User talk:Rtfm

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Redirect page
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Redirect to:


In Summary, there are 4 people which believe they are the "wiki police" and seem to think they ate the wisdom from a spoon :

Instead of "nit-picking" they could discuss their point of view (how the wiki should look like) with the rest of the community and summarize the outcome in a page which describes it. In case someone (in good faith) makes changes in the wiki against (harmonized) rules, it would be easy to send a link to this instead of writing personal opinions.
I consider it extremely problematic and not helpful to destroy overviews such as the one in guest_house which IMHO enables newbies (and owners of a guesthouse) to get an overview without crawling around in half of the wiki. Especially if there's no real alternative to it. There are thousand of active OSM contributors out there which would appreciate a better overview, but all the "self-defined sheriffs" do seems to be destructive. Also see the article a former enthusiastic OSM member wrote : "Why OpenStreetMap is in Serious Trouble".


Hi Rtfm,

I have moved the feature documentation pages to our user namespace (another user moved them to the Proposed namespace later) because the proposal of that tag is not accepted and most people think that this tag should not be in OSM because it is not verifiable (you participated in those discussion in March and Octoer 2017 on the Tagging mailing list). The lack of an accepted proposal and that lack of verifiability was the reason why I removed motorcycle_friendly=* from all wiki pages where it was mentioned (except its documentation page and the proposal itself).

I hereby ask you acknowldge the decision of the majority and revert your revert of my deletions. --Nakaner (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In addition to stop your edit war, I kindly ask you to control your language, and stop calling actions of users that act in consensus with the community, after long and detailed discussions, with correctly attributed reasons, as 'vandalism', as you did here in the wiki, and here in a mailing list. --Polarbear w (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice example. "consensus with the community, after long and detailed discussions" is just ridiculous looking at this [1] discussion, could you please explain where's the "consensus of the majority" ? I also asked Nakaner on the discussion page of the (original) Wiki page to explain why he thinks the deletion is necessary (and the "majority" there were max. 3 people) and got no answer. I wouldn't call this a democratic decision, And by the way, the definition for "vandalism" is "Action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property" [2]. What do you think of this Any_tags_you_like#When_to_create_a_proposal definition ? rtfm Rtfm (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Please point me to all postings in favour of your tag. Please revert your edits as I asked you to do if you are unable to give links to postings by at least three different users. I won't revert them myself, I will ask a sysop to do the job because you would just continue an edit war with me. --Nakaner (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Just for reference, Frederik Ramm, who is also a member of the Data Working Group, has posted a statement about the two tags in question on the tagging list. --Polarbear w (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, already replied. The reason for the removal from the wiki remains still unexplained. To make the question clear : What is the motivation / purpose of these activities ? user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
"still unexplained" - see Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Just ridiculous : "Who is a motorcyclist" ?. You could also ask "when is a building ruined". Obviously he didn't read the wiki description "motorcycle_friendly" was not described as a "feeling" or "rating", but with obvious motorcycle related services. user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


Please, be aware that well-meaning edit, even ones that you disagree with is not "vandalism".

Also, you may be unaware about this but [sockpuppetting] (creating online identity used for purposes of deception) is considered as a Very Bad Thing To Do. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

In other words: RTFM Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I assume terrorists would also call themselves "well-meaning" in their point of view. Please explain why you think this is well. Please also consider that Defamation is also a "very bad thing". user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

cosmetics:type=* etc.

