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)

building:name=* has no valid reason for use

What about in cases where the name of a business is different from the name of the building that it is in? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Merging business and building is in general violation of One feature, one OSM element. Especially if both are named and so on. In such case proper fix is to represent business as a node/area in a building, rather than starting using weird prefixes. If building has no name or other conflicting attributes such merge is not very problematic (though for example iD has severe problems with it), but building:name=* is ridiculous workaround used instead of a proper soution Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess that makes sense. I'm pretty sure I've used the tag myself a few times. So Thanks for the answer. I'll have to just do what you suggest the next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: (as far as this discussion goes, tag itself has no reason to exist) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2023 (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.

Wikimedia photos

Thank you for keeping an eye on on copyright violations. I can assure you that all photos I have posted on Wikimedia have been taken by me personally. T99 (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@T99: thanks for info, and great that files are not problematic! Specifying license like at for files listed in would be even more ideal, if possible (only few files are affected, so I guess that it should be doable) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey Mateusz, thank you for keeping an eye on images copyrights. Maybe the text you add in user spaces when asking for image license clarification could be made a lot shorter: a small text and the useful {} to be added on the image page, along with a link to the long version. Yvecai (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Yvecai: Which part you would recommend to move to extras? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: no reply Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Uploaded image directly from editing

Hi Mateusz, I uploaded an image directly from the article I am writing, but it did not asked me about the license. How can I correct this? I know you are working on this.

This is the image:

@Angoca: - that is annoying one. For start, have you made this logo or reused existing file? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I used a OSM background, but the rest I did from scratch. AngocA (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, not so bad. Then you need
{{ODbL OpenStreetMap}} and {{CC0-self}} + "I used a OSM background, but the rest I did from scratch" clarification
or {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}} and {{CC-BY-SA-4.0|Angoca}} + "I used a OSM background, but the rest I did from scratch" clarification
use CC0 if you want people to be able to use/modify it freely without worrying about complications such as to where one should put credit on poster or whether CC license materials are OK to post on Facebook and so on
use CC-BY-SA-4.0 if you want to demand that people credit you and you are willing to take legal action to enforce it. Personally for my photos and work like this I use CC0 as unlike for OSM editing and my programming projects I am not planning to take legal action, so making it easy for everyone seem better
Other licences are also possible, but for nearly all uses this two will be preferable for media
Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2023 (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.

Why not also edit Wikidata original site and remove P1282

For example:

You remove "Q180958" in

But when I visit, it still have this property.

(I haven't watch so ping me when reply)

--快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@快乐的老鼠宝宝: - several reasons:
  • note that this data is still in OSM Data Items - it was only removed from OSM Wiki
  • this edit was made to remove inactive parameter from OSM wiki pages, data was migrated to data items and in this case it is still in OSM data item
Thank you for explaination on this! I mistakenly thought they were deprecated and not on OSMWiki. I will consider going to Wikidata and requesting to change to the format you given$1 (or just modify P1282's value as "Item:Q8366")(I also have problem in automatical edit in Wikidata itself so this also just a plan)--快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • my bot edit was approved on OSM Wiki, I have not attempted to approve it for Wikidata
  • I do not care so much about Wikidata quality
  • If I would spend time on improving Wikidata I would spend time on their critical ontology issues that are actually causing problems
  • This specific link is not so wrong
  • Wikidata/Data item editing requires dealing with obnoxious API that my code is not supporting

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: (please write to me if this is not solved, I think I answered it) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Your edit in historic=*

You added the sentence "Note that damaged remains and ruins are existing! Comparison of life cycle concepts offers one of ways to mark ruins and remains." to the top of historic=*. I don't think the sentence is wrong, but the same could be said about any other historic object. So I don't understand why this particular sentence should be on top of the paragraph. Can you explain?

Also, I'm not sure if you're implying that ruins should not be tagged as historical.

