User talk:Mateusz Konieczny/Archive 1

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Polish standards of cacle lanes

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


@ Mateusz,

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

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

Soft lane

@ Mateusz,

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

MapCSSTagChecker - Validator

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

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

Text layout of discussions

Dear Mateusz,

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

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

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

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

"track" description in Template:Map Features:highway

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


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

taginfo embedding


Your move of Lanes and complex intersections visual approach

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

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

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

oneway_type and dual_carriageway

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

waterway=wadi deprecation

Hi Mateusz,

Was there discussion for the tag deprecation ?

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

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

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

Wikipedia links in secondary languages

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

Named sidewalks

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

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


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

How to map as a building

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

link to nonexisting page

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

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

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.


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)


Mateusz, you wrote in your edit on “ 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"


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)


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)


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 and also this user has made similar edits in distant places:

I already mentioned on amenity=hospice that it was systematically retagged in 2020. In some cases manually but in mindless way like at 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***/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, 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 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 (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 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)


Hi Mateusz, you have modified the amenity=monastery page which now suggests a tag "building=monastery", but many monasteries I am aware of, consist of several buildings, they are building complexes. Maybe you were thinking about non-christian monasteries? There are also monasteries which are not built, e.g. an hermitage may be just a cave. --Dieterdreist (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

amenity=monastery - I will check it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I see no mention of building=monastery there and has not introduced it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

train=yes I think that should read: "...and replace public_transport=*". train=yes can only be used as a child tag of public_transport to avoid ambiguity in that tag. Replacing train=yes would still leave the public_transport in tact.--DaveF63 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

But railway=station (or similar) also has meaning of "train stops here" (implies train=yes), and may be also be tagged with (pointless) public_transport tag. I would need to look at it to be sure, but I seem to remember that such tagging was recommended by PTv2 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
A few things:
1. railway=station (PTv1) is completely separate from public_transport/train=yes (PTv2
2. As railway=station "implies train=yes" then train=yes is clearly not required, even if it was compatible.
3. train=yes is only required to clarify the ambiguity of public_transport=station. However as you mention, it is "useless" therefore it's not required. --DaveF63 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


Due to its considerable use however, routing engines should treat it as a negative access value, though weaker than moped=no.

I understand your reasoning, but I feel the wording creates unnecessary confusion. For routing engines 'use_sidepath' is effectively a hard negative value like 'no'. I think its important that the documentation points this out. It's just that the reason for the 'no' flows from the presence of a (mandatory) parallel path rather than an explicit forbidden sign. I doubt 'use_sidepath' is useful to anyone but mappers (to whom it explains that there is or should be a parallel way), but it exists, so it's better to have routers treat it correctly to prevent them sending mopeds or pedestrians onto dangerous roads. (I'm not a champion of this access-value, but I document it and fix it in routing software to keep the map useful. It's too popular in the Netherlands not to.)

I can't think of any reason for a routing engine to treat it as a weaker 'no', or what that would mean, but if you have an example that might help. --JeroenHoek (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It may depend on legislation in a given country. In some use_sidepath has meaning of "driving vehicle X is outright illegal if there is dedicated way for it along road", for some it is "if possible to avoid driving vehicle X is forbidden on road with dedicated way along it" See examples for cyclist in - specifically Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not clear to me from the original proposal for bicycle=use_sidepath. The intent of this access-value seems to be that it indicates that local laws forbids the use of the main road which normally could legally be used, were it not that a compulsory parallel way is available. If you can walk/cycle/ride a moped there than *=use_sidepath seems like a tagging error. Routers really should not use these roads at all for the target class. If there are countries where this is not correct, then I would suggest mentioning those countries specifically in the documentation (e.g., “In Poland *=use_sidepath is not a hard 'no', but routers should assign a penalty to ways tagged with it.”). It really won't do to have routing software propose a route over *=use_sidepath in countries like the Netherlands or Germany, where this tagging scheme originated.
In those screenshots I think the mapper is trying to solve the problem of tagging a road that discourages walking/cycling/riding a moped because it is dangerous. It would be good to have tags for such cases (although the legalistic crowd hates mappers making judgment calls), but I get the impression *=use_sidepath is wrongly being co-opted for that purpose. --JeroenHoek (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
"intent of this access-value seems to be that it indicates that local laws forbids the use of the main road" - Note in proposal explicit note that it differs across countries: "legal and access implications may and will vary from country to country." "A router can now decide to propose a route that does not use these type of roads." 21:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
"solve the problem of tagging a road that discourages walking/cycling/riding a moped because it is dangerous" - in such case use_sidepath would be misused Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
"In those screenshots I think the mapper is trying to solve the problem of tagging a road that discourages walking/cycling/riding a moped because it is dangerous" - no, this screenshots show case where cycling on road is legal (and desirable routing), despite cycleway along it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