You added cosmetics:type=*, cosmetics:sales=* and lots of other tags today to Tag:shop=beauty. However these tags do not appear in the database or are rarely used. I doubt that the vast majority of the people who participate in tagging discussions recommend their usage. Wiki pages in the main namespace should only mention tags which are in use or have an accepted and valid proposal (you should know that already but I mention it here again). Could you please either point me to a proposal with a valid and fair voting about these tags or remove them until 2018-02-28 20:00 UTC? --Nakaner (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add that you already added these tags as "Proposal" to the main page in Oct 2017, where I had removed them for the same reason as Nakaner mentions above, and referred you to the discussion page. Instead of discussing them, you re-added them to the page, which I consider an edit war. I was hoping that after recent discussion with the Data Working Group, you would stop such edit wars, and stop adding elements to the documentation that are not used, not needed, and/or not verifiable. --Polarbear w (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

discussion invitation

Can you respond at ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, missed this one, does this answer your question ?
In other words: there were several attempts to clarify this via mailing list, but no constructive result. Instead of preventing development, try constructive input as an alternative. user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

General advice

I would reconsider your username and I would strongly reconsider linking to "read the fucking manual" Wikipedia article in your discussion page. This kind of comments is justifiable only if you are expert in some topic and other are asking for free advice, without any effort on their side - and even then it is quite hostile.

In other situations it is just hostile and in addition you claim to be entirely aware about situation, effectively asking to not give you any benefit of doubt. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

page blanking

Please, stop blanking I am not sure why you are so determined to remind everybody about it - I suggest to move on and stop reminding everybody by erasure attempts Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Look who's talking... Who destroyed this page without discussion on the mailing list ? And making wrong accusations ? There were already several translations, so obviously there were people who found it useful. AFAIK there's no rule how many edits a user needs to have done before voting for a proposal. And in general, a proposal is just needed in case it affects other interests Any_tags_you_like#When_to_create_a_proposal. So what is your interest except playing sheriff ? user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
"Who destroyed this page without discussion on the mailing list" - from looking at it seems to be done in and Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


Im pretty sure the wiki isnt suppose to be a repository of brand information thats not related to OSM or mapping in anyway. There's millions of other sites for that. OSM is not a product database either (there was a thing about listing specific product inventory in stores a while back that was rightly knocked down). Anyway, the brand key is also not for the purpose of listing every possible product a place might sell. Its also stretching the definition of a tag to say brand=Harley-Davidson is a defacto tag in the first place. There are no "defacto" name tags. Therefore, im going to request the page be deleted, along with other motorcycle brand tag pages you created, and Im also reverting your edit on the brand page about motorcycle shops for good measure also). Feel free to report me to an admin if you have an issue with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

If you're only "pretty sure" you should possibly discuss that on the mailing list ?
The current documentation should then be enhanced to be sure :
rtfm Rtfm (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Really? That's pretty funny advice coming from you. You must be one of those people that go off about how bureaucracy and rules are BS only when other people expect you to follow them, but then expect everyone else to do everything "proper." Don't expect other people to follow standards you have no respect for. Follow your own critism of others and don't "Insist on doing everything through channels."
Anyway, its not like if I request the pages be deleted the admin can't figure it and just not delete the page if your correct.
Btw, the bad thing about the whole "ignore all rules" thing is that if you apply and push it, it can be used against you since you set the precedence. So, someone can easily create new tags to replace yours, then spread them around and retagged your tags with them. Then what? You can't cry foul or report them not following the rules (Well, you could but it would be massively
disingenuous and backfire misserably). That's why its better to have rules. Maybe it doesn't go your way all the time, but then when it does someone can't come along and derail things as easily without there being serious consequences. That's the trade off of "channels", and the other things you have problems with. They keep this from being complete anarchy (Adamant1)
I'm glad you seem to understand my sense of humour ;-)
Regarding the "democratic tools" within OSM I think there should be a "technical and organizational update" to include the meanwhile more than 5 Million contributors (which are possibly not willing to follow all mails or to edit page code in case of proposals). The current implementation is IMHO a little "eighties", may have worked when there was just a small number of participants. Currently not very democratic as only suitable for nerds and similar people.
rtfm Rtfm (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I mostly agree. I got a good amount of condemnation from some of those types a while back when I dared to suggest that voting on proposals was outdated and not popular anymore, but it is what it is. Know matter how much I might hate the protracted procedures and having to deal with a bunch of people to make simple changes, which I totally do, its how things are and its better then anarchy, or for that matter authoritarian rule of these things. Which I have heard suggested and would make it impossible to change anything). The reality is that the more OSM grows, the more restrictive it will be because they have a vested interest in keeping things stable. Ultimately we are either forced to work with it on their terms or hasten it through our disobedience. Its your choose which one you want to do, but I rather air on the side of the caution with the believe that it will buy some time before the crack down.
There will also always be the few elite, in crowd, users who think their opinions are supreme and have the clout to push things in the directions they want. It might be extremely annoying and stifle progress in a lot of cases, but its just something you have to deal with along with the other mishegoss. Such is life. Whatever the case, I'm still against your tagging scheme. So I'm going to do what I can to voice my opinion against it and also deal with edits to the wiki that don't stay within the rules. I'll pass on participating in the tagging mailing list to do it though ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


