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)

Dog toilets

Hi, I answered here: [1]. I'm no wiki hero, so I have no idea if that's what I should have done. Joost schouppe (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


I disagree with this change. Surely you can't just change the definition of a tag on the wiki without informing everyone that's used it? And what about all the ways already tagged with building=ruins using the old definition? --Lakedistrict (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

FIXME -> fixme

Hi Mateusz,

it would be no harm to do Mechanical Edits/Mateusz Konieczny - bot account/moving FIXME to fixme in Poland globally!


Constantino (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OSM-Talk comment about me

First, admins deleting old, no longer used content isn't either blindly following requests, because they are fully capable of making their own decisions on things if agree with them or not, nor "unnecessary work load." Since its their job. Also, requesting other people attack me on my user page for things you don't like, instead of just making a good argument to me yourselves of why my deletion proposals were wrong, is not only completely unproductive since I have already told you multiple times I won't give into mob rule, it is also borderline harassment. Since we have already had a conversation about it and you already know I simply disagree with you on it, because your argument is crap and not grounded in anything. I don't need to be "convinced" I'm wrong, but if I was and your just incapable of doing it because your use of logic is just that crappy, you should be an adult by sucking it up and moving on. Don't expect others to do your dirty work for you though because your unable to use reason to sway someone else's opinion.

Its clear I am able to admit to my mistakes, fix my errors, and do better next time by my edit history and the many reasoned discussions I have had with other people who treated me mutual respect, gave actual feedback, and were not bossy in their comments. Including freebeer and others. I would of stopped right away and reverted my edits if there was good reason and you didn't act the way you did. But you approached it wrongly. So its singularly on you.

As I have said already nothing I have done is against the rules, there is also many other instances of people requesting the same kinds of pages be deleted, and plenty of the same types of pages you have an issue with me requesting be deleted have already deleted by multiple administrators. So there is zero reason it deserves any blow back at all, let alone the low brow, harassing, gang mentality type you have came at me with. this is clearly a a case of you letting your bias get in the way and not being willing to see facts. There's no reason you couldn't bring up your grievances in the discussion pages like the deletion proposal says to do. So there can be an actual public debate about them. Let alone leaving the ultimate call up to the admins, minus the backhanded comments about them if they side with me. Or do you only care about the opinions of others when it comes to them taking up torches and pitch forks on your behalf, but not when there's a risk you might not get your way?

Ultimately you might disagree with what I am doing and your allowed to, but this is a public wiki that anyone can edit and it will naturally evolve with new users and the times. I'm sure whatever things I have contributed to this project will be modified and altered beyond recognition some day by other users who's edits I disagree with, but as much as I care about history and tradition, I know things change and evolve. Its the nature of the beast. It's better to accept it, instead of trying to swim up stream by being the old man standing on his lawn, shaking his fist and yelling at the passing kids about how they are ruining society. You should be better then that and be better then requesting people gang up on someone else. Despite our arguments over these things, I have a large amount of respect for you as an editor and your knowledge of this project. It saddens me though that you would resort to those types of cheap tactics to try and get your way. let alone have this much faux outrage over what is a pretty small issues in the grand scheme of things, even more so in you trying to fan those same low brow tendencies in others. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"OSM-Talk comment about me" - can you link the comment that you are mentioning here? I am not remembering making one (this is response to ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk)
Sure. Id also advise you to read the two responses saying that I am doing nothing wrong and also SomeoneElse's comments about how the wiki can use some cleaning up on his and Verdy_P's talk page from a few months ago when this same thing came up. As evidence for the fact that I had already discussed this people before you and the other came along to badger me and that your simply in the wrong/fear mongering. There's also multiple pages that the administrators have deleted already that I put the request up on. Including old proposals. If it was such a waste of the moderators time and the wrong thing to do, they where perfectly capable of telling at that point instead of deleting the articles. Not to mention SomeoneElse wouldn't of sided with me or said the wiki cleaning up. Plus a lot of the pages you cite had deletion requests on them going back for years that know one ever objected to and most of them had no content. Your allowed to have your opinions, no matter how ignorant they are, but its another thing to ask other people to attack another editor based on them. Your clearly in the wrong and Id appreciate an apology on my talk page or something saying as much. Here's the link
Actually, looking over the talk-osm comment it seems to be another person that posted it and the way they cited you makes it sound like you did. So I apologize for miss reading it and saying it was you. That being said, they did post it based off your original post on my talk page. So I think most everything I have said here is still applicable and I'd still like you to take some responsibility for being wrong since your comment was a large instigator of this and you clearly didn't take the time to properly research the things before posting about it on my talk page. Thanks --Adamant1 (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Zebra crossings

