User talk:Mateusz Konieczny/Archive

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Polish standards of cacle lanes

@Mateusz, in pl.wikipedia i've found this link: http://www.rowery.org.pl/standardy.pdf 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)

Pl:Tag:bicycle=use_sidepath

@ 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 https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Dialog/Validator ? 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)

highway=unclassified

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

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/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)

Tag:amenity=parking

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: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.06760&mlon=19.94568#map=19/50.06760/19.94568 (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)

cycleway=opposite

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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:cycleway%3Dopposite&diff=prev&oldid=1558429 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

deamboxify

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)

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)

Tag:building=ruins

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!

Greetings,

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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny&diff=1632791&oldid=1618561 ) 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 https://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg60597.html
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)

embassy

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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADieterdreist&type=revision&diff=1708075&oldid=1677696 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: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65257 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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dwellsite&action=history są tam linki do kokretnych edycji ("prev" czy "poprz.") - patrz też pomoc na https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomoc:Historia_strony 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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Dcanoe_hire&diff=1820307&oldid=1809941 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)

power=plant

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)

Harassment?

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 "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:emergency" zu setzen. Er hat auf der englischsprachigen Seite https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orla_Per%C4%87 or photos at https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orla_Per%C4%87#/media/Plik:KCz.jpg https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orla_Per%C4%87#/media/Plik:2007Orla_per%C4%87_kozi_wierch.jpg
"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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:waterway%3Dditch&oldid=prev&diff=1931534 ) 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)

amenity=drinking_water

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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki#Transition_to_use_data_items_when_this_can_be_done_without_loosing_information --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)

housenumbers

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)

service=driveway

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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks#Regional_variations 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.

OpenSeaMap

Thanks for contacting me in the Wiki - please call me by mail via [4]. Thanks, --Markus (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Markdown on notes

Regarding this edit, I put that here because some parts of the OSM editing ecosystem (private messages, user diaries) do render markdown but not notes.

@Gileri: Good point, I added a bit of an explanation. And thanks for writing and explaining! I moved it to the end, because I think that other things described there are more important - I hope that it is OK. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

toboggan

Mateusz, you wrote in your edit on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:attraction%3Dsummer_toboggan “ simpified agging on nodes is as usual OK, tagging on ways is recommeded in page text)”, and while it is true, the opposite is stated on attraction=* regarding ways —Dieterdreist (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dieterdreist: as that page you linked states "Note: The tag specific page states the contrary: to use the tag on the tracks " there is a self-contradiction. I guess that pages would benefit from surveying how tag is actually used, whatever it makes sense and maybe from asking other mappers. (I am not planning to do this) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and I am also not planning to do it, that’s why I added the note and put the used on ways to unknown. —Dieterdreist (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dieterdreist: Then maybe put mention also in page text, infobox should match article text Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
You are right, feel free to add it.—Dieterdreist (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"knowledge" is strictly preferable to "verifiable sources"

Hello,

In this edit I tried to convey that verifiable sources are better than unverifiable sources.

Example of unverifiable sources :

  • Knowledge
  • Local knowledge

Example of verifiable sources :

  • survey
  • Bing Aerial
  • "a website"

Do you think that "knowledge" is a valid and preferred source for OSM data where there are verifiable sources available ? If so, why should one bother citing actual sources when "knowledge" (from surveys, but also hearsay, closed-data sources, etc.) is sufficient to source one's work ?