post office

Hello, you did some changes to the wiki page post office. Most are clear, concerning 2 I have questions


You removed the explicit mentioning of not using the amentity=post_office for kiosks, laundrys etc where you can also send (not only pick up) parcels, as well as you removed the link to Proposed features/shop as post-partner. What was the intention? I added both to help mappers in the sense they are pro-actively warned before unintentionally creating wrong mappings (e.g. amenity=post_office;gambling or amenity=post_office + shop=kiosk) and they quickly learn without research that there is not yet an agreed tagging but only a proposal for kiosks, laundrys etc also offering postal services. I


You removed the link for postal codes research in Lithuania. Why shall it not be mentioned like the ones for India, Ukraine etc?

Best regards --Schoschi (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Schoschi: - it was mentioned in "potential data sources" and there is no indicator that it is under open license that would make it an acceptable data source. I have not removed other because I have not reviewed them Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I see, makes sense to me :) --Schoschi (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I reverted because it made a change to how it is defined without (as far as I know) any discussion. I see no problem with tagging place where you can both send and pick up parsels/post as a post office, even if it is also a laundry/kiosk/butcher/etc. Also, it prominently linked new tag that appears to be just a draft proposal, was not discussed and has a minimal use Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Schoschi: - I now reviewed other listed data sources. If you think that place where you can send and pickup letters/parcels but is also a shop does not qualify for tagging as post office - I would be happy to discuss it as tagging mailing list or maybe also somewhere else like Discord where more people would be able to join Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I added the "don't use for kiosks" into EN page because it appeared to me as if that was already consensus (e.g. the DE variant of the wiki page) and there are strong reasons for it, e.g. kiosks do usually offer only a very limited subset of postal services, using amentity=post_office is at least clearly forbidden for any amenity as we'd have two semicolon separated values in key amenity. Yes, we can discuss again / further on the topic, but as both channels you suggest are even viewable for members only, I'd strongly prefer the official OSM forum - within it, maybe it makes most sense to continue in the existing English thread --Schoschi (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Is "Please do not use this tag for supermarkets, laundrys etc. where you may just pickup parcels." not sufficient? @Schoschi: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
IMHO not, because people (I did this some months ago myself :( ) may still use post_office for POIs where you can send parcels but no other postal service is offered, as they are neither told this does not fit and they have no idea how to tag instead. With the link to the proposal, they can follow the link and quickly read we've not yet an agreed tagging scheme but what current alternatives/workarounds look like and where to find the discussion. --Schoschi (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

So there are places where you may only receive parcels and places where you may only send parcels? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a misunderstanding - at least to my knowledge which is up-to-date only for Germany, in shops+amenities you can only send and receive parcels, i.e. there is no "receive only". --Schoschi (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