Hi, about this partial revert: Yes, there are countries where uncontrolled crossings (or even controlled crossings) always use a zebra pattern, but in my opinion, these are still best tagged as crossing=uncontrolled. Why would we use a different tag based purely on looks – especially since there are other differences in looks (e.g. different paint colors) which do not result in a different tag? Using crossing=zebra only makes sense in countries where there are both zebra and non-zebra crossing variants, with a legal difference between their meaning. --Tordanik 11:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


I have seen you re-set the embassy proposal from defacto to abandoned, but it is clearly in use. Can you please explain why you edited like this, thank you. —Dieterdreist (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Replied in Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Keeping old proposals?

I see, you are doing some mass-like reverts on deletion proposals. Please discuss this here: first, so we can find a solution together. Thanks --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 14:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Mateusz for being always alert, I might missed these ;-) —Dieterdreist (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tigerfell I see no good reason to discuss OSM wiki on external forums. OSM Wiki has discussion pages. Thought at least it is OSM forum, not random Slack channel. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 ? This is the OSM forum. I do not even use Slack. If you want to use a talk page, have a look at User talk:Tigerfell/Crafting. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 21:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I am still unsure why discussion about OSM Wiki should be handled there rather on OSM Wiki discussion pages. 21:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No edit wars, please

I noticed that you are involved in a series of reverts and counter-reverts in the Wiki. This seems to be an indication that communication has broken down. Please stop this, it is a waste of time. Instead, use the talk page of the Wiki pages that you disagree about why you think a specific edit or content has merit, and listen to what others are saying. That way the readers see the arguments from all sides and can form their own opinion, even if you can only agree to disagree. --Lyx (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lyx Thanks for reminder! I admit that I missed the pattern. I created talk page discussion rather than repeat revert Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny Please stop a series of reverts in the Talk Wiki's and the edit war. You can find more information on the Talk:Wiki. If you do not stop, I will report it to "as". This comment belongs to the topic "No edit wars, please". --Władysław Komorek (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Władysław Komorek What happened in this case is that
  1. You made mass edit without proper discussion
  2. I reverted very small part of it
  3. Then you started edit war by reverting my reverts (while claiming that somehow *removal* of templates is spamming)
  4. Then I marked two empty talk pages for deletion as contentless talk pages (this two edits may be constructed as edit war and it was mistake to make them)
Feel free to report it to DWG if you want, I have no problem with that Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
"You can find more information on the Talk:Wiki" - I already responded there. Hopefully you will reply to my questions Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Edycja stron Wiki

Zauważyłem, że masz problem ze zrozumieniem zasad tworzenia/edytowania i stosowania szablonów na stronach opisujących znaczniki.
Proszę, zapoznaj się z Przewodnikiem edycji Wiki. Podane jest tam, generalnie, że strony te służą głownie do opisu znacznika i informacji jak go stosować.
Pozostałe informacje dodajmy w odpowiednich sekcjach lub za pomocą szablonów, aby poprawić lepszą czytelność strony. Struktura stron Wiki jest oparta na strukturach stron Wikipedii i tym też celu zmierzają kolejne usprawnienia. --Władysław Komorek (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Władysław Komorek "masz problem ze zrozumieniem zasad tworzenia/edytowania i stosowania szablonów na stronach opisujących znaczniki" - proszę o link do konkretnych edycji. Nie mam zielonego pojęcia o co ci chodzi. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Na przykład, tekst w landuse=wellsite. Jeśli to jest "uwaga" to powinno się to zaznaczyć lub dodać {Ambox - notice) --Władysław Komorek (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Władysław Komorek Proszę o link do konkretnych edycji. Nie mam zielonego pojęcia o co ci chodzi i która edycja jest problemem. Można je zobaczyć w zakładce "View history" (może być przetłumaczona) w prawej górnej stronie (na lewo od gwiazdki). Jest ona dla tej strony na są tam linki do kokretnych edycji ("prev" czy "poprz.") - patrz też pomoc na Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requests reverted (moved from User talk:Tigerfell/Crafting#Deletion requests reverted)