--Martianfreeloader (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"could be said about any other historic object. So I don't understand why this particular sentence should be on top of the paragraph" I mentioned this exactly because it applies to historical objects. I added this as I added mention that nonexisting features are mapped only temporarily
"Also, I'm not sure if you're implying that ruins should not be tagged as historical." that was not my intention

Feel free to tweak it or even revert completely (with explanation in edit). @Martianfreeloader: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the first and (now) third sentence already fully cover this. The first sentence says features that still exist, while the third sentence says what to do if it doesn't exist anymore. Also, Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts is now linked twice in consecutive sentences. So if you're ok, I'd just revert it. --Martianfreeloader (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
In general, free to revert my edits without asking: just explain in revert why you are doing this Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah, after reading again, I think I got your idea. If I'm right, you wanted to emphasize that features do not need to be intact, only existing. I've reflected this in the article now. Thanks for pointing this out! --Martianfreeloader (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@Martianfreeloader: exactly! Thanks for better phrasing that Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

Your edit to foot=no was incorrect

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edit changed the page from redirecting to the access page (which says "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if signage is generally ignored. ") to saying "Access on foot or for pedestrians prohibited or impossible". It does mean prohibited; it does NOT mean impossible. SomeoneElse (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@SomeoneElse: "it does NOT mean impossible" - I agree, but if access by pedestrians is utterly impossible and access by vehicles is possible then I would also use foot=no even if legal situation is unclear Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Though I see that you edited the page Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Street vendors‎

Not to beat a dead horse now that the amenity=street_vendor proposal is DOA, but you should really do a counter proposal for street_vendor=* so no one ever tries to revive tagging street vendors with an amenity tag. Your tag is clearly the better of the two options anyway. So please revive the proposal and put it up for a vote. I'm begging you, for the love of god, don't make us have to deal with that nonsense again. Do a proposal for street_vendor=* and put it to a vote. Pretty, pretty, please, do it.... --Adamant1 (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: - well, was intended as RFC-only proposal to avoid risk of getting "only" 79% support and getting "rejected" status. I hope that it will get additional confirmation from community by clear rejection of deprecation attempt Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. I guess it's a risk either way. It's not like having a tag approved does that much for it anyway, but getting one rejected can be pretty detrimental depending. That's one of the reasons I never took rental=* anywhere. The risk to benefit ratio of taking it to vote just didn't seem worth it. Especially since some of the alternatives have more usage. I feel like street_vendor=* is low enough on the food chain so to speak that it would probably be approved though. More so now that the alternatives clearly aren't viable. It's your call though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


Hey. I pinged on Talk:Proposal process/Time allowed to vote on proposals because I wanted your opinion about something, but I don't think it went through. So I thought I'd make you aware of it this way. Thanks. Sorry if this is redundant. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

entrance=exit is a troll tag

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

it is, because entrance=* is for entrances, and entrance=exit is not an entrance. —-Dieterdreist (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dieterdreist: - yes, sorry! I then reverted myself Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you :) —Dieterdreist (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Bus lane

Sorry for the late response about the question you left at my talk page about . It seems your edit is correct . Thank you. Lalolan (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear, Your comment made me smile, and I was quick to react to it. Too quick, in fact: I replied like I would and should have done in the "comments" section, not in the article body. But frankly, wouldn't it be best of all to move the whole paragraph to the talk page? At any rate, please do feel free to move or remove my comment as seems best to you - myself am quite unsure. Thanks and kind regards, Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jan olieslagers: In general I think it is worth documenting it, it is useful especially for people who are not native speakers. Though it is a Wiki so feel free to make edits. Maybe we will consult with other people if we will fundamentally disagree Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Broad smile! I do not think we will disagree, at the contrary I am happy to leave the matter in your hands. Kindly! Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixing later can be very difficult

Dear Mateusz Konieczny

While I was reading the above section of Import/Past Problems, I noticed a missing link here where you mention like in this example. I was interested to findout what is in that example.

Thank you

Ngumenawesamson (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ngumenawesamson: - note that it was there before I made any edits (maybe that it is not about specific import but class of errors?) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


You've suggested "shop=kitchen" as a suggested alternative to "shop=kitchenware", which makes no sense. Shops that sell fitted kitchens rarely sell pots and pans / knives and forks. SomeoneElse (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@SomeoneElse: - if only kitchenware is sold there then it makes no sense whatsoever to use tag for kitchen furniture. But I listed it there not intending it as synonymous one but as related. Which I expect to be useful mostly for people who are not native speakers ("kitchenware" may be initially interpreted by them to include also kitchen furniture). As usual feel free to amend/revert if you see an improvement Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Done, see SomeoneElse (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2023 (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)