In Poland there are also numerous places where you may only pickup parcels and are a regular shop otherwise. If you can also send parcels, what kind of things are missing? Is such place not handling regular letters? What else is missing? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in DE more or less all of these places are not handling letters. Same for postal bank's services. Other postal services are also offered only by some: Selling stamps, offering bulk package handling, luggage transport, identity confirmation. Who is offering what massively depends on the postal service's brand a shop cooperates with. --Schoschi (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@Schoschi: I added "Please do not tag this in places where one is unable to do what is expected from post office (for example - buying stamps).", I have not added explicit "offering bulk package handling, luggage transport, identity confirmation" as such services are not performed at all dedicated post offices. Do you think that something else needs to be changed? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! No, IMHO this is clear and sufficient - I just merged the two overlapping paragraphs to one, i.e. changed the wording, not the content. Later, when Proposed_features/Paketshops is more mature, we may add a link to post_partner so people do not only learn what not to do, but get a constructive help. --Schoschi (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Great, I am happy that we reached stage where we are both happy about the text, hopefully other people are also fine with that version :) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

New vote on Evaporation ponds

Thanks for voting! There were a few minor issues that were discovered after the vote started, and therefore the vote has been restarted. If you want you can participate in the new vote that was started at Proposed_features/Evaporation_basin. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


Hallo, ich vermute das deine Änderung nicht korrekt ist. siehe w:GNU_General_Public_License#Copyright --Reneman (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Spam inbox

The spam messages came from a user without a valid username. So, there is no user page and so no "report user" (Name of the user: "Kimberly_31231"). It was not my intention to delete anything useful.

Bicycle parking on way

First, no thank you for the revert, second what "accept data item in this case" of your comment means ?

data items. I am going through cases where OSM Wiki and data items have conflicting entries (scroll to bottom of User:Mateusz Konieczny/automatically generated list of various issues on OSM wiki). In nearly all cases OSM Wiki is right and data items are wrong, but sometimes OSM Wiki text needs to be changed. And I am pretty sure that in case of bicycle parkings tagging as way is neither useful nor really needed - tagging as node or area is always superior. But if you think that this or another of my edits is wrong, feel free to revert it (preferably with an explanation). @Florimondable: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
More than 10% are on ways! So your opinion is just yours, please don't change wiki page against common usage, or it could be called vandalism. --Florimondable (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@Florimondable: - multipolygons and closed filled ways go into "area" field, "ways" is only for unclosed and unfilled ways Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
And? You're trying to push your opinion alone, against the main tag page bicycle_parking. For instance, for what ##### reason do you think that can't be tag on a way, instead of a node? Seriously? I'm bored of this wiki where people push their opinion alone without any discussion, and against the usage! So please, stop this stupid edit war and revert your edit. By the way, I don't know why you think a closed way is automatically an area for bicycle parking.--Florimondable (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"And?" It means that "More than 10% are on ways!" is not relevant at all as vast majority is representing areas
"By the way, I don't know why you think a closed way is automatically an area for bicycle parking" because in all my OSM activities related to bicycle parkings, and all non-OSM bicycle-parking related activities I have never seen or imagined parking which representation as closed way would not be an area. Are you aware of any parking where sane representation would be a cloded way and it would not be an area? Can you link its photo? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, there is a lot of bicycle parking drawn with closed way in order to represent an area. Anyhow, that’s not the main point, the point is simple : people do draw a way and tagged it with bicycle_parking key. That’s a real usage of the tag, and what you think about it doesn’t matter, because the wiki is not here to express the opinion of one contributor, but to documment the current usage of the contributors. So I ask you again, revert the modification you’ve made in order to reflect the current usage of the key.--Florimondable (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Florimondable: "people do draw a way and tagged it with bicycle_parking key" - also unclosed ways? Is it tagging with some real use? If yes, them feel free to change it. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course with unclosed way, that's was my comment on the first revert. Next time you can check it before with overpass.--Florimondable (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


Thank you, that's what I wanted this logo to band from everywhere because this logo is very valuable so I violence this logo.