System-users-3.svgMateusz Konieczny (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), I reverted all my deletion requests (except a few that I couldn't revert for some reason, including a few you and others screwed with. Good job there). I look forward to you reverting the remaining 148 deletion requests or the sending the users who did them messages that they should. Since its nothing personal and your just against deletions in general. To get you started, you can revert your own deletion request Tag:shop=canoe_hire. It would only be fair. while your at it, you can also chide Nakaner at Talk:Tag:motorcycle friendly=customary for requesting that page be deleted. I also look forward to your participation in the discussions when I eventually covert all the pages I reverted into deletion proposals. I'm not holding my breath for you to do any of that though. P.S. I reverted myself done purely to highlight your hypocrisy (as if its not glaringly obvious already). Plus, I'm sure most of the pages will be deleted eventually either way.

Btw, for anyone interested 30ish (about 15% or about 1.5 out of 10) out of 180 current deletion requests where mine. Only like 6 of those (about 3% or way less then 1/10 of the total deletion requests) were proposals. The rest of my deletion requests were Kosmos rules. Which I only screwed with because there was a requested to deal with with Kosmos stuff on the cleanup project. Two years later I still haven't seen anyone that threw a tantrum at me about it change anything on the cleanup project article or discuss the issue there. There's also zero evidence that anyone else but me out of the remaining 148 deletion requests has been lectured about like I was. Although Mateusz Konieczny did revert a deletion request by Tigerfell once. He didn't send the user bossy messages about it though and there's still 148 deletion requests that haven't been reverted by Mateusz Konieczny or anyone else who supposedly has an issue with this. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1: if System-users-3.svgMateusz Konieczny (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.) doesn’t do it, then I will do it for them. Since it would be unfair for you to be singled out amongst all of the others. So I guess that’s it...? Adamant1 is defeated...? What does this mean...? Does this mean we should stop progress on this draft...? Does this mean we’re not deleting pages anymore...? Cause some of the ones you {{delete}}d have no informative content and I really think those should be deleted. And my userspace idea...? — EzekielT (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@EzekielT: Don't revert them or you'll screw up me calling Mateusz Konieczny's bluff. I'm already singled out. Its just made clearer this way. That's all. Feel free to revert Mateusz Konieczny's deletion request though if you want. It doesn't mean anything outside of that and the fact that I'm fine discussion each one later once the guidelines are finalized. Which will be way more of a pain for everyone involved then them just being deleted would have been (again its as much about making a point then anything). The draft is still going through though and the pages will still probably be deleted. At least that's the plan. Some things are like chess. You have to be willing to sacrifice a few pawns (or deletion requests) to be in a better position later. Plus, you have to focus on the long game and always be looking 5 moves ahead. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Adamant1: so you haven’t given up yet, you’re staying true to your username ;). I will not revert them then. I’ve moved the section over to be a subsection of “Moving proposals to userspace / deletion war discussion”, since the two are closely related. I would also like your feedback on my compromise idea above this subsection (steps 1-3, submitted at 5:37 UTC). Thanks :). — EzekielT (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Adamant1 "you'll screw up me calling Mateusz Konieczny's bluff" - can you be more precise? Link to comment/edit where I am bluffing may be preferable, there is probably some misunderstanding going on Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Adamant1 "Tag:shop=canoe_hire" - OK, done in Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny It probably was a miss understanding. This whole thing has gotten to far spread out for me to be able to consistently keep track of and follow along. I'll take your behavior in good faith and leave it at that for now. Thanks for reverting yourself. Feel free to propose the deletion again after we get this sorted out. I feel like we need a clean start on this after the deletion proposal proposal gets dealt with. Which is one of the reasons I reverted myself. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please document opposite_lane

