- 1 Gaza
- 2 Licensing Working Group section on Open Data License/Implementation Plan
- 3 not understandable sentence
- 4 slideshow link on ito page
- 5 registering / licensing
- 6 Wales and its boundaries
- 7 Relation:route
- 8 Wiki cleanup
- 9 Map features sorting
- 10 Forming a wiki team
- 11 Ito map - Railways...
- 12 Key:natural
- 13 Tag:boundary=protected area
- 14 Merge of Elements and data_primitives
- 15 Industrial
- 16 Platform
- 17 Rampage on wiki categories
- 18 INT 1
- 19 place_name usage
- 20 Automated edits code of conduct page
Updates on the Gaza map? Erik Johansson 17:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Update available on the Gaza wiki page.
Licensing Working Group section on Open Data License/Implementation Plan
Peter, could we move the Licensing Working Group section to another place as I feel it clutters the other information on that page.
I've added some of the missing details and working on the rest. Minutes of 22/1/2009 I believe will be posted shortly.
-- Firefishy 10:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done. I have given it it's own page. PeterIto 10:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
not understandable sentence
Can you please correct this sentence at the bottom of Open Data License
Use Cases which covering key keys applications for OSM data and are being
I do not understand what is meant here... --katpatuka 08:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorted. Thanks. PeterIto 09:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
hi. slideshow linked to from http://www.itoworld.com/static/osmmapper has been removed from the source page
registering / licensing
adding this to your talk page instead of main feature requests page, as this seems not to be quite a feature request. two things that i couldn't find on the pages and might be beneficial to add :
1. why is registering required - that is, why can't some generic features available as a demo ? some rationale on requiring registration (personalised rss feeds etc) might help.
2. licensing/availability of osm mapper code. is it available anywhere ? is it only available as a hosted service ? what happens if for some reasons this service goes away, is there a "backup plan" ? i haven't used osm mapper yet because i'm a bit concerned about creating reliance on a service that might not be there later, so i'd like to read in clear terms about these factors.
Wales and its boundaries
I am just trying to trace appropriate and reliable sources but.....The boundaries of the United Kingdom is a line drawn arbitrarily around the land including all islands to a distance of 3 nautical miles. For the administrative authorities in Britain, their maritime boundary is determined by that defined in their appropriate royal charter and/or held on definitive maps. The simplest way of seeing a good approximation of these for England (but not sadly for Wales) is to use magic.gov.uk as in . For most the line strays significantly away from the low-tide mark but none seem to use the high-tide mark which the boundary that you created follows. This is consistent with the exercise of powers given to local authorities whereby that can control activities on beaches etc. and are accountable for their quality. The Crown estates issue is a red herring - they are notional landholdings of the foreshore and parts of the sea-bed unless that has been re-assigned by Royal Charter into private ownership or as a several fishery. Ownership has no bearing on statutory boundaries. Until we have a definitive and accurate public domain source for this data I would strongly urge its removal. No data is better than wrong data. Velella 15:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Why spliting puplic transportation to bus, tram? It is alwas the same (redundant) information ? --Langläufer 08:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Peter. Noticed that you'd moved the various public transport pages into Mapping/Features. Can see why you've done this, but I've left a note here: Talk:Wiki_guidelines describing why I think it's a bad idea. Frankie Roberto 12:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, I started to make some notes on wiki organisation here User:Frankie Roberto/wiki organisation, if you're interested. Frankie Roberto 15:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Map features sorting
- I have added a section to discuss the issue on the Map Features talk page. PeterIto 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please revert the alphabetic order, at least in the highway table. We discover now that some newcomers are using "highway=path" instead of "track" just because of that. If you don't do it, I will, which is always annoying. --Pieren 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Forming a wiki team
Ito map - Railways...
Any chance of a minor modification so that the ITOMap layers for railways can see miniature and Narrow guage lines?
My thought would be to render them simmilar to how OS maps handle minor lines with a dashed thin line? ShakespeareFan00 13:14, 22 April 2011 (BST)
- Good idea. I have added minature as light green and separated monorail out as orange. Narrow_gauge was already rendered (check spelling?) PeterIto
Hey, I just saw your recent changes to key:natural when I went there to change it, and I just wanted to say thank you. Well done. --Dieterdreist 16:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the appreciation! PeterIto 17:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for cleaning up the protected_area.
