User talk:Mateusz Konieczny

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Examples for pedestrian roads

Hi, I would like to discuss our edits on the Tag:highway=pedestrian page – particularly this partial restoration of content I had removed. To me, this image depicts a wide, comfortable footway – but that's still a case for highway=footway. Unless there are other arguments than what's visible on the image (e.g. signage), I don't see it as a good example of a pedestrian road. --Tordanik 17:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Google using OpenStreetMap data

Re: "When Google stopped map maker? Maybe it was added not by Google employee but by someone convinced to work for corpo for free?"

I was offered a chance to be approved as a unpaid mapper for Google a while back, when I had been still adding photos and POIs to Google Maps. I believe if you are a trusted volunteer contributor you can still get access to update street names and perhaps even geometries, though I decided not to give a corporation free labor anymore. I suspect that you are right, these changes were probably copied from OpenStreetMap by a volunteer mapper who did not properly understand the copyright issues. --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

building:name=* has no valid reason for use

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

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

Re:Source of file

Hi Mateusz, the image was generated only by OSM data, it was a screenshot from JOSM. I had initially uploaded the image to my account on a free social network that no longer exists called gnewbook. Here you can see other similar images from the mapping event in 2011. --Ovruni (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mateusz, the file Mashhad History 2008-2011.gif which I used in Mashhad OSM wiki page is produced by myself via a web page that produces a .GIF file of mapping history of a location over the time. Unfortunately this useful site doesn't works yet, but I know that we could download and use its images whenever and where ever we want.


hi, i answered on my talk-page... --GercoKees (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


Seeing as this image was uploaded over 13 years ago I can't be 100% certain of where it came from - based on the comments I assume it was a screenshot of the Tile@Home rendering engine (was that a forerunner of Mapnik?) but I can't be certain.

File:Nottingham-city-2009.png Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


Hi Mateusz - youn left a message about a particular licence on an image from 2014 - ( - I can't remember now, but I must have thought it was the right thing to do at the time. The image was probably one I was using when I was trying to give feedback to another mapper - before the HOT Tasking Manager allowed the leaving of feedback. The system I was using seemed to work extremely well as far as the mappers was concerned, but was extremely labour intensive for me, and hence not particularly practical. I have very little to do with HOT or LearnOSM now - feel a little burnt out with the whole thing, and now enjoy mapping mainly after a survey. I still keep my server updating the translations from Transifex. Regards Nick (Tallguy)

@Tallguy: - are you expecting this old images still to be useful for some purpose? Or is it fine to delete them? Because it would be necessary to research what is their legal situation and fix copyright tagging to keep them (this appears only now, as for a long time copyright issues concerning images were almost completely ignored at OSM Wiki) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: - deletion is fine - I'm away from home with limited internet access and time at the moment, but will do what I can to delete them. - Update - is it actually possible to delete it? - I've just tried and haven't worked out how. Is a licence change the correct course of action?

Wikimedia photos

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

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

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

@Yvecai: Which part you would recommend to move to extras? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

A place to drop of books does imply a place to pickup books…

That would be an amenity = library as stated in the proposal. If anything your opposing vote might indicate that more tagging options might be needed for self service pickup options that can be on or offsite of the library.

I would however state that 99% of the time the pickup location for books would be the library itself and pre-Covid 99% of all locations that offered drop off options still required going to the library itself to pickup and drop off books. Hence why this has been the focus for of the tagging proposal.

I respect your vote and thank you for your feedback. I just wanted to offer this perspective and see if I’m misunderstanding or understanding your objection so that if I need to revisit this for future votes I know I’m addressing all concerns.

Thanks, JPinAR JPinAR (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@JPinAR: "That would be an amenity = library as stated in the proposal" - where it is stated? "99% of all locations that offered drop off options still required going to the library itself" - I agree, but some places have such cases and leaving such obvious gaps almost always leads to misuse of approved tags Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I will consider a follow-up pickup location tag especially since now pickup via kiosk has become a thing. Thank you for the constructive feedback and community contribution. JPinAR (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@JPinAR: That would be really helpful! It would be nice to avoid repeat of say historic=wayside_shrine that is used for all shrines, not only wayside ones. I managed to push man_made=cross forward but it was likely too late to solve historic=wayside_cross from being used for all crosses Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)