@Gileri: Yes, local survey by mapper is the best possible source for edits. Aerial images such as Bing are also acceptable sources. Aerial images and often used for mapping geometries of large objects (forests, lakes, roads, buildings) or where there is not enough of local mappers. "local knowledge" IS verifiable - you may go at a given location or check in some sources."knowledge" is tricky, it is hard for me to find object mappable in OSM that would use such source. I could use it for deleting objects, for example I would revert edits of someone mapping volcano in Warsaw as "general knowledge" - everyone knows that there is no volcano there Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
To be clear "local knowledge" is something like "I live here for a long time and I remember that this shop is gone for some time so I deleted it". "survey" is "I went to location of shop and verified that it is gone". "local knowledge" is not for "I copied Google Maps business listing in my city" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: I wholeheartedly agree that survey and on-the-ground verifications should always be preferred. But that's not the point of my edit.
You say "local knowledge IS verifiable". You then explain that to verify "local knowledge" "you may go at a given location or check in some sources". That's exactly my point ! You can't verify that source apart from using verifiable sources such as survey, imagery or documentation. So that should at least not be encouraged.
You also cite "I live here for a long time and I remember that this shop is gone for some time so I deleted it" as an example for using (local) knowledge. Why not put the "primary" source then (survey, aerial, street-level imagery, website) ? The knowledge of the shop closure must have come from somewhere, clairvoyance is not a widespread trait :p --Gileri (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
"survey" means "I was there and directly after that I mapped this" - so such edits are better than any other source. "local knowledge" means that it is also based on some sort of local obtaining knowledge but it may be old survey (with some risk that it is now outdated), or maybe my friend told me, or maybe I noticed it while I was returning from holidays and seen it out of train/car/plane or maybe I don't rememember how I learned this... Last one "I do not even remember how I learned this" would be quite strong source for names of streams, forests and other locations Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
"why not put the "primary" source then" - what if I know something (and I am 99,9% sure that it is true) but I do not remember how I learned this? (@Gileri:) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
"old survey" is still a survey, when that's the case it's easy to indicate with a syntax similar to the Start date tag.
"my friend told me" is unverifiable and not very trustworthy. What if that friend got it from Google Maps ?
"I noticed it while I was returning from holidays and seen it out of train/car/plane" that's also a survey, perhaps with a fixme=* for attributes that couldn't be surveyed properly.
"I don't remember how I learned this" and "what if I know something (and I am 99,9% sure that it is true) but I do not remember how I learned this" Then you (generic "you", not you specifically) shouldn't put a source, and that's alright (Adding data is better than not adding data). That allows future contributions with a proper source to replace ones that can't be traced to a verifiable source. --Gileri (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
""my friend told me" is unverifiable and not very trustworthy. What if that friend got it from Google Maps ?" - it would be rather something like "do you remember this nice shop XYZ? I went there today and it was closed" or "they are closing entire Tytano and all their restaurants, sadly hotel construction will start there soon" (this one just happened)
"shouldn't put a source" - I think that in such case one should put source that would help indicating that it was not coped from say Google and at the same time indicate lower cetainty than with a proper survey Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC) (@Gileri:)
"do you remember this nice shop XYZ? I went there today and it was closed" That's a survey. If you trust them enough to map this, indicate source=survey".
"they are closing entire Tytano and all their restaurants" If that's from a survey indicate survey, if that's from a closed source don't map it.
We can delve on infinite real and fictionnal examples, but I don't think they further the conversation. To repeat myself, the goal of my edit is to promote verifiable sources, and keep using (but discourage) knowledge for the rare edge cases that requires it. Not for every other changeset like such as this one --Gileri (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC).
" "do you remember this nice shop XYZ? I went there today and it was closed" That's a survey. If you trust them enough to map this, indicate source=survey"." - no, it is not "survey", but "local knowledge" (at least in my opinion) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
For me this is the same as survey, provided that I know and trust them, and it is about today and not last year—Dieterdreist (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

parking=street side versus amenity=parking_space

Can you please amend your wording on Talk:Proposed_features/parking=street_side, it's not clear to me if you raise a question or make a point and want the author to clarify using your remark. Fell free to remove this item to keep your list of a decent size. --Nospam2005 (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I edited it a bit, hopefully it is more clear. I keep all comments, once this page will get to big I will archive them (maybe move this page to User talk:Mateusz Konieczny/Archive 1?) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, now it's clear what you mean. What I guessed to, but in order to get an answer the new wording is way better. Feel free to move to Archive 1, For me you clarified, there is no need to archive the fact that I suggested you to do so, the history would show that if needed but I don't want to interfere with your way of work. --Nospam2005 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

amenity=traffic_park

Hey Mateusz, do you have any further plans in the near future with this proposal? I've seen that you've been editing here again from time to time. Do you think it's worth expanding it into a proper proposal? In my opinion, it's unnecessary to put amenity=driver_training and this kind of traffic park together in a shared tagging scheme, since they are two quite different things. (Besides, you maybe would have to deprecate amenity=driver_training again, because it doesn't really fit for the youth traffic schools...). --Supaplex030 (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

status=import vs status=imported

I notice you have changed a significant number of Tag and Key statuses from status=import (which I documented at Approval_status) to status=imported. Is there a reason for this change? If you intended to change all of them, then the Approval_status page should also be updated. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"imported" was already supported (by the template) - try to use for example "dajajhdjhdadahha" as status, template will complain. I thought that it was clearly better - in the same as "in use" is clearly better than "inuse". It was kind of side-effect of general overwiev of all parameters and fixing cases where data items were leaking into infoboxes (sometimes with incorrect data) and where some parameters were simply missing. If you think that "imported" is not preferable to "import" then I can stop doing this specific change. BTW, if you are interested in listing where some parameters are missing, especially in cases where data items are used as a result: I can publish this report somewhere. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Status change thresholds