Since you've reverted my attempt to rescue the descriptive powers of cycleway:left=*, cycleway:right=* and thus have contributed to their dilution, I suggest you document the values cycleway:left=opposite_lane and cycleway:right=opposite_lane yourself.

I'm not going to describe bad habits observable by doing empiric research on the data and I'm surely not contributing to devalue the efforts made in the past to have a clear and sane tag set. There has been a reason, that opposite_lane has not been documented in the wiki pages for the keys above - think about it. The documented values were cycleway:*=lane and cycleway:*=track and that meant exactly those two. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


Podpowiesz jak wejść na tłumaczenie PL,bo nie widzę ...

Descriptions from Data items/Wikibase

Regarding [2], you do not need to copy descriptions that already exist in Data items. I would even recommend not to do that, because it might cause inconsistencies. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 11:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I did it deliberately as it was wrong. First edit copied it to make page history less confusing, next one fixed it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Dear Mateusz Konieczny,

We would like to invite you to voting in the case of the proposed Deletion policy for wiki pages and files. Based on the input of several contributors, we drafted a deletion policy over the span of two and a half months. Among other things, the policy proposes a centralised discussion page for all cases which are not mentioned explicitly.

Kind regards, EzekielT

PS: I wrote this message on your talk page, because you were involved in a long dispute about deleting in 2018 and 2019 which now led to this policy draft. — EzekielT (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

British tagging parlance

Hi there. Sorry to bother you with this, but I seem to remember a discussion or something a while ago about how tagging in OSM is based on British parlance and that tagging of important things in OSM should be based on a "universally" recognized tagging scheme in some sense. I can't find a reference to either though. Do you happen to know where it says so in the wiki, tagging discussions, or if you could at least give your opinion on the subject if nothing else? I know people can tag things however they want, but I feel like this whole park/beach/state park/whatever thing is to important to the backbone of OSM to just say "OK fine, tag parks however you want" and the conversation has gotten to out of hand. So another opinion is really needed and you already commented on it once. Which unfortunately didn't help much. Maybe it would this time though. Especially as it relates to the British usage thing. Thanks. If you rather stay out of it, I can just ask someone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Page Editors

Hi Mateusz,

Thanks a lot for reviewing my changes on page Editors. It took me some time to add column "Version" with version number and date :)

Your idea to create page Editors/Down or discontinued is great.

Have a nice day --Binnette (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


I lost my password. User Amitie 10g was blocked indefinitely by harassment in Wikimedia Commons and probably will be blocked in Spanish Wikipedia. He is not patroller, rollbacker, file renamer, license reviewer or anything. Please, undo you. DoingToys (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please use single account. And "you are nothing" by itself is harassment. And I am not sure why updating user pages of inactive people to document their failures is supposed to be useful (rollbacker etc thing was true in 2015, right?). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
There is certainly something wrong or missing in DoingToys' story. Either they can reset the password using their email address or they used a throw away address and then they would not have received notice of the reversal. I suggest you get the story right first. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 09:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, i speak Dutch language (Curaçao). But why to save him flags? The tradition is, for example, to withdraw their userboxes / comments on their flags removed in undosysop processes. He has blocked and today have no flags, It is not necessary to lie unconsciously about what it is he. DoingToys (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Noone is going to notice user page of someone completely inactive, so outdated info there is harmless. You are following him/her across multiple wikis but this is an extremely unusual case. In general I see no reason to investigate this case further Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I trouwens am not searching him (i know to he). DoingToys (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Interwiki redirects are soft redirects

