User talk:Polarbear w

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Religious landuse

... translating a wiki page for a tag used almost exclusively on Poland: landuse=religious.

(moved arguments to the tag talk page)


(moved to PoW talk page)


Danke für Korrigieren, ich habe es in einer Tabelle gezählt, aber beim Textimport war noch "erst ab 13. Zeile eingestellt". Sinnvollerweise zählt man am Besten aber im Quelltext die Vote Templates. Ich dokumentier das mal unter Template:Proposed_feature_voting/doc.--Jojo4u (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ja genauso habe ich es gemacht: cat bla |grep '{{vote|yes}}' |wc

Amenity Hospice

Hospices are not the same as nursing homes. If people are tagging hospices with the suggested social facility tagging they are mistaken. SK53 (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

So of course you can make a separate sub-tag: social_facility=hospice. Could you explain where you see the differences (i.e. not a special case of nursing)?--Polarbear w (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

healthcare hospice

(moved to Talk:Key:healthcare#healthcare:_hospice_and_other_nursing_facilities)


You changed the wiki on village_green by removing (not moving) the pictures I had included to clarify the mis-uses of that tag. But you didn't edit my text where I point to those pictures. You'd better change that as well to keep the wiki correct. In the future I highly appreciate contacting me before you remove something I have added. --Marczoutendijk (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing was removed, the pictures were moved to the talk page. Thanks for the hint, I have now moved (again, not removed) the paragraph into a section about the controversy about this tag. --Polarbear w (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "move" but did not say whereto! Hence the misunderstanding. It's fine with me where they are now.--Marczoutendijk (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The history comment says: "move example pictures ... to discussion" where discussion was to mean the talk page, which is labelled "Discussion". Probably saying "discussion page" would have been clearer, thanks for the hint. --Polarbear w (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

old_name:date tag

Can you look at ? I see that you created this page (thanks!) but I have trouble with guessing meaning of one of tags documented there Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

See response there.--Polarbear w (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


See, this is exactly what I am talking about, with your attitude etc. You wait a month and then conveniently revert me when we are in the middle of talking about it and I call you out on again. Its like your just doing to draw me out and piss me off. Otherwise, why do it? I said multiple times that more people agreed that pages could be requested for deletion then didn't and that multiple moderators said not to revert me invalid reasons. Saying your doing it because "many people" said so when there was just you and two other people versus way more on my side is exactly that. Its ridiculous and really disingenuous to sit there and quote the rules to me and cry foul about none civility while on the other hand you ignore the rules, act uncivil toward me, and ignore any view opposes your own. I gave you plenty of examples of people who disagreed with you on my talk page and you choose to ignore it. I'll act civil toward you on the Github page in order to get things done, but I'm not going to be pushed around by you or have my edits reverted just because you don't like them. So the next time you do it I'll get the DWG involved. In the mean time, I refer you to SomeoneElse's comment on the bottom of his talk page in reference to Verdy_P doing the same thing you are. There's also, Lyx's talk page where he tells Mateusz Konieczny not to revert me. The two people in talk mailing list that said it was ok for me to request pages be deleted, and EzekielT's comments on my talk page about it, which you read yourself. I'm perfectly fine escalating this crap to the DWG if you want me to. I could make a pretty case due to the timing that your just doing it to be petty to. I reported Verdy_P twice after he pulled the same crap it didn't go his way. I'm sure it won't go your way in this case either. Verdy_P just got permanently blocked for edit warring. So they take this kind of thing pretty seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamant1:: I knew Polarbear w would strike back! I reverted the edit, though, as I've already archived the page at User:EzekielT/deleted proposals.
@Polarbear w:: you probably should respond when someone's complaining about you on your talk page... You do want to explain yourself, don't you? — EzekielT (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@EzekielT - I have given up analysing long unstructured essays that are often a stirrup of semi-truths and thus might lead to wrong conclusions. In my experience they typically do not look forward and do not contribute to a conclusion. --Polarbear w (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


Hallo, danke für deine Korrektur auf meiner neu angelegten Hospiz-Seite.Ich habe gestern zum erstes Mal ein Hospiz gemappt und bin daher noch recht neu auf dem Gebiet. Daher hab ich auch gleich ein paar Fragen an dich: Ist das Taggingschema Tag:amenity=hospice veraltet oder ist es gleichwertig zu Tag:social_facility=hospice? Ich habe mir das Ganze mal auf Overpass Turbo angesehen und es scheint ja für keines einen Konsens zu geben. Weißt du da etwas drüber? Liebe Grüße Raubraupe 16:35, 22.10.2018 (UTC)

