User talk:Regenpfeifer

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Qualitätsicherung

Acces Tagging

Ryquaza hat mich auf ein Taggingfehler aufmerksam gemacht.

Mit access=agricultural (worauf du es jetzt geändert hattest) dürften z.B. Fussgänger und Radfahrer auch nur zu landwirtschaftlichen Zwecken dort entlang ;-)

Aufgestelltes Schild:

Verkehrszeichen: 260 Verbot für Kraftfahrzeuge (Krafträder, auch mit Beiwagen, Kleinkrafträder und Mofas sowie sonstige mehrspurige Kraftfahrzeuge) mit Zusatzzeichen 1026-36 landwirtschaftlicher Verkehr frei.

Tagging:

Das wäre dann motor_vehicle=agricultural (ohne weitere Access-Tags).

Das Zeichen 260 entspricht also unserem motor_vehicle=* (ohne Zusatzzeichen dann motor_vehicle=no) und das Zusatzzeichen 1026-36 "Landwirtschaftlicher Verkehr frei" *=agricultural, was dann zusammengesetzt motor_vehicle=agricultural ergibt.

Links

Landkreis Miltenberg Status Wanderwege

DE:OSMC_Reitkarte#Wandermarkierungen_direkt_per_Tag_steuern

DE:OSMC_Reitkarte#Tagging

http://www.wanderreitkarte.de/dir_de.php

Karte zeigt Internetlinks

Karte zeigt Briefkäste, Telefon und Post

Query-to-map zeigt hier z.B. Due to changes in Query-to-map this Template does not work anymore. You can use Template:Osm-query2. Please replace or delete this use of Osm-query template. [ dead link ]

Wanderwege

Relation Ref Name, Verlauf Zeichen Status Länge Bemerkungen
relation 276065 Einhardweg Symbol RP einhardweg.png km
relation 181038 Main-Taubertal Jakobsweg ?? Mapper: Rosty

Jakobsweg von Miltenberg nach Rothenburg

Foto mtt jakobsweg.jpg km
relation 33360 Limeswanderweg Schwäbischer Albverein

Anschluß an Odenwaldklub HW 37 in Osterburken

Symbol Odw HW37.svg km
relation 151286 Panoramaweg Taubertal

Rothenburg ob der Tauber - Freudenberg

Panoramaweg Taubertal Symbol.png 129 km
Relation Ref Name Symbol RP spb .png Status Länge km Bemerkung

Straßenliste für Hausnummernrelationen in Großheubach

Relation Straßenname Länge Letzte Bearbeitung Status Bemerkung
156395 Beim Trieb
156751 Hauptstraße




wiki:sybole

NW Rot NW Blau NW Schwarz

Symbol RP spb 5.png

Symbol RP spb 5a.png

Symbol RP spb 5b.png

Symbol RP spb 5c.png

Symbol RP spb 5d.png

Foto RP NW rot 1.png

Foto RP NW rot 2.png

Foto RP NW rot 3.png

Foto RP NW rot 4.png

Foto RP NW rot 5.png

Foto RP NW rot 6.png

Foto RP NW rot 7.png

Foto RP NW rot 8.png

Foto RP NW rot 9.png

Foto RP NW blau 1.png

Foto RP NW blau 2.png

Foto RP NW blau 3.png

Foto RP NW blau 4.png

Foto RP NW blau 5.png

Foto RP NW blau 6.png

Foto RP NW blau 7.png

Foto RP NW blau 8.png

Foto RP NW blau 9.png

Foto RP NW schwarz 1.png

Foto RP NW schwarz 2.png

Foto RP NW schwarz 3.png

Foto RP NW schwarz 4.png

Foto RP NW schwarz 5.png

Foto RP NW schwarz 6.png

Foto RP NW schwarz 7.png

Foto RP NW schwarz 8.png

Foto RP NW schwarz 9.png



Symbol RP m1 kwr blau.png http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/6/65/Symbol_RP_m1_kwr_blau.png

Symbol RP m1 kwr gelb.png http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/28/Symbol_RP_m1_kwr_gelb.png

Symbol RP m1 kwr gruen.png http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/a6/Symbol_RP_m1_kwr_gruen.png

Symbol RP m1 kwr pink.png http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/a6/Symbol_RP_m1_kwr_pink.png

Symbol RP m1 kwr rot.png http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/8/89/Symbol_RP_m1_kwr_rot.png

Symbol RP m1 kwr schwarz.png http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/0/09/Symbol_RP_m1_kwr_schwarz.png

OSM Composer Wegfarben Osmc wegfarbe blau.jpg Osmc wegfarbe gelb.jpg Osmc wegfarbe gruen.jpg Osmc wegfarbe rot.jpg Osmc wegfarbe schwarz.jpg Osmc wegfarbe .jpg

Radwege in und um Großheubach

Name, Darstellung, Stand Länge Eingetragen Relationsnummer
D5 Fahrradweg Saar-Mosel-Main 29.07.2009:

698,96 km / 42 Segmente

relation 31973
D9 Fahrradweg Weser-Romantische Straße 29.07.2009: 1164,48 km / 81 Segmente relation 16809
R1

Landkreis Aschaffenburg

17.08.2009: 34,39 km / 8 Segmente relation 14337
R3

Landkreis Aschaffenburg

17.08.2009: 51,7 km / 3 Segmente relation 7820
R8

Landkreis Aschaffenburg

17.08.2009: 37 km / 2 Segmente / 11 km Lücke relation 9000
R9

Landkreis Aschaffenburg

17.08.2009: 23,7 km / 1 Segmente relation 15327
Limes Radweg

Foto dt limes radweg.jpg

29.07.2009:

274,36 km / 32 Segmente

relation 2944
Liebliches Taubertal-Der"Klassiker" Fahrradweg 29.07.2009:

99,91 km / 10 Segmente

relation 36228
Name ..2009: , km / Segmente


Hintergrundfarbe
Grün
Gelb
Rot

Odenwaldklub

Hi, wie ich sehe bist Du auch mit Wanderwegen aktiv :-) Für den Odenwaldklub habe ich eine Übersichtsseite angelegt, vielleicht kannst Du ja was ergänzen. -- LosHawlos 20:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the author of image File:Symbol RP spb 96.png ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified March 2022}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.

Help

Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

(sorry if I missed something that already states license and source: I am looking through over 20 000 files and fixing obvious cases on my own, in other I ask people who upladed files, but it is possible that I missed something - in such case also please answer)

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the creator of image File:Foto RP NW schwarz 9.png ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ" or "this is map generated from OpenStreetMap data and SRTM data" or "map generated from OSM data and only OSM data" or "This is my work based on file -link-to-page-with-that-file-and-its-licensing-info-" or "used file downloaded from internet to create it, no idea which one".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you have taken then you can make it available under a specific free license (except some cases, like photos of modern sculptures in coutries without freedom of panorama or taking photo of copyrighted artwork).

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self|Regenpfeifer}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, August}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.

Help

Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

(sorry if I missed something that already states license and source: I am looking through over 20 000 files and fixing obvious cases on my own, in other I ask people who upladed files, but it is possible that I missed something - in such case also please answer)

--MissingImageInfoBot (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)