Hi, just for consistency, what is your threshold to change tag status e.g. from "in use" to "de facto"? Do we have such thresholds defined somewhere, if not, should we? Would they depend on the context? --Polarbear w (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It strongly depends on context for me. For tags that are combination of known tagging schemes (but unusual) I would accept low threshold, for ones like Tag:area:highway=turning_circle I would put it much higher (controversial, number of turning circles is massive), some tags are inherently rare like man_made=obelisk or capital=yes and so on. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

amenity=hospice

Hi Mateusz, regarding the declining use of amenity=hospice, there is likely some automatic retagging going on. Maybe it is on the iD list for deprecating tags and automatically changed? There is not technical reason someone would have to remove amenity=hospice in order to add a healthcare tag. For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87520870 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87520880 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87520980 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87481796 and also this user has made similar edits in distant places: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67646586

I already mentioned on amenity=hospice that it was systematically retagged in 2020. In some cases manually but in mindless way like at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/856291410/history Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I was already falsely accused of this six months ago by Dieterdreist and me doing "disguised undiscussed mass edits" as I was being accused of was dispelled by Woodpeck at that time. Last time I checked, Dieterdreist even apologized for accusing me of it. Feel free to ignore Woodpeck saying I didn't do a mass edit though. Just Looking at http://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/amenity/hospice it's pretty obvious that amenity=hospice has been on a pretty steady and consistent decline since about mid 2018. Which is long before both of you are saying it started going down through "mass editing." There is no "mass" decline in the tag after that in 2020 or at any time that your accusing me of doing a "disguised undiscussed mass-edit." It goes down at the exact same rate it always has been. In no way is a steady decline at the exact same rate over 4 years "automatic retagging." Both me and Woodpeck already explained all that when this originally came up. That said, I did re-tag the last few that were left to be done with the tag in favor of the one that's clearly accepted by the community now. Your both free to disagree that it was the correct way to "depreciate" a tag that had almost zero usage left due to being on a steady decline for four years in favor of a "better tag" by the community, but it's rather ridiculous to turn your disagreement into throwing around false accusations. Especially ones that have already been shown to be false, can easily be shown to be false by looking at the tagging history, and that one of the people in this conversation apologized for making. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not claiming that automatic or mass edits happened. Just that amenity=hospice was systematically retagged what resulted in disappearance of that tag, what allowed to mark this tag as gone Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It was more in reference to comments made by Dieterdreist on a couple of changesets. That said, IMO your usage of the word "systematically" to describe certain changesets in a clearly derogatory, insinuating manor is on the same level. You shouldn't be throwing around accusations of "systematic" editing without evidence anymore then you should "mass edits" or "automatic" edits. Also, you did say that the edits were done manually "in some cases." Which gives the impression you think some weren't done manually and intentionally or nefariously so. I know that's Dieterdreist's opinion, because he's said so in multiple changesets on more then one occasion now. I doubt you would have created a section on the Wiki article if you didn't agree with him and thought the edits were perfectly above board and done normally either. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Just for the records, taghistory.raifer.tech was last refreshed mid-2018, anything beyond is just a ruler-straight dotted line pointing to the current value. Thus if the decline was steady, or if there was a further growth before the decline, cannot be seen from raifer.tech. Taginfo had the Chronology tab implemented recently, but does not compute low-usage tags. According to my spreadsheet it had still 152 in Apr 2020. As for changing tagging while hopping around the world, I would not change a remote facility without doing some research if it still exists, what it really is, its capacity, etc, whch typically leads to an increase of information in the tagging rather than just replacing a key. --Polarbear w (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

