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".

1. I really don't appreciate being lumped in with the other users on your supposed "wiki police" list. In know way am I ideologically aligned with them in any way whatsoever, about anything. In fact, I have gotten in more then a few arguments with all three of them on multiple occasions and been unfairly attacked by them more then once. So, treating us as a group just because we all happen to have similar criticisms of your tagging scheme is massively disingenuous. We all have a different approach to this. I don't even agree with them on why your tags are problematic. Mostly I think they just need be clarified better and refined before being "foisted" on everyone else, and I've said so repeatedly. Ultimately, there's zero wrong with me or anyone else requesting that you clarify things and go through the proper processes. It's extremely rude and massively dishonest to claim us doing so is "nitpicking."
2. Using personal attacks or insults as a way to call people out are never a good way to resolve things. Know where have I or any of the other people on your list done that you. Doing so makes you actions seem even less justifiable. As the saying goes, "“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." All you have been doing is pounding the table and this is just more of it. Personal attacks are also against the rules.
3. If your in the right and we are just nitpicking as you claim, it should be pretty easy for you to make a clear case for why. I have to see you do that though. The only conclusion I can draw from your endless fist pounding and none sense is that your in the wrong and are just unwilling to admit it.
4. It's pretty ironic your going off about how we should discuss things with the community while you refuse to. You haven't even addressed the concerns any of us on your list have brought up. Let alone have you talked about any of it on the mailing list or anywhere else. All you have done is repeatedly said "do it this way." obfuscated, deflected, and made excuses when someone criticizes what your doing.
5. It's also pretty ironic that your citing a signal users blog post which is full unfounded claims that could easily be called "nitpicking" and don't represent the views of the community while faulting us for doing the same thing. On the one hand your fine personally making unilateral tagging decisions and quoting fringe, none representative, blog posts but then supposedly we are in the wrong when we do things. Even when it has been discussed by the community. You can't have it both ways. If your able to plaster your tagging suggestions all over the wiki without anyone agreeing to it then we are just as able to remove it without a long drawn out "community" process being involved. Otherwise, lead by example. Discuss your tags before suggesting them and respond to people's criticisms. Otherwise, you have no room to talk or leeway to point the finger at us. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC) 
O.k., I see this should be differentiated : You're another kind of "wiki police" than the others. More the "social education worker" with a disposedness to lengthy accusations without examples what you're talking about. And without referencing to answers like the below mentioned "There was an example of undiscussed change regarding shop=car which I mentioned twice on the mailing list". Instead of this again insinuate I wouldn't take part in the designated discussion process. And a kind of "sense of mission" similar to Jehovah's Witnesses (if you just repeat it often enough, it's getting true). (Sarkasm off) user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not the "wiki police" at all. This isn't a moral thing. Otherwise, instead of making vague accusations or personally attacking me point out a specific thing I have done that resembles me "policing" you or even comes close your spoon analogy. Your the one that keeps on others for not providing examples, yet ever message your written that I've seen is either extremely vague, needlessly sarcastic, or cites some irrelevant Wiki article (that usually undercuts your own argument). As far as your thing about the undiscussed changes to the shop=car wiki, I have zero opinion on that as I wasn't involved in it and didn't participate in the mailing list discussion. Which you know. I'm not here to defend other people's actions or explains action I have nothing to do with. Ask me something about an issue that I was actually involved in though and I'm 100% willing to discuss it. In the meantime, there's plenty of discussion pages where I asked you specific things that you have ignored, instead deciding to do this kind of personal, off topic deflection. For instance both my questions of how using ":" values doesn't cause the same exact problems you cite for why ";" values shouldn't be used instead. You also haven't responded to my points about the discrepancies in the motorcycle friendly votes. Especially your cognitive dissonance in asserting that voting is to obscure and cryptic for normal users to take part in while also claiming that all the votes from users with zero prior experience. Who's uneducated and incapable (according to your own logic) votes we should just accept. Both those things should be easy to answer. I don't give two whatevers about some choice quote from a Wiki article, that your probably taking out of context anyway, or some deflection about how there isn't a rule about it. I'm asking for your personal opinion on these things because your the one pushing them and claiming this stuff is OK. A few things are pretty clear at least, 1. You clearly don't take this seriously (resorting to personal attacks, sarcasm, deflecting, etc etc instead of answering simple questions) 2. You obviously could care less about other people's opinions (calling anyone who disagrees with you the "wiki police" etc). Neither of those are great. Personally, I've been pretty specific, kept away from personal attacks, and provided plenty of examples. You should do the same. Respond to my points, for example on the motorcycle friendly discussion page, in a clear logical way. Instead of just writing baseless diatribes about "policing" like your doing here. Otherwise, we aren't going to get anywhere and we will keep having problems. It's not that complicated. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