(btw: for translations it seems to be to early? I made one for german and know (all) the "Available languages" links to "boundary", not to "protected_area".)
Thanx for the improvement, best regards, --Typoshrub 23:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- My pleasure, and thanks for the appreciation. Fyi, I am also creating a Conservation page which will provide an introduction to all the tags related to the subject. PeterIto 12:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Merge of Elements and data_primitives
Hi there. You merged the data_primitives and Elements pages back in January. Great job. Please just also merge the correct language links next time, ok? I've just translated the whole new data_primitives page before realizing that all the translations were already present under Elements. That's as much my fault as it is yours, but it's slightly easier for me to be mad at you then at me ;-) Would it be ok for you if I just move the English page back to the Elements name, where all the translations are? --Chaos99 07:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about the trouble I caused you. Language links are a bit of a mystery for me still. I have also been without internet access for a few days so have only just seen your message. I see that you have made the move which is just fine; I have now also adjusted Template:Data_types to link to this adjusted page. PeterIto 16:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth trying to worry too much about the tags which currently show up in taginfo as none of them are present in significant numbers. A couple days of mapping in an industrial area would dominate the usage of the tag.Pnorman 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I've seen that you have been involved in the public transport tagging rework. I have a question regarding the public_transport|platform. Since the beginning, it is assumed that the feature can be a node, a way or a closed way. My question is about the closed way. Can we not assume that a single closed way tagged as platform is always an area ? Is it possible that a linear feature (with a hole in the middle), serving the same station/area stop, is a closed way ? Do you know any example on the real world ? Or could we say that the loop is always joining several smaller ways. For me, the question is to say that the tag area|yes is unnecessary, or just added to help mapnik/osm2pqsql until they correctly assume that a closed single way is always an area. I think it is important that the tag area=yes usage is limited to features where the "closed way=area" assumption. Your opinion ? --Pieren 16:32, 7 May 2012 (BST)
- I would love if it closed platforms where treated as areas automatically. Please try to make that happen and then lets adjust the wiki. Until then it is important that people know they need to add an area tag. PeterIto 11:32, 8 May 2012 (BST)
Rampage on wiki categories
Hi ! I'm not against your mass categorising of wiki articles, but could you flag your editions as "minor" so that the watchlist and mail sending system be kept as quiet as possible ? sletuffe 13:55, 13 June 2012 (BST)
- OK, good point. Just so long as messing with categories is considered to be 'minor'. In some way I think it is major in scope. I will try to remember to use 'minor' in future. I was about to put a message on the talk:WikiProject Cleanup saying what I had been up to. PeterIto 13:59, 13 June 2012 (BST)
- Good thanks ! sletuffe 14:55, 13 June 2012 (BST)
I see you have taken initative to a WikiProject Marine and I hope that can help get a unified standard between the various marine tagging schemes. I have tried to document the INT 1 standard, see User:Skippern/INT-1 --Skippern 03:12, 1 September 2012 (BST)
Automated edits code of conduct page
This section discusses a change made to the Automated Edits code of conduct article.
What was the reasoning behind your recent change to Automated Edits code of conduct article?
Was it discussed anywhere?
- Is there any change to the policy? I can't see anything given that the lead sentence of the article includes the statement that the policy 'should always be followed'. For the avoidance of doubt I have changed that now to read 'must be followed at all times'. All I did with the edit you challenged was remove what I felt was an over-emphasis on the penalties of non-adherence in order to allow people to get to read the policies themselves without distraction. I think this has created a more balanced and useful article. PeterIto (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. The paragraph that I highlighted has been removed and the content was not added elsewhere. Unfortunately this is one of the problems with the wiki - content gets edited by well-meaning users and the original sense is lost. You felt that it was "was an over-emphasis on the penalties of non-adherence", but you did not discuss this change. SomeoneElse (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am discussing the change with you now, not that I think there has any change to the policy, only in how it is presented on this page. What changes would you like to see? Is it simply to add something along the lines of, 'and if you don't follow the guidelines then you will be the subject of disciplinary action and in an extreme case banning'?
- Out of interest, are you aware of any cases in disciplinary action for automated edits (other than imports which I consider to be a special case)? If o then could you give me details?
- Finally, would it be more appropriate to move this discussion, which seems to relate to content, to the article's talk page?