Hallo Raubraupe, es gibt in OSM die neuere Philosophie des strukturierten Taggings, und die des alten Duck tagging. Die Struktur mit Haupt- und Untertag hat den Vorteil, dass man beim Auswerten der Daten sofort sieht, dass es sich um eine soziale Einrichtung handelt, und nicht um einen Papierkorb, der ja auch einen amenity=* key hat. Das Taggen von Hospiz wurde vor einem Jahr ausführlich diskutiert. Da es einige Kollegen gibt, die sich gegen den Begriff des Veraltens aussprechen, habe ich auf der Feature-Seite diplomatischerweise beide Versionen dargestellt. amenity=hospice stagniert seit der Diskussion, während social_facility=hospice schnell angenommen wird. Tag:amenity=social_facility wird in Carto gerendert. --Polarbear w (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)



I've noticed your edit here. What's with Tag:area:highway=footway recent expansion? Is Key:area:highway an approved feature now? I'm trying to figure out the best tagging approach for areas such as [1], [2]. Ryūkotsusei (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Tagging any highway (mapped as a closed way) with area=yes has a different meaning than drawing its shape with area:highway=*. Tagging area=yes implies omnidirectional routing to all ways connected at its boundary, while area:highway=* is not used for routing at all. It is a method of some people interested in micromapping and makes little sense on an isolated object only.--Polarbear w (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Dear Polarbear w,

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)



Where was the discussion on the proposal to add the three age categories, nursery=yes, preschool=yes and after_school=yes?

It's advisable not to use the word 'recently' in the wiki. With the passage of time it becomes increasingly innacurate. Always best to add a specific date. --DaveF63 (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Replaced 'recent' with '2016', thanks. Discussion was in various German OSM channels in German language. Please note the section describes the situation in the DACH countries. --Polarbear w (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki page highway=track


I recently noticed that the definition of highway=track was changed on 4 Nov 2014 by you from:

"Roads for agricultural use, forest tracks etc.; usually unpaved (unsealed) but may occasionally apply to paved tracks as well".


"Roads for mostly agricultural use, forest tracks etc.; usually unpaved (unsealed) but may occasionally apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitable for two-track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps. "

This change contains an aparently tiny, but important modification in scope from: "acricltural, forestry, and similar roads" (this would include some roads that are neither agricultral nor forestry) to: "roads with mostly forestry and acgricultrual use" (this would exclude any roads that do not have any forestry or agricultrual use)

My question is, whether this rewording was intentioanally excluding roads that are similar to forestry and agricultural roads, or whether this was not intended. The reason I am asking is, that I live in an area with a large number of highway=tracks that look like agricultural and forestry roads but are not. In fact many are exclusively waterway maintenace roads. In addition we also have "tracks" that are exclusively destined to recreation (hiking, running, bicycle).

If there was some discussion at the time in some mailing list I would appreciate if you could point me to it.


Padova, Italy

I don't see the change as narrowing the definition, in contrast the intention was to make other uses more prominent than in "etc". The 'mostly' was meant to allow other similar uses (your waterway maintenance would be a good example). Would you have a better term? As for the exclusive sportive uses, there are other tags, so you cycle on a highway=cycleway, and you run on a leisure=track. --Polarbear w (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

highway=footway | onArea=yes

Hi Polarbear w, I saw that 2 years ago you set onArea to 'yes' on the tag highway=footway. But this value is still 'no' for other languages (ex: FR:Tag:highway=footway) and in this page Key:highway#Paths also. So if you are OK, can I set all those values to 'yes' in the differents pages? Have a nice day --Binnette (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably I only changed that for languages I speak, so feel free to follow in your language. --Polarbear w (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging a user

To ping a user on a talk page, please use the {{Ping}} template. Otherwise, the user you're trying to contact may not see your message, since not everyone automatically puts every page they edit on their watchlist. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this draft page still needed - do you still need it or is it OK to blank/delete it? It is listed in maintenance categories, for example Category:Tag and key pages with missing images Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

blanked for future tests.


I've rewritten the second paragraph of because "semiColon Separated Values (CSV)" was just utter bobbins - maybe it was a translate fail from another language into English?

Thanks for letting me know.

However, much of the rest of that page is still rubbish. For examples, it makes no sense to suggest a tag such as when no-one uses that tag.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeoneElse (talkcontribs)

Don't blame me on that, the funny library books example was introduced 2012 by Achadwick.