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)
"isn't it better to let the usage be counted automatically" The problem is that usage isn't an indicator of anything since it's pretty easy for a single to import a bunch of one tag quickly. Which is what it looks like happened with motorcycle:clothes. Otherwise, both would probably be extremely low. As there's probably not an actual need for the tag in the first place. Since motorcycle:clothes was artificially inflated and know one ever used clothes=motorcycle.
"could you please explain why clothes=motorcycle should be better than a namespace" Explain to me why a name space is better then clothes=motorcycle. The clothes=* tagging scheme has been around forever and has worked great without issue so far. Your the one proposing a new tag. So it's on you to prove why it's better then the established tag. It's not on everyone else to prove why the established tag should be used. That's the kind of backward reasoning people without a valid argument make. "I don't have to prove there's a god. You have to prove there isn't. Ha!!." Whatever. We could do that with anything and we would never get anywhere. Your the one pushing the new tagging scheme. Either make a good argument for why it's an improvement or stop pushing it. Period.
"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." Your the one that wants to show that information and thinks its useful to show. Know one else here does. So you design the way to make the overview not intrusive. It's not our job. Its the same as my point above. Anyone can't just come along and put whatever badly designed, not relevant thing in an article they want, expect everyone else to make it look good for them, and then refuse to have it deleted. Sorry, but that's not the way it works. There has to be some basic standards for what's allowed in an article or not. Before you moan about "well where's the rule then?" again, with some things it's just a given that they shouldn't be included or else you need serious community buying to do it. This is one of those things. Sorry, but that's life. Like I said above, either put the effort into getting other people on your side with this stuff or stop with it already. Those are really your only options. Otherwise, your going to keep getting the push back from everyone that you are and it will continue being a needless uphill battle until you cooperate with people. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 3 November 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)
This table is auto-generated. See Template:Taglist for a documentation on it.
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)

A few thoughts

While I don't think there should be a certain number of uses for a tag to be "documented" (as in creating a Wiki article for it), I do think there should be "some" usage of a tag before it can be listed in a table of additional tags on a main tags page. As

1. Through association it then looks like a good (or the only) add-on tag for expressing the existence of that object on the map when it might not be (in other words, there could very well be other, better, alternatives that people look into due to going with the "default")

2. By listing any tag regardless of usage pages could easily turn into an unmanageable list of none sense "brain stormed" keys that might sound good in practice, "because I thought of it and show me a rule saying I can't include it", but where know one else actually wants to use or cares about the tag. Which seems to be the case with a lot of the whatever:whatever tags you have come up with and added to main pages. Especially the more obscure ones where your the only one adding them to the map. Probably as a way to make them look "legitimate" when they aren't (for example see some of the "services" tags on the shop=atv page). As it is, main tagging articles are a "community" space. We all add those tags to the map and the tags documentation on those articles should reflect our collective opinions about how to use the tags and "supplemental" tags are best to add with them. So, there should be at least some "community buy in" with what your doing and there isn't. So it either shouldn't be done or done differently. Otherwise, there will always be resistance and undermining of what your doing, know matter how right you think you are about it (btw it's a hard lesson I've had to learn over the last few years. Not following it by "doing my own thing" has led to many missteps and me mostly being alienated from the community. Which hasn't been good. It's been a waste of everyone's time including my own and probably set things on OSM back to a degree that it shouldn't have).

3. there's potentially an endless amount of possible tagging combinations. Maybe there isn't an official rule, per say, about how many uses a tag has to have before being documented or included in lists of tags on main tagging pages, but I'm sure everyone including you would agrees there has to be some kind of content standards on the pages of widely used and accepted tags. Otherwise, it would be easy for the articles to get out of control by turning into a bunch of tables listing millions of the possible tags we could use (but probably shouldn't). Which ultimately just hurts the map and damages the ability of people to tag things on it correctly due to not knowing what is "good tagging" or not.