If your going to push your tagging scheme everywhere at least don't use tables and explain what the hell your tags mean and how they are used, because as you currently do it is pretty confusing. "services" as a section heading without a further explanation is nonsensical. Also leave out the extra "use" section and whatever the other one is. They are both spammy and again don't make sense within the contexts of the articles. If its a section on "use" it should tell how the tag is used, as in how to map it. Which is the purpose of this wiki. Not how to show the tag on some map app. Finally, don't create internal links to articles that just link to the same page the link is on. Its really dumb, miss-leading, and a common tactic used by shills on Wikipedia to make their fake articles look more notable than they are (which I'm sure you know and is the reason your doing it). Btw, don't edit war people for putting stuff you don't like if its true. If your going to decry things not being "democratic" on here, don't act so unilaterally and respect other people's opinions. The general opinion by other users is that your tagging scheme is trash and that you should't push it in the disingenuous way you do. That's democracy. Suck it up and deal with it, or remove the mention of its importance on your talk page. Nothings worse then that kind of hypocrisy. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, perhaps some "internal links" could illustrate that ? With "don't use tables" I assume you mean this useful wiki function ? Taginfo/Taglists#Embed_tag_lists_in_this_wiki RTFM Rtfm (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


Don't engage in an edit war and accuse me vandalism. If you have a valid argument for why the sections that I said were not relevant to the article state it in the talk page and have a discuss about it instead of just reverting me. I think my edits were 100% valid. As I said, the "use" section should be about how to use the tag, not on how to find it in mapping apps. I also have every right to add the alternative for motorcycle:clothes and to fix your links that don't go anywhere. As Mateusz Konieczny has a right to mention the low use and none wider acceptance of your tagging scheme. Either be civil, discuss things, and don't try to own articles. Otherwise, I'll report you to an admin or the DWG for edit warring. See

When we're already talking about "low usage", isn't it better to let the usage be counted automatically ?
And could you please explain why clothes=motorcycle should be better than a namespace ?
Regarding the usage topic I partly agree, this should be in a section similar to Comparison_of_Android_applications, but with the supported POIs shown such as in OsmAnd#Examples_of_OSM_POI_categories_supported_in_OsmAnd. If you got a good idea how to design such an overview, I'll be glad to delete the info on the motorcycle page and to link to the other one instead. Rtfm Rtfm (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

shop=street_vendor spam

Please stop linking this specific shop everywhere. What is the point of linking it from say ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say a greengrocer got a typical street_vendor background :
IMHO related articles in the wiki should be linked ?
Strongly related ones, not everything mildly related. And especially adding description of weird alternative tagging schemes on pages documenting established tagging is a poor idea. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop spamming

Inventing new tags is OK, using new tags is OK, documenting new tags is OK and desirable.

But linking your tag that is barely used everywhere is an unwelcome spam.