If you wish to contact me about - please post on and use understandable English or Polish Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop removing claims from data items

Removing claims makes our knowledge base harder to parse and also conceals the discrepancies you’re introducing by only changing the wiki markup in English. --Andrew (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wynndale: I remove only incorrect ones. Having no claim at all is preferable to having an incorrect one Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Could you instead of removing the claim, if applicable, correct the claim instead? Especially since many of those claims you removed could have been fixed in the same amount of time. --Mxdanger (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Changing data items to correct values takes more time, due to frustrating and fiddly JS-based interface. And anyway, as soon as data item bot is running again this values can be easily imported from OSM Wiki. If someone is interested in resurrecting Wikidata bot I would be happy to help. One part is figuring out how to deal with complicated structure of data items and I am unable to help with that, as I gave up on this due to irritating complexity present there. But I can provide either Python code parsing infoboboxes (turns out to be quite easy, as there are parsers of MediaWiki markup) or parsed infoboxes in some standard format like JSON/CSV/etc ready for further processing like adding them to data items. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wynndale: BTW, if someone is interested in resolving serious conflicts between English version and version in some language, or between given language and data items - I can generate for them list similar to User:Mateusz Konieczny/automatically generated list of various issues on OSM wiki (right now I generate it only for English) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Importing from GNS tags

In you have deleted GNS:id and GNS:dsg_code. I think these tags is very useful for revising the GNS importing. I worked in importing from GNS in Yemen and Saudi Arabia and there where another user imported the GNS for Yemen and Saudi Arabia before me (Metehyi) but he did not put the 'GNS id' and the 'GNS code' so it was difficult to me in some times to revise his importing he made many mistakes in tagging and naming. With the 'GNS id' and 'GNS dsg' it is easier to revise any importing from GNS. --حبيشان (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@حبيشان: Can you link a documentation page describing this imports? (one required by Import/Guidelines) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Metehyi did not document his import. He Imports most of Arabic countries before 10 years from GNS. He comments on Yemen imports with "Yemen Imports". My import is documented yesterday on [5] --حبيشان (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@حبيشان: so GNS:id would be useful for easier matching of objects, I restored GNS:id mention Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


regarding there seem to be no hits on that on this wiki: What process do you mean?--PangoSE (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@PangoSE: - good point, I created RFC page. Thanks for letting me know about problem! Is it answering your question? In general marking proposals as abandoned is tricky as there are some active people with abandoned proposals who prefer to avoid getting their parameters as abandoned. As damage here is minor I leave their proposals alone and mark other abandoned proposals Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

proposal process: responding to comments

Hi Mateusz, "Note that it is not necessary to implement all suggestion and requests - especially as some can be contradictory with each other or misguided." sounds a little combative to me. I would stick to a simple fact "Note that it is not necessary to implement all suggestion and requests." and not imply that commenters are in the wrong.

Also in the bit about Talk page discussions: 'when a considered "resolved"'....considered resolved by whom? you? everyone else?

Just suggestions. - Jnicho02 (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jnicho02: Good idea to make it less negative! I rephrased to "While many will be useful, it is possible to receive recommendations contradictory with each other, some can be also misguided." For 'resolved' - when there is consensus that it was resolved, not really sure how to define it. If you have specific ideas feel free to make them! This changes were done based on feedback from someone who made their first proposal and sort of thought that they are obligated to follow all suggestions so I though that making clear that some comments are dumb/useless/worthless would be a good idea Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Notification: Missing file information