4. The whole point in main article pages is to be used for describing how to use that tag. They are not intended to be used as a "clearing house page" where every tag that might be semi-related to it is dumped. If you want to create lists of "possible" tags, create list articles for them like Wikipedia does and then maybe link to the articles with the list on the main tags page. That way the tables at least won't "flood" the pages. By doing that, you can also create subsections for each tag describing it, instead of expecting everyone to know what or how the tag is used just because you do, and people could also discuss each tags pros and cons on the list articles talk page instead of having to just be against all of them through conversations that take place on the main tags talk page or here. Where they really shouldn't be discussed because it just devolves into arguments over "rules" or whatever kind of deflection happens. At some point there should be some kind of discussion about if the tags you keep adding and promoting are actually worth using or not. Even if you don't think there should be a discussion about it. The fact is that your the main (only) person pushing the usage of these tags. Lay people will use whatever tags we (including you) recommend and endorse. So at some point talk has to go beyond "but, but, people use them" to if they are actually good tags to use or not, and there's plenty of other (probably better) possibilities out there. It might also be just as likely that these things don't even need to be tagged in the first place. Which could explain why some of them have such low numbers or no preexisting tags for them (not lack of exposer).

--Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Unless it would be easier to understand if you'd given some examples (probably by linking them).
Regarding "everyone including you would agree there has to be some kind of content standards" I totally agree. Especially regarding namespaces. There was an example of undiscussed change regarding shop=car which I mentioned twice on the mailing list. There was some reaction, but no action has been taken (up to now). I can't understand why a tag with 105 763 entries gets so little attention but some "fine-tuning" tags do. So I think the best example to show me this "discussion" thing works would be to take care about this tag. While doing that, a principle of namespace usage could be established "there has to be some kind of content standards" to avoid the same discussion with every new key (and especially a total mess as in the shop=car example. user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I thought I was pretty clear about my points, but maybe I wasn't. So, what exactly do you need an example of?
Regarding "I totally agree. Especially regarding namespaces." Know one that I have seen in these discussions is arguing against the practice of namespaces as far as it being "a system of tagging." The issue people have is with the specific tags you come up with and how you push them without discussion. That would still happening if they were "namespace" tags or not. It seems like you refuse to address specifics though and keep deflecting to "the system." It's not about the system. It's about your particular implementation of it.
In regards to "there has to be some kind of content standards" to avoid the same discussion with every new key", again your getting it wrong. Know one cares "new keys." They care about specific things you do with them on articles and how you treat them as more legitimate as they are. Anyone can use create a new key and use it on their own without any discussion being involved. The discussion comes into it when the person tries to enter that key into the "public sphere" as its widely accepted, on "community" ran and maintained pages. I'm not sure why you don't get that distinction, but if you had of just used the keys on your own without pushing them on everyone else there wouldn't have been a problem.
That said, for every (well most) widely accepted tag it does take some discussion and time. It's a slow process and takes community involvement, but there's good reasons for that. You can look through all the failed proposals to see where people have gone wrong with tags by not thinking them through properly, creating unnecessary duplicates, or by just creating tags that know one will use. There's never going to be a point where it's "name spaces are cool so lets just come up with whatever combinations of millions of name space things we can think of and plaster them everywhere" like you want it to be. There has to at least be some discussion on some level of which namespace values are worth using and which aren't, and as you've already been told multiple times by me and other users just mentioning a namespace key you plan to use on the talk mailing list in an un-related discussion doesn't cut it. You have to go through the proper process.
Like I said above, my guess is that most of the namespace keys you came up with are completely worthless and know one will ever use except you. Until they are widely used or you go the proper processes for them to be adopted though they shouldn't be mentioned everywhere like they are. In most cases just because we can do something doesn't mean we should, and I think that goes for a lot of your namespace keys. Maybe some of them are worth using, but you won't even have a discussion about it or let people figure out which ones. There's where the process comes in. As it currently is though, we are forced to throw the baby out with the bath water since your not proposing the tags probably. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, it would be easier with some examples (probably you understand it better as "it is desirable to have objective criteria" ?).". And it seems you didn't even have a look at the shop=car example (The first part of "Tags used in combination"). Also see "undocumented and formerly unused tags via preset without any discussion or proposal process is something I didn’t expect from the main osmf endorsed editor" ? user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Did you miss the first part of my message or are you just being obtuse on purpose. Like I said, "what exactly do you need an example of?" How exactly is your link to Verifiability related to the discussion? As far as the shop=car. I'm not sure what your deflection to iD Editor's mistake has to do with the value of your tagging scheme. Both can be crap. Something you come up with doesn't magically become fantastic because someone else flubbed up trying to do a similar thing. Like I've said already, instead of endlessly deflecting just state why your tagging scheme, and more importantly the individual tags, are better then what's currently being used or stop pushing them. It's pretty simple.
Btw, your tagging list link 404's. Which is fine, because I have followed all the discussions about iD Editor's mistakes (I probably know more about it then you do as someone who is a dev on multiple projects related to iD Editor, OSM in general, and therefore follows this stuff to an often nauseous degree. Like I said already, it's not relevant to your actions here or how you should remedy things by following the process. If your tagging scheme and the tags you push where really that great there would be know reason why you wouldn't just follow the procedure. Other people would be using the tags to, but they aren't. Even if you plastering them on every #R$% page you can. Think about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)  
Oh yeah, one more thing. If you bothered to read the When NOT to use semi-colons thing you would have noticed that all the same things apply for your name:space thing. "It is particularly important to avoid tags which define what an element is." That's exactly what your namespace tags do. "there are normally a couple of alternative approaches 1. Choose one of the values Take the overriding "primary" value, and go with that. 2. Split the element Separate things out into distinct features to allow them to be tagged separately with normal tags." Your name name-space tagging scheme doesn't do or allow for either of those things. So the same exact reasons you gave for why the semi-colon thing is wrong also apply to your own alternative. Ten bucks says you just ignore that and deflect by linking to some other irrelevant crap though. Christ this whole thing is ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

