misuse it. Please advise.

Wikipedia links in secondary languages

Hi, could you explain the intention of your edit to Key:wikipedia a bit? I must admit that I don't understand what you're saying with the new sentence. --Tordanik 19:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Named sidewalks

Hi! I'm sorry, I did revert your edit on the Sidewalks page. As has been discussed on the mailing list, naming sidewalks isn't bad tagging - on the contrary: sidewalks are part of the road, like two ore more separated lanes, which are also named each. Without name, there is no reference to the road, but this reference is necessary for voice guidance in routing apps. Cheers --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There were many discussions about sidewalks - one started here. By the way, 23,116 uses of footway=sidewalk + name=* isn't 'not used'. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I've replied you on my talk page to keep the discussion together. Cheers --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


Good catch on the rendering of the fainter P icon. That is something I did not know, and I am glad it has now been documented properly. Thanks! DENelson83 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

How to map as a building

Why do you change a text that has worked well? There may be exceptions, but the wiki will be written as recommended. A template can also be easily translated into all languages. I can not imagine the case where it does not fit with a building yet. Can you show it by an example?--geozeisig (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

copied here to keep the text together
example place where instruction given by template are misleading: (marking outline of building would be horribly wrong, it contains multiple shops)
Also, templates make harder to edit text by normal people Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The example shows that a node is set in a larger building, just as it is described in the wiki with the template (Set a node Node or ...). Please look up How to map as a building and go to edit for the languages. It is very comfortable for all languages.--geozeisig (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
"or" means that both taggings are correct, therefore this instruction was misleading Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
So far there is no reason why the original text was changed. The change will therefore be reversed.--geozeisig (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you claiming that for shop in mall it is OK to tag shop on outline of a mall building? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
In a mall, a shop is mapped as a node.--geozeisig (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Or as an area - by mapping outline of a shop. Certainly not along building outline, so "or draw as an area along the building outline." is a wrong advice. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, you've recently added explanations and examples to the cycleway=opposite page which suggest that this tag should still be added in addition to oneway:bicycle=no. I must say I disagree with that. This tag is being kept around for backwards compatibility, not because it adds any additional information beyond what oneway:bicycle=no already expresses.

To me, the tag also carries an inherent contradiction: cycleway=* is used to map cycle lanes, but there's no cycle lane in the situations where cycleway=opposite is used. As oneway:bicycle=no has finally overtaken cycleway=opposite in usage numbers, I was looking forward to eventually getting rid of this historical quirk in tagging.

My impression is that most mappers choose not to map such defaults explicitly – and in the absence of cycleway=*, it's simply assumed that no cycle lane exists. But if you do want to emphasize that there's no physical contraflow lane in a road, I'd prefer if you used cycleway=no for that purpose. It's still redundant, but at least it makes logical sense. --Tordanik 23:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"most mappers choose not to map such defaults explicitly" - Well, at least some mappers want to map it. Only very small part of buildings is mapped as 3D but we still describe this tagging. If you have evidence that this tagging is old and nowadays replaced by different style - please, mention it in the article. But almost every tag is used only by minority of mappers. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"should still be added in addition to" - I attempted to solve it in Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi Mateusz, thanks, good idea. :-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

link to nonexisting page

Hi Mateusz, regarding diff, well, nonexisting is not really a reason to delete a link, I think.(Dieter inserted it - not I) The page may be useful to have in future, just it was not yet written. A red link shows that. Just my 5 cents. :-) --aseerel4c26 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not fan of "See also" linking to red links, in my experience people love to plan creating pages, what quite rarely happens. Feel free to revert if you think that this link was valuable - I think that there is no clear tradition whatever see also should or should not contain links to nonexisting pages. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I do not even know if Packstations exist in Italy - I am involved at the Packstation wiki page quite by random. So, no, I do not need that link.. just wanted to make you aware, because of your blanket reason comment. Happy mapping! :-) --aseerel4c26 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)