The notification for "Missing file information" has been answered: Are you the author of image File:1-ADDR-DELTA NUMFIN-NUM-NUM2-X-Y.jpg ? Yes. I've set it now in the file description page. User:SergioAJV

fire lookout proposal

Hi Mateusz, I wanted to answer the question you added in the voting section of Proposed_features/fire_lookouts but I wasn't sure if it would be appropriate to do so in-line, so I thought I'd post on your talk page instead. Yes, in my opinion it would be best not to tag as building=fire_lookout, because under most definitions it doesn't seem to be a building. It is (as far as I know) currently used for fire spotting, so emergency=fire_lookout would be appropriate. To describe its physical characteristics I'd probably stick with man_made=tower and tower:type=observation. This is discussed briefly in footnote #1 on the proposal but it's easy to miss since it's not actually referenced from the relevant photo. — Jake Low (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Utility documentation

Hi Mateusz, regarding this edit of utility=* page, why did you removed this content? It is well documented on approved man_made=utility_pole. Furthermore, loudspeaker doesn't match with utility's definition, I'm not sure adding it to the list without discussion is a good idea. Not all functional things in public space are utilities, surveillance neither for instance. Can you fix this please, as we're currently reviewing presets for man_made=utility_pole? Fanfouer (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fanfouer: Sorry! It should be fixed now, only was supposed to apply. Maybe I edited old revision at time of adding documentation that documented tag and at the same time claimed that it is undocumented? Not sure how this happened, my watchlist was showing only that edit... Sorry again and thanks for catching it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, thank you @Mateusz Konieczny: Fanfouer (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


highway=path with footway=sidewalk feels strange. That would be TagInfo path=sidewalk surely? footway=* further refines a highway=footway, TagInfo path=* seems to do that for highway=path. --JeroenHoek (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

footway=sidewalk seems fine with highway=path describing combined footway & cycleway (but I am open to discussing it a wider community) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Historic=monument illustration


I'm not sure why you deleted some photos I used to illustrate the "historic = monument" page on the wiki.

In your wiki modification comments you talk about "duplicates" and "equivalents".

I will explain my approach to you, in particular for this page.

I have been interested in this (historical) theme for several years, which I try to document as precisely as possible.
Besides the wiki I have improved the translations / explanations of the tag "historic = monument" in different software (josm, ID) applications (OsmAnd), in the legend of the map, ...

Here in this page I have put on purpose, for each type of monumental structure that I identified (10 in total), only two example photos ... and no more! ;-)

I did this to get:

  • examples taken in different countries (or continents) so that they are not located only in Europe (which is often the default of the wiki)
  • eras of different constructions (important to see that a commemorative structure can be ancient or modern)
  • different origins (reasons why the monument was erected)
  • etc ...

This is to allow OpenStreetMap contributors to understand as visually as possible what a "monument" is in OpenStreetMap.
Two photos per type of monument do not seem to me too much, it allows to compare according to the elements mentioned above
In view of the large number of misuse that there is in OpenStreetMap with "historic = monument"; if there is one tag that deserves to be properly illustrated, it is this one.

So I don't see why you removed one of two for triumphal arch, column, cross, mound and not for obelisk, sculpture, statue, ....
What were your criteria?
I don't see the logic in your choice.

As you say "we do not need list of all interesting monument".
This is not the case as I explained above, twenty photos does not seem to me to be such an extensive list.
Does having 20 instead of 16 (after your change) make that much of a difference?

Best regards

--Cybereric (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cybereric: - in this case it seemed to me that one example of each type is perfectly fine and enough. For example there was basically no difference between mounds at all. My reasoning for edit was to prevent turning OSM Wiki page into a gallery. "so that they are not located only in Europe" - its seems achievable also with one photo for monument type, the same for other distinctions.
Limit of one photo per object type seems natural, but if it would be clearly noted then two per object type also would be survivable Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Not helpful for mappers