edit wars

Please, see with "There appears to be an edit war on this page. I have now locked this page against changes for 3 months; please use this time to discuss the topics that you are disagreeing about on the discussion page.". Please reply to discussion at bottom of Talk:Proposed features/motorcycle friendly/tag description rather than restart edit war Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Rtfm, I have seen you are reverting the reverts to the motorcycle friendly page. Some parts of this paragraph can hardly be questioned (e.g. that the voting wasn’t announced on the tagging mailing list), others are not completely proven (that some participants of the voting are sock puppets for example). From looking deeper into the case I agree that 12 out of 13 fake accounts seems too much, while it still is suspect that most of these people have been inactive or almost inactive apart from this voting. Do you admit some of those accounts have been created by you (or have been asked by you to create an account and vote in favor), or do you reject thoroughly this accusation?—Dieterdreist (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
None of these accounts have been created by me (except rtfm, of course) and I'm willing to take legal actions if this farce is going on. user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you know some of the people who have voted? —Dieterdreist (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
A bunch of Rtfm (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
sorry, but this confirms the sock-puppet-theory. These accounts may not have been created literally by you (and it was maybe not all those that have been claimed but just a “bunch”), but effectively these were people not involved with OpenStreetMap who have acted on your behalf. Also that the voting wasn’t announced on the channels where it should have, is a fact. —Dieterdreist (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Not so sorry on my behalf. What's the minimum amount of edits a user must have to vote ? Are there also any other limits such as age, nationality or similar ? Please also check the definition of Sockpuppet : pseudonym. These were people acting in their own interest as they would appreciate (the usage of) this kind of key. But they are not so keen on the usual kind of (theoretical) discussion here. And as long as the key isn't established they won't edit so much. Kind of a hen-egg problem, you see ? user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I welcome every contributor, but this is not what the voting process for new tags is about. In the end, the success of a tag can only be measured through its adoption, not through voting. Voting is about finding a suitable representation (which tags should exist and what do they represent). Having people vote which have no idea about tagging in general and about other tags and about the OpenStreetMap project in general, is not helpful because these people cannot assess whether a tag is suitable. It may not be written anywhere, but it can be seen by looking at the purpose of the process. This has nothing to do with discrimination on the basis of age or nationality. People who are not interested in discussions on tagging should not participate in such discussions (i.e., should not vote). —Dieterdreist (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I get your point. Transferred to a city this would mean those who aren't part of the council (discussions) haven't the right to vote in a referendum ? And this is a kind of "implicit rule" without a need to be defined ? And a member of the building yard should not ask them to participate in voting ? And those who infringe this "implicit rule" should be put to a pillory with a sign around their neck "guilty for voter fraud" ? user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
RTFM "I consider the voting system not as democratic as it requires a minimum of IT knowledge as of the handling." The difference IMO is between asking people who wouldn't normally vote, but know how to and are educated on the voting/tagging process, to participate in it and leading a bunch of completely illiterate uneducated voters by the hand to the a voting box so they can check a box for your initiative that they know nothing about. The latter is wrong, misleading, and exactly (if we take your word that they aren't shill accounts) what you did. It isn't any less wrong if it might benefit the voters to vote for the tag or even if you could make the argument that if they did understand the process etc that it was how they would have voted.
Your saying it takes special "IT knowledge" to vote that most people don't have. Including by your own standards the people who voted for the motorcycle friendly tag. But then your also saying that we should accept those incompetent (your standards) users votes "just because." You can't have it both ways by discounting the voting process as to obtuse etc when it doesn't favor the outcome you want, but then also accept it when it would benefit you. Let alone is it OK to have an extremely low or no standard of who can vote when it's your proposal. But then refusing to go through any other processes and criticizing them in any other situation, voting or otherwise, as you have done.
Btw, my standard would be that users who vote should at least come to the proposal organically instead of being "funneled" or coxed there by a user that wants to see their proposal passed (as is the case here). They should also have accounts on the main website. Which none of the users who I looked into had. If they aren't actual mappers (as these people weren't) there's zero legitimate reason for them to vote on a tag IMO. Even if there is no explicit rule about it (there should be one though). I see absolutely nothing wrong with a standard of "minimum knowledge and participation" to be able to do certain things that could potentially be detrimental if done wrong or that require a minimum of "community buy in" to be implemented. Ultimately voting should at least represent the wishes of the community (that's the main point of it). You can't say people with zero wiki edits and no OSM accounts are the community or that their opinions should be counted in that regard. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on shop=car article