Please stop doing that Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no clue which tag you're talking about, got it something to do with this list ? user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
LOADING TAG LIST... (If you do not see this tag list, you need to enable Javascript)
In this case - yes, though problem is more general. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Is it to complicated to just tell me what you mean by "linking your tag that is barely used everywhere" or is it a tactic to stay incredibly vague ?
See "it is desirable to have objective criteria for tagging" - the same IMHO applies to the wiki structure and contents. In case there's "objective criteria" which I didn't respect, just send me a link to it. user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Tag that is rarely used (Key:dinner, Key:stove, Key:balcony, motorcycle_friendly=yes) should not be linked from pages describing tags that are actually used. It is OK to link and describe actually used and useful tags Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
ROFL. And how should they get used if they are hidden ? Please send me a link to the page which describes how many usages are necessary to document a tag. Dinner is just a (logical) completion to breakfast and lunch, stove to fireplace / washing_machine etc., balcony to terrace. All the tags had already be used and weren't "invented" by me. This should ease the overview for others to avoid they need to search in the wiki (or taginfo) for every single option. That's just time consuming and annoying. I'm sorry, but I can absolutely not understand the "logic" you're following. Seems you just want to avoid an overview for new users. So please help everybody to save time and send me the link to the wiki rules which prevent overview tables with useful tags. user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
By the way, may you tell me whether all the values on tourism=camp_site are often used ? (Just an example that your argumentation is absolutely unlogical and therefore the whole fuss not justifiable). user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Fundamental communication problem

From reading this discussion page (and other discussions about your changes), I get the feeling that there is a fundamental communication problem at work here.

That you think those people on your internet pillory at the start of your discussion page are acting in bad faith and want to destroy your work by constantly nagging about your well-meant attempts to harmonize tagging practices and document how to tag things.

I can understand if you get defensive about and insinuate that people apparently questioning fundamentally how you work, mean you harm. It is only human to react this way if things get personal. So, the key is to not get personal but instead always communicate in a factual and polite way. In fact, collaboration at such a large scale as OSM is only possible if we uphold a certain code of conduct. So, I'd like to kindly ask you to remove this internet pillory and adhere from personal attacks in the future. The same of course holds true for your "adversaries", the tone really made a turn for the worse on this page, from all parties. People can get banned over unacceptable communication behavior, not only vandalism in wiki or the map.

A reminder to anyone reading this: We are all pulling together here, and we can assume that all of us have good intentions moving forward with OSM, so quarrel and disregard for another would only be a really good way to sabotage ourselves.

That being said, the fundamental issue you are reproached for again and again by different people, is, basically, you skipping the rules, the democratic process: Disregarding failed proposals, documenting new features and attributes without prior discussion or proposal. We had a chat about this via some private messages on in autumn 2018.

I want to suggest to you that before continuing to edit the wiki in controversial ways, try to seek peace with those complaining first by politely discussing in general what is the problem with the current practice and how to come to terms. This requires of course that Mateusz Konieczny, Nakaner etc. are willing and able to discuss it in an equally civil way. I have worked with Mateusz Konieczny closely before and I experienced him as a very precise and considerate person, so I have no doubts in that at least he would be able to, given a nonviolent precedent.

Let this section be a starting point for this. Alternatively, talk to each other in private, but please do! I am sure what you told me in the private messages back then is something he/they can very well empathize with --Westnordost (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree there's obviously a communication problem. But there's also a lack of standards when a tag may be documented. And I got a problem when people say "not like that" but not provide an alternative how to solve it instead. user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"Pseudomoves" of pages

I just bumped into a page update of Key:bbq=yes commented with page moved from value=yes to bbq, taglist added. It looks like you copied over the content and changed the redirects, is that correct? If yes, I would prefer if you would use move when performing page moves. You can find it below More v. This will keep the page history together and also enables moving back in most cases. Thanks for consideration. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 21:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, didn't know this menu user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi, there is a problem with JA:Tag:bbq -- it should be a key, not a tag page, but JA:Key:bbq already exists. Thanks! --Yurik (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this was a mistake, but I didn't know how to remove the page. It may be deleted. user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Zero use tags

Please, do not add description of unused or barely used tags on pages describing other tags. If you want to propose/document the, please create a new separate page Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)