Hi. Redirects to a seperate website should use {{soft redirect| instead of #REDIRECT [[ because of ?rdform=. Thank you! Flag of Brazil.svg Dragomaniaca Ping me here 19:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Why? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

User and User talk pages

Hi, I noticed that you removed the styling from User talk:Dragomaniaca and I don't think this is ok. How a user styles his own User pages should be no-one elses business IMHO. --Lyx (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Also in cases where it makes page unreadable? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
That might be an acceptable exception. However, I had no problem reading the content of that page, it just looked weird. But maybe that was browser specific? I'm using Firefox on FreeBSD here. --Lyx (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
This is more likely to be effect of monitor/eyes. I was perceiving it as a black text on a very dark blue background Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Deine Anmerkungen

Hi, ich fände es schön wenn du vorher gerfragt hättest, bevor du alles rückgängig machst. Den Link kenne ich. Da im Key:Emergency auch das Thema Feuerwehr abgehandelt wird, ist für mich die Kategorie "Feuerwehr" richtig. Angehörige der Feuerwehr aus dem D-A-CH Bereich suchen nicht nach "emergency", sonder nach Feuerwehr. Dies ist in jedem Land so. "Emergency" sehe ich als Oberbegriff. Meines wissens nach gibt es keine Verbote landesspezifische Kategorien zu erzeugen und zuzuweisen. OSM hat hier ein Manko. Ich werde mir daher erlauben Deine Korrekturen wieder rückgängig zu machen.

Please ask the next time under which ideas the categories where created before you make a revert. --Plennert (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Es ging hier darum, die Category "Feuerwehr" ausschließlich auf der passenden sprachspezifischen Seite "" zu setzen. Er hat auf der englischsprachigen Seite eigentlich nichts verloren. Mmd (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
"Fire department" (or something like that, maybe better name is possible) is fine. "Feuerwehr" or other German category names are not OK on English language pages. In the same way as adding Polish "Straż pożarna" to English or German language pages is a bad idea Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Oneway for pedestrians

Hi Mateusz, I have noticed you have added an example for a path with oneway restrictions aiming at pedestrians to the oneway=* page, where the promoted tag is "oneway". This is in contradiction with the definition of the tag ("drive"), and I have now added a reference to the oneway:foot page (stub). If you are OK with it, please move your example to the oneway:foot page. We should also remove the idea that oneway on a path or footway may apply to pedestrians, because it will create problems (it is not uncommon to have oneway restrictions on paths and footways where they are accessible by e.g. bicycles, while they rarely apply to pedestrians). It is clear that there are some exceptional situations with oneway restrictions for pedestrians, but they are very few compared to those for bicycles on shared ways. IMHO oneway:foot is the better approach, and is compatible with the general definition of the oneway tag (only allowed to drive into one direction). By the way, the way on the photo does not look like a typical "path", I would call this a via ferrata. --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a tricky situation, with many different parts
I agree that it is not a typical path, but "Orla Perć" is famous for not being via ferrata. It is likely to be one of the most difficult official hiking trails, accessible to general population. It is with some chains/steps/handles/etc but is not converted to a secured via ferrata. In 2006 there was attempt to convert it into via ferrata due to multiple deaths - 112 confirmed since construction in 1903, at 4.5 km stretch. This is quite interesting topic, but a bit of offtopic. See more at or photos at
"oneway:foot is the better approach, and is compatible with the general definition of the oneway tag" I agree.
But mappers are actually using highway=footway + oneway=yes to mark oneway pedestrian traffic. I think that it should both documented as used tagging and recommend oneway:foot as more clear.
"it is not uncommon to have oneway restrictions on paths and footways where they are accessible by e.g. bicycles, while they rarely apply to pedestrians" - as data consumer I would apply oneway to pedestrians in case of exlicit oneway:foot but also in casess where way is used solely be pedestrians
"We should also remove the idea that oneway on a path or footway may apply to pedestrians" - it may be a good idea but it is always OK to document actually used tagging. To remove this tagging I recommend
  1. describing problems that it is causing at Wiki
  2. propose/implement validator rule that would cause it to disappear (in iD, JOSM, Osmose, maybe also somewhere else)
  3. propose/implement changes to editors (rendering oneway:foot? adding oneway:foot to presets? etc)
Rather than pretending that it is not used
Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for replying and modifying the page. I agree with your reasoning. —Dieterdreist (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

iD claims interpretation sovereignty on tags

Mateusz, this is refering to your repeated reverts on the Controversial iD Decisions page. e.g. [3]. I am commenting on this:

"dismissing any significance of the community documentation" is not in the link, hiding tags is the link, but "interpretation sovereignty for tags" is not in the link. Note that for example StreetComplete is also hiding tags without being, claiming or trying to claim interpretation sovereignty for tags. "tag hiding" and "sole authority over tag meaning" is a separate thing.

Yes, "dismissing any significance of the community documentation" is not in the link, it is well documented elsewhere though. I agree it can be removed from the paragraph in question. What I want to point out, "interpretation sovereignty for tags" is indeed in the link. iD maintainers say that the users should not be bothered with tags (which is an attitude that can be accepted), but then they also say that proposing automated edits to those same users for the tags is not an automated edit, because the user does confirm them, and can "verify the result with iD". By this they mean (and explain) that you can see that the preset description after the tag transform matches what the user thinks there is (this is also happening for tags that other users who maybe care for the semantics of tags, have applied). This implies that iD has the correct interpretation of tags (and translations) and knows for every context what each tag means, because if they hadn't, a user without looking at the tags could not verify the correctness of the automatic tag transform, it does only logically work if the only authority on tags is iD. E.g. if a user changes crossing=zebra to crossing=marked (i.e. he confirms this change), in iD as a default he will not see any difference, but he did change a tag. This can only work if both tags have the same meaning (which I would reject, but what is the current claim of iD maintainers).--Dieterdreist (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I want to distinguish "iD developers claim that their validators and presets are 100% correct" ("the user does confirm them, and can "verify the result with iD"") and "interpretation sovereignty for tags" what I understand as "iD developers agreed on meaning of that, therefore this meaning is correct, community is unimportant".
To explain why I think that difference between this two is important: I think that first one "this validator rule is OK and user must not be aware what exactly happens with tags to verify it" in principle may be OK. Note that I think that in some cases iD provides not enough or misleading info, I opened issues for some cases - but in principle it is possible to do right. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
"interpretation sovereignty for tags" is not acceptable and major accusation and should have a clear evidence. Authors of editors must often interpret tagging situation and make various judgment, but things like "developers decided to change meaning of tag" or "our interpretation is 100% right, OSM Wiki, mailing list and other community channels are all unimportant" are not OK. Note again that situation is often tricky and various parts of community may conflict with each other, extreme minority may be very vocal and so on. More than once I had to decide on something and I was jumping between "it is 100% clear consensus, and tiny minority is just loud" and "wait, maybe I am pushing this because I like this specific interpretation and there is no consensus at all" many times. One can be sure to be not biased only in cases where decision is made completely against own preferences, but it is irritating and scary for different reasons. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Specific case of a difference: I am currently writing part of StreetComplete that will take outdated opening_hours=* tags, present it to user in a readable interface, request updating them or confirming that tags are correct. On user acceptance editor will write tags to OSM. Note that raw form of opening_hours=* tag like opening_hours=Mar-Oct Tu-Su 10:30-18:00; Mar-Oct Mo 10:30-14:00; Nov-Dec Tu-Su 11:00-17:00; Nov-Dec Mo 11:00-14:00 or opening_hours=We-Sa 09:30-15:00; Tu 12:00-18:30 will be never ever presented to user. In addition edit may result in slight changing format of tags and adding some variant of check_date=* (probably check_date:opening_hours=*). So user and other mappers must trust SC to not break or misinterpret opening hours. So it is clear case of "editor developers claim that tag interpretation in editor is correct". At this moment I make extensive tests to confirm that this is true. Similar things apply to most of StreetComplete - tags are completely hidden. I think that it is OK, especially as in rare cases of SC breaking tags all broken data was repaired by someone who wrote buggy code Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
In SC opening_hours=* quest claiming "interpretation sovereignty for tags" would be unilateral changing Key:opening hours/specification or inventing new tag like streetcomplete_verified:opening_hours=*, what I think would be unacceptable. Note that in case of community recommending switching from say check_date:opening_hours=* to verification_date:opening_hours=* I would follow it, in case of community deprecating check_date=* tag family and all euivalents I would scrap the code despite working on it so far for over 30 hours. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
IMHO a completely new key like streetcomplete_verified:opening_hours=* would be acceptable but not desirable. It makes it clear that it is a specific streetcomplete tag, and with the prefix it would not clash with other usages. On the other hand, introducing a tag (new value for established key) like crossing=streetcomplete_zebracrossing would NOT be OK, because it clearly would conflict with established crossing use. Generally, if you are the main editor on the website, you have particular responsibilities, and other editor authors can have more freedom than the "endorsed" editor. This is why iD and the way it deals with tagging (e.g. introducing new tags and values) is problematic. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Your Undo, I don't understand