I was pretty clear that I deleted the section because of the lack of neutral. It didn't have anything to do with "not getting it." Therefore, in response to your edit warring I rewrote and expanded the article to be more neutral and discuss the pros/cons of both tagging schemes. Ultimately, neither scheme is good IMO. Really, the car repair shop should just be mapped separately to abide by the One feature, one OSM element guideline. Which neither tagging scheme allows for. If you revert my edit again I will report you for edit warring. If there's something you feel needs more explanation feel free to add it, but I think how I rewrote it is a middle ground and allows people to choose the best option on their own. The other stuff about what iD Editor did etc is irrelevant, confusing. So I left it out as it doesn't need to be included as far as I'm concerned. Since I was able to explain things fine without it. At least I was willing to compromise by re-writing the section of the article in a way that gives equal weight to everything and doesn't favor one tagging scheme over the other. That's more then you can say. If you have any other problems with it going forward, start a discussing in the articles talk page about it. We should be discussing these things so we can come to an agreement on what's best for OSM tagging. Instead of everyone just working against each other or a single person's opinion winning out, when it might not be the best way of doing things. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for acting constructive, unless I don't get your logic at all. Where did you get the sentence >>"It is particularly important to avoid tags which define what an element is." That's exactly what your namespace tags do.<< from ? Certainly all the taggiung is about "what an element is". And your argumentation with One_feature,_one_OSM_element#One_feature_per_OSM_element is also "pro-namespace", as it avoids to have several shop types if the shop offers not just cars, but also repair and other stuff. See the example in the same wiki article ("instead of using the separate feature tag"). user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Totally. I got the sentence from the Semi-colon value separator article that you keep citing. It was in the second sentence of the "When not to use" section until December 7th when the user Mueschel removed it and added "On important "top-level" tags that define what an element is" to the top of the section instead. Its the second edit in the articles changeset history if your interested. I'm not really sure what to say about it now though. It's hard to make an argument based on how the defines things when people are chopping out important sentences from one moment to the next. I'd say my criticism of name space tagging in the situations where you use them still stand though.
They still have the same issues you rail against colon value separators for and that are listed as why they shouldn't be used. They don't allow for Choosing one of the values Your just throwing a bunch of values at the element to see which one sticks, even if there's zero evidence its actually useful to the map user (I.E. Taking the "mapping every blade of grass" approach). Instead of "Taking the overriding "primary" value, and going with that." Which will always necessarily come at the cost of not tagging the element with the none primary value (unless its mapped separately which again going with the name space doesn't allow for). Also, it doesn't allow for "splitting the element." My best example for that is your namespace tag for motorcycle parking "motorcycle:parking." Which has been added to a bunch of extremely large campgrounds at the cost of mapping the individual motorcycle parking objects, but its also an issue in the instance of shop=car where the car repair could be mapped separately but isn't if we are using your scheme. Noticing on the one element on OSM object page it says "if the building (or whatever) has a clear primary feature that can be said to contain the other features, the primary feature can be tagged on the building itself, and other features mapped inside the building perimeter. (Eg, a restaurant inside a hotel, shops within a shopping mall.)" Maybe the name space scheme works with that in some cases, just not in yours.