This edit is not very helpful:

sidewalk:left=* and sidewalk:right=* document those values in addition to sidewalk=*. The red links invite mappers to also create sidewalk=separate, sidewalk:left=separate, sidewalk:right=separate, sidewalk=no, sidewalk:left=no, sidewalk:right=no, sidewalk=none, sidewalk:left=none, sidewalk:right=none, sidewalk=yes, sidewalk:left=yes, and sidewalk:right=yes, because the red link implies the wiki is lacking something. That's a documentation maintenance nightmare! --JeroenHoek (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@JeroenHoek: and this tags should be somehow documented - though mostly with pointer where actual documentation exists. Meaning is stable so it should not be really nightmarish Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
They are documented though; on sidewalk=* and on the key-level on sidewalk:right=* and sidewalk:left=*. Those later two are already a stretch, and act mostly as stub-pages, but at the key-level that is a fair compromise. Creating loads of separate tag-value pages means you spread the same information over several pages (a maintenance issue, because when someone improves an unclear point on one page, they will need to do the same on twelve other pages or just ignore it, or perhaps give up on editing the wiki at all), and mappers may miss the broader context of those tag-values' use. Stimulating mappers to create thousands of stub pages for all of our tag-values sounds like a hack to get other OSM services a clickable link at the expense of good maintainable documentation. Those red links should be used sparingly for pages that are really missing and provide value. You can turn all those tag-value pages into redirects of course (like sidewalk:right=separate to sidewalk:right), but then too having them linked from the tag-template is not very user friendly, because now both the key and the value have their own link, but both link to the same page causing confusion.
Documenting in-use tag-values that have more of a stand-alone existence is fine (like you did with traffic_calming=painted_island), but having separate for sidewalks on sidewalk=*, sidewalk:right=*, sidewalk:left=*, sidewalk=separate, sidewalk:left=separate, and sidewalk:right=separate doesn't make the documentation better and leads to fragmentation.
If this is only about providing parseable links for tools like's map query features pane or Taginfo, then why not work with me to establish a template for those on their key-level pages (like sidewalk:left=* (no/none/yes/separate) or parking:orientation=* (perpendicular/parallel/diagonal)), so those tools can parse that when the tag-value page is missing. --JeroenHoek (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It is not only for that - positive effects include fact that someone interested in meaning of specific tag does not need to read entire big page (yes, for me or you it is not a problem but for newbie or someone less familiar with wiki it is).
"establish a template for those on their key-level pages" - it would be more complex than creating pages as ususal
Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you find sidewalk:left=* complex to read? A little complexity for wiki editors is better than making the documentation more complex for every mapper who reads it by adding lots of stub pages (which is redundant busy work in itself for cases like this). Also whenever someone finds better wording or clarifies a commonly made mistake, they now have to edit several extra articles. These stub pages will also add noise to the wiki search, making it harder to use for newbies. For some tag values having their documentation at the key-level makes more sense than dozens of separate pages. And what about sidewalk:left:surface=asphalt or parking:lane:both:parallel=on_street? Where do you draw the line? --JeroenHoek (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Contradicting information on use of cycleway=opposite

This edit ( adds contradicting information about the use of `opposite*` together with :left/:right. Just take a look at the linked pages. Can we please discuss these information on the discussion pages. Think I already have started some. Thanks. --Skyper (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

"contradicting information about the use of `opposite*` together with :left/:right" - note that me edit has not made anything like this. I added mention of :left/:right to case of cycleway=opposite_lane, I have not edited part about cycleway=opposite. From what I remember you want to eliminate use cycleway=opposite and maybe you want to make additional edits but I am not sure what is supposed to be wrong with my edit Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, somebody else has added cycleway:left=opposite_lane to cycleway:left=*, so `:left` and `right` are out of sync. This has nothing to do with deprecating cycleway=opposite_lane or cycleway=opposite but about the combination of `:left` and `:right` with `opposite*`. I am not the author who marked them as invalid. Please, read the discussion again. Take care. --Skyper (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

reply to Slack DM

backlog shown for others' context:

Arlo James Barnes: Could you say more about [edit summary: do not suggest that Wikidata decided whatever something is verifiable] ? I'm curious.