I don't quite understand your Undo. If the category is on the side, the sorting deviates from the standard. If you prefer a different sort, please, but then edit the page instead of simply undo it. Dziękuję. --Ottonormalverbraucher (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I undid your edit because you completely removed "Waterways" category in this edit (see ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
That's right, so that the inserting and the correct sorting can be done via the template {{ValueDescription}}. --Ottonormalverbraucher (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this (mentioning it in the edit comment that category is magically added by the template may be useful) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. I can use the Summary line. --Ottonormalverbraucher (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert of your edit on amenity=tourist_bus_parking wiki page

Hi Mateusz! I'd like to inform you that i've reverted your edit on Tag:amenity=tourist_bus_parking. Please see the revert for the reasons. Best regards --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


Hi Mateusz! Me again. :-) Regarding this edit: i thought it were preferred to tag a water well providing drinkable water man_made=water_well + drinking_water=yes instead of man_made=water_well + amenity=drinking_water. The latter tagging seems to violate the One feature, one OSM element principle. Best regards, --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

One feature, one OSM element would be violated by mapping man_made=water_well and amenity=drinking_water on two separate objects. Mapping man_made=water_well + amenity=drinking_water seems perfectly fine to me. If you disagree - I would first check whatever it was discussed already, and maybe start a new discussion Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist for items

It does work for me for items. Maybe you did not click the star on the item? I you have problems with the move to items I suggest you bring it up on the relevant talk page instead of just undoing constructive edits--PangoSE (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there some way to watchlist data items but without watching all translations? I tried to add some to my watchlist but I got endless "updated translation in Hungarian/Chinese/Korean/...". Or other language where I am unable to distinguish vandalism from a correct edit. Also, as far as I know there is no consensus that removal of parameter from such templates is a constructive edit. There was some discussion about introducing data items, but never about removing parameters from templates Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about data items

see --PangoSE (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@PangoSE Do you want to announce it on the mailing lists, US Slack, telegram channel? I can to do this, but you may prefer to do that as person starting the discussion. 11:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Reviving old proposals

Hi. Do you happen to know what the procedure for reviving old proposals is or if there is one in the first place? I ask because I would like to revive the rental tag's proposal in a modified form, but it has already gone through an RfC and has pre-existing comments attached to it. I'd prefer to just toss it all and start over, but likely deleting the old content isn't an option. I'm not sure how to proceed with a new proposal while preserving the original one though. So, if you could give me some advice on how to move forward I'd appreciate it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1 I created Proposal_process#Reviving_old_proposals section. I remember the same question on the mailing list, I replied with similar advice and noone protested, so hopefully it is a reasonable one :) Good luck with a proposal! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I thought it had came up somewhere before. So its definitely more helpful that you put the advice in the proposal process article. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I myself blanked my page Tag:landcover=dunes, and you undid it , why ??