168 uses at beginning of 2020, see http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/12j5 (Overpass_API/Overpass_API_by_Example#OSM_data_at_a_certain_date) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
How come it has pretty accurate looking, not ruler-straight dotted line, info for the pretty steady increase of tags like like amenity=fast_food over the last four years then? Maybe it just does it for declining/low usage tags, but then it would still have to be basing the projection of the decline on something other then gut feeling. Anyway, people change tags around the world all the time. People from Europe map things my area in California all the time. I've been told how to tag things in California by Woodpeck several times and no one jumps on him about not telling people how to map things where he doesn't live. I seem to remember you reverting some power poles that were mapped through essentially what is my back yard a few months ago, and I'm pretty sure you don't live in my back yard or anywhere near it. So, the whole "only map your area" to justify crap like this is a red herring that's lobbied by people who don't even follow their standard. Anyway, it's not like hospices don't have websites these days. Which, personally I spent a ton of time looking at before I re-tagged most or all of the few I did re-tag. By all means go by your spreadsheet instead to determine what's the "correct" way to tag something though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
"like amenity=fast_food over the last four years then?" - taken from taginfo api that has regularly updated info but only for popular ones - so not useful for check how tag died. See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/fixme=Duplicate%20address%20in%20import%20(zdublowany%20adres%20w%20promieniu%20100%20metr%C3%B3w%3B%20do%20weryfikacji)#chronology for an example (one of remains of terrible imports plaguing Poland) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
That explains it. There's pretty accurate charts for things like motorcycle:rental that only had like 700 uses at it's peak. So, I guess the cut off is probably around there somewhere. To me "popular" would be at least over a thousand uses. Anyway, it still has to get it's steady downward projection from somewhere. Even if it didn't, say you go off the spreadsheet saying there was 168 uses of amenity=hospice in the beginning of 2020 and there's zero now. Which is about 12 months. That's a drop of 14 a month or 1 every few days. Which seems totally reasonable and the numbers in the spreadsheet are really the only evidence any of you have. I'm more then willing to take responsible for like 10 or 15 of those. That would send it down to like 12 per month or not even 1 re-tagged per day. Which I could totally see happening now that there is a more widely used tags for hospices. Remember, literally all you have to go on is "there was 168 uses a year ago and now there's zero. So, there must be shady going on." I'd hardly call that solid.
Even say I'm willing to indulge your "undiscussed mass-edit" fantasy and take responsibility for re-tagging 20 or 30 of them. That still doesn't mean I tagged them wrongly, or that was anything wrong with me re-tagging them. Otherwise, where's the line? Like I said, Polarbear w recently reverted a bunch of power poles/power lines that were mapped in my area without anything more solid to go on that they were part of a "hidden mass-edit" then what he has to go on here. He never informed the local community about it. People, including him, no that I edit and live in that area. I wasn't asked if I could confirm on the ground that they actually existed or not before he reverted them. So, where's the outrage about it? Why is that kind of un-discussed mass edit perfectly fine, but me re-tagging a few hospices after I looked at their websites not OK? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Btw, keep in mind that this discussion isn't about the accuracy of the edits, its that they were made in the first place. Dieterdreist never left a changeset saying he thought I might have miss-tagged something. I've zero problem with that. Its not what the discussion or his issue is about though. Its about "making edits", accurate or not--Adamant1 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
What I did not like was you removed the amenity=hospice tag and added a healthcare hospice tag, but there was no reason to remove the amenity tag, you could have added the healthcare tag (based on your research) and be done. —Dieterdreist (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Well then, that totally warrants you accusing me of things again. More on point, I've had numerous discussions about how it's not good/worth tagging the same "POI" with duplicate or very similar tags and not doing so seems to be the consensus. No one does it when "better" tags come along. It's also been said in numerous discussions that there's value in moving away from the amenity tag being a dump for things that aren't necessarily amenities. Which from what I remember is why the healthcare tag is a thing. Personally, I could really care less which tag is ultimately used for hospices. But, and this a huge but, clearly whatever disagreement there is about the whole healthcare/amenity thing should be worked out on a community and it should be decided which one to go with once and for all. Instead of badgering individual users over particular edits you don't like in the meantime, just because you can't work it out on the mailing list or whatever. Clearly, your fighting an uphill battle to keep amenity=hospice around also. Plenty of people besides me are re-tagging it and you chastising me on changesets that were already discussed about non-sense isn't going to do anything to stop it from being "depreciated." --Adamant1 (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In OSM context we don't use 'to depreciate' = 'diminish in value over a period of time; reduce the recorded value in a company's books', but 'to deprecate' = 'express disapproval of; software: regarded as obsolete and best avoided' (Oxford). Apparently this is easily conflated by some users. --Polarbear w (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware. I meant it in a more colloquial way. Tags naturally decrease when "better" or "different" ones come along. I don't really care what you call it and I rather not squabble over semantics. Also, I think it's a problem if the only way that someone can have a conversation on here is by reading the Oxford dictionary. That's a different matter though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, I think it's a problem if the only way that someone can have a conversation on here is by reading the Oxford dictionary. That's a different matter though. that’s also because none of us is a native speaker ;) —Dieterdreist (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Yet Polarbear w is still telling me the definition of an English word as I don't know it. So, I have to assume he has enough confidence in the language and enough to think he knows it better then I do, or he wouldn't be telling native speakers the meaning of English words in the first place. I dare to imagine the consternation I'd receive if I was hanging out in German language OSM channels and trying to tell them what the meaning of German words were. That's one the problems with your whole "you don't understand things because of you where come from" approach to this. Clearly it doesn't extend to you, because here you talking in English and trying to explain English to a native English speaker. It's rather rich. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)