Mateusz Konieczny: This presents editing Wikidata as mandatory/recommended/required part of editing OSM while it is 100% fine to edit OSM and completely ignore Wikidata

BTW, I would recommend asking me on OSM Wiki, especially about OSM Wiki issues. I am quite unlikely to appear here often

I made no statement that anything is mandatory or required. Yes, I recommend looking for resources that make verifiable statements about mappable on-the-ground situations such as the hazard key, which includes Wikidata statements with refs, just as investigating leads from the other unordered list items in that section can be helpful. I'd like to put that recommendation back if you don't have a firmer reason for why you removed it. Put a disclaimer at the top of the section about double-checking if you feel it needs it. Arlo James Barnes (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Arlo James Barnes: - note that using data from Wikidata is another can of worms, mostly because it can actually be legally incompatible with OSM data (sui generis database right for start). Maybe something softer like "Wikidata, with P3335 'hazard on site' statements can be another source to locate places for survey" would be OK? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds fine to me; it's what I was trying to get at with the mention in any case, so I'll use your phrasing there as the basis. Arlo James Barnes (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


Hi there. I have a question for you. I was trying to get rid of the image of the FedEx Office store in the office=logistics article because FedEx Offices are not office or tagged that way. Apparently when I deleted the code for the image though the image of the FedEx Office did not go away. I was able to change it to the original image from the article was created, but now if I delete the code it just defaults back to the FedEx Office instead of the default K=V image. Do you know why that might be happening? The FedEx Office image was originally added by RTFM, but I don't see anything in his original edit that would make it impossible to edit get rid of the image. So, I'm not sure it was something he did. I know he's edited Additional tags sections to make it so people can't edit them though. So it like something he would do. Any information you can provide on what exactly is going on here would be much appreciated. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The image is in the data item (linked from the left). You can add, remove of change the image that is stored there. --Andrew (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is coming from (after edit of data item you will need to make a null edit) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Makes sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

emergency ward

Hello, about your addition I interpret amenity=clinic + emergency=yes to mean that the clinic can also handle emergencies in addition to "normal" patients, because that's the conventional meaning for amenity=hospital + emergency=yes. Instead, if you mean to use amenity=clinic + emergency=yes to tag the emergency ward itself as a whole clinic entirely dedicated as EW, can you clarify it on the page with examples (I personally have never seen one)? --Pippo6 (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


Hi, you are right for the reedbed. The problem I wanted to solved is that salmarsh is not in the part "Saltwater habitats" where it should be. And mangrove are, in 99% of the case, also a saltwater habitat but also a forestry habitat so where to put it ?
So the real problem is the part "saltwater habitats" where a lot of tags could be, there but also in another part so it is a "bad" part. I deleted it and put the tidalflat in the open habitats.
Best regards Fred73000 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fred73000: - oh, now it makes sense! Thanks for your edits. I got confused at one point and sorry for too aggressive description in Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
BTW, Wiki talk pages are quite unusual and manual signing is needed - Wiki:Signature may help Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


You removed the wikidata item on surface=* pages as it was specific to road surfaces, what about using Q3783831 instead? --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Technically it sort of fits so I added it @Nospam2005:. Though I am not convinced that there is a real benefit of such links Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The only bonus is that you link the item to a Wikipedia definition that may be useful for some translations when the translated item is ubiquitous. But yes, it's usually a small one. Here somebody thought it makes sense, therefore it's better to put the right one. --Nospam2005 (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