I myself blanked my page Tag:landcover=dunes, because it is better to use Tag:landform=dune_system, already more used(according Taginfo 3633 times )than your mentioning of Tag:natural=dune, which is 'only' used 1060 times and you undid it. Why did you do that, because you even yourself mention it as a bad idea? --Henke54 (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert of Key:check_date

Hey Mateusz,

Thanks for the feedback, appreciated. Sure, both variants can be used, but only check_date as subkey makes sense IMHO. 'check_date' is a property of a key (and its value), not the key (and its value) is a property of check_key. The same way as you woudn't use 'color:roof=blue', but 'roof:color=blue', while 'amenity=waste_basket' and 'color=blue' also work.

Furthermore this way you would end up with a list of tags with their check_date below it and not all check_dates sorted at 'c'. I checked some keys with taginfo and both variants are hardly used, but equally sparse. Sure I haven't searched all possible keys, there might be more elements with check_date:*, but that's the way the wiki was mentioning the tag.

--RubenKelevra (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

On the electric bikes proposal you voted in, I found suspected sock puppetry, as well as with the other proposal currently being up for voting. Thought you might be interested on investigating. --Floridaeditor (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This case is not obvious to me. I would contact admin (based on delete or block activity) and ask them to run a check using logged IP info. It is possible that user started Wiki editing because (s)he wanted to vote Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


Hi, you have removed this sentence: “ −

Dieterdreist (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

    • "* If house numbers are associated with individual entrances, tag those numbers to entrance=* nodes." is still present, I deleted only " (old version - building=entrance)" that I think may be nowadays safely deleted Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mateusz, thank you for looking into it, you are of course right, excuse me for the noise.--Dieterdreist (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi, you have reverted this change without stating the reason. In any case, the new definition came in only in 2019 and is not something agreeable globally, in particular removing details from a tag simply because this is not the standard used in their own country (and thus forces this onto others). On the contrary, we should be encouraging more details instead of stripping down details on the map. --JaLooNz (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it was added in 2019 but such tagging was typically used for longer. This recommendation is already qualified with "generally speaking". Complete removal of this recommendation is not helpful, as it is standard on most/mamy/nearly all/all places. Adding info where it is not standsrd may be useful Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Generally speaking translates to "shall" (no other alternatives), whereas it should more a more suggestive "may" (you can either do this or do it any other way). In OSM, people are free to tag how they like without people saying this is the wrong way to tag, as long as it is verifiable on-the-ground (especially when tagging conventions changes over time). The proposed text contradicts both the on-the-ground rules, forces non-standard tagging conventions, and seeks to remove details from the map without good rationale (i.e. cannot tag as highway=service+service=driveway). I believe you should explain why people cannot tag with service=driveway, but must adopt your tagging convention just because this happens to be the "standard" in your region. I most definitely do not agree that this is standard anyway as this is causing issues in my region.--JaLooNz (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to add note that in region XYZ some other tagging scheme is typically used Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Mateusz that the sentence describes what is typically done in areas that I know. —-Dieterdreist (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This however should not be the "standard" applied globally even if this is done in your region, as it has never been OSM's policy to mandate that the tagging scheme can only be done this way. Without further good rationale why this should be kept, I will remove this clause from the wiki in the following days.--JaLooNz (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add note about what kind of tagging is used in your region rather than removing it. It contains tagging advise considered as recommended in many regions. See for an example where I tried to do this (before my edits page claimed that mapping sidewalks as a separate ways was clearly bad idea) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Rather than removing something again which was already reverted once, and where now others have spoken up as well for keeping it, you should discuss this with a wider group of people before you continue editing the wiki, for example on the tagging mailing list. —Dieterdreist (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I have already (1) discussed, (2) identified that this is not standard practice globally and thus any exceptions such as no driveway should be applied selectively to your region instead of as a global rule, (3) have seen no rationale why it should be kept that way, and most importantly (4) OSM never mandates people not to tag in a specific way. As such, I will proceed to apply the change.