Hello, I think I wasn't clear about my rock surface definition modification goal. Some people are confused because they think that "exposed rocks" and "big pieces of rock" should be "used to improve path quality" in order to be tagged as "rock". It's not the case as exposed rock can be totally natural and not caused by human activity. So I wanted to make clear that fully natural exposed rocks should be tagged with "rock", and that a human origin of the surface is not necessary. I'm not native english speaker, so maybe you have a better formulation than me for that, but I believe the actual one is not so clear for, at least, some non-native speakers. Idrizza (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Idrizza: So people were marking gravel paths like as natural=rock areas? Instead of using surface=gravel? I was thinking in turn about for example places where human activity caused soil to erode and reveal rocks below. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No, they just weren't tagging because they felt like a value was missing for this case. The kind of surfaces that brought confusion was those ones: or Idrizza (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Idrizza: not sure what exactly is the problem. People refused to use surface=rock in this cases? Or used them and you consider it as a wrong thing? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: They refused to use surface=rock because they thought that the tag was only suitable for "used to improve path quality" rocks. My goal is just to clarify that exposed rock doesn't need to be "used to improve path quality" to be tagged as surface=rock. Idrizza (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
@Idrizza: I edited to try resolve this misconception, without excluding bare rock exposed by human activity Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I believe there are two combined issues here. One is that there is an overlap between "scree" and "big pieces of rock". The other is that, to some of us, a path that crosses a natural=xxxx area should logically have surface=xxxx (except of course if the path is different from its environment) StC (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@StC: note that there is already difference between natural=grassland and surface=grass, natural=glacier and surface=ice, natural=shingle and surface=pebblestone, natural=beach and surface=sand, natural=wetland and surface=mud. I am not convinced that inventing new surface values would be a good idea. Also, note that in case of path over natural=rock, natural=stone and natural=bare_rock actual surface is the same Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what would be fitting for scree. Sometimes surface=gravel sort of fits Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny:That was precisely my point: it was probably not a good idea to invent new values (grass vs grassland, glacier vs ice, etc). I guess it's no use crying over spilled milk, but then the documentation should acknowledge that more explicitly so as to alleviate confusion among new contributors (such as myself) StC (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Note that surface=glacier could not replace surface=ice, as it is present not only on glaciers, surface=grass is not only present in natural=grassland, surface=pebblestone is present not only within natural=shingle Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@StC: Do you think that some documentation page should be modified? Which info is missing? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I would propose to add a sentence to the intro to explain that the values of natural=* are different and must not be confused with those of surface=*. And possibly more pictures that address "borderline cases" such as (where therer might be a confusion between the two tags.StC (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
"add a sentence to the intro to explain that the values of natural=* are different and must not be confused with those of surface=*" - good idea (feel free to add it also in your own edit!) @StC: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Done. I suggest to move further discussions to the page in question, for the benefit of other contributors.StC (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Answer to automated edit

I guess your template text posted to was intend to contact me about an old upload.

I'm surprised somebody even asks about that simple scribble. The file was created by me some years ago. Feel free to use it in whatever way you want. Crediting me is not necessary.

Please OSM's messaging system or email instead of edits to this wiki in case you want to contact me. That way communication is so much easier than in this confusing wiki system.

My OSM account is
You can also use in whatever way you want. CC-0 is fine.

Station photo I'm not against the changing of the photo, but the new one shows mostly roofs. Useful to have one which at least shows the platforms. --DaveF63 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@DaveF63: If you think that old one was better - feel free to change it to the old one. In this case I do not feel strongly about this change Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@DaveF63: Looking at it again - you are right, I changed it back Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)



I don't know if you can help me, there is an issue on a wiki page and I don't know how to fix it. If you look at the page Key:natural, you will see that renderings work. When you go to the page Map_features#Natural, a lot of renderings don't work. This part is made with 3 "Taglist" with the parameter "with_rendering=true". All is automatic but I imagine that it is built from something somewhere and that this source has some bugs. Could you explain to me how to fix that ? Best regards Fred73000 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fred73000: I would ask this on Talk:Wiki or on talk page of Template:Taglist. I am not really familiar with this templates. And in general such generic question are more suitable to be asked on shared talk page. I also admit that I prefer normal table over magic {{Taglist}} Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I found the solution, I wrote it here. Fred73000 (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, reacting on your message from User_talk:Tkk. I updated licensing and source info for both files, so it should be fine now.

Tkk (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)