Your missing the important point that know one here is completely pro or con namespace or semi-colon value separator. They are in certain situations where one, the other, or neither works out. That's it. It's not a matter of pitting one tagging scheme against the other. Namespaces work great for mapping things like addresses or social media contacts where they can't be mapped as separate objects. They don't work good in situations where the object can be mapped separately though like with shop=car places that also have car repair centers that are different objects or in campgrounds that have a motorcycle parking area that should mapped separately. Whereas, colon value separators work great in situations where its not a top level tag like with the cuisine colon value tags, but not in situations where its at the cost of top level tagging not being mapped separately like with "amenity=library;cafe." Which 100% also largely applies to your usage of the namespace scheme. It largely depends on context. That's all the wiki or anyone here has said. Know where does the wiki say to completely toss out colon value separator tagging or that namespaces are always the better or best alternative. Maybe neither one. The only issue anyone has had is with your specific usage of namespaces over colon separated values and top level tagging schemes. That's it. Your particular usage of namespaces, which hardly anyone supports, is bad. Not the tagging scheme itself. I don't see how I can be any more clear about it.
Your missing an important part of the namespace article at the very bottom "it can be tempting sometimes to just namespace a key to avoid clashing with other data instead of trying to integrate existing schemes, this is bad habit. OSM is a multi-scheme database, which means that every tag relates to more than one scheme, more than one use of the data, and so it's important to integrate with other schemes already used to maximise the curation of the data." I don't know how that can be more clear either on why your "turn everything into a namespace tag" plan isn't a good idea and doesn't work in most cases that your trying to do it in. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Did you ever have a look at the bicycle namespace ? Or the "great new" one the ID admins introduced ? It's all namespaces, and I didn't invent them. But you continue writing novels on my page instead of investing your time to get this standardized. For an overview of common namespaces see Namespace_tag_overview. rtfm Rtfm (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I did. As I've repeatedly and you keep ignoring, I've read everything and I know this subject way better then you do. Like I've also said multiple times now, just because iD Editor introduced a bad tag doesn't automatically make your tagging scheme the best or automatic alternative. I'm getting sick of saying it. Also, I'm writing detailed explanations because if I don't you make accusations like you did in the shop=car changeset comment about how I "don't get it." You can't have it both ways where you accuse someone of knowing the details and then go off about message length them for presenting those details. Plus, every time I've tried to explain things simply you twisted my words around and miss quoted me. So...Both telling people who disagree with you on something that they don't know anything and decrying the lengths of messages is a pretty common tactic on here by people that have no better argument though. So, I'm not surprised you'd go there.
Anyway, back to the subject. Do you have an actual rebuttal to what I've written or is "I don't like your message length. Checkout this irrelevant Wiki page I created" it? As I keep saying and it seems like your intentionally ignoring, I have zero problem with using name spaces where they work. My issue is with the specific instances that you have decided to use them in. For the reason's I have repeatedly given and that you clearly have no rebuttal to. Your repeatedly attempts at keeping the topic away from your usage of the namespaces and attempts to make it about namespaces more generally proves you don't have an argument for why your in the right. I've clearly stated why I think your usages of namespace tagging is wrong in the particular instances that I've taken issue with, both in my message above and elsewhere. If your unwilling to address my specific issues and the specific examples for why namespace tagging isn't the best option in the specific instances that I've taken issues with it, I'm done talking to you about it. The same goes for the pros and cons of colon value separators or any other thing. I'm not discussing it unless your specific about it, stick to the subject, and actually respond substantively to my messages. If not, I'm done discussing things with you and we will keep having problems with each other on articles and elsewhere. If you want to have a discussion about standardization and the best way to do that, fine. Simply asserting that there's a need for standardization of everything when their might not be and that your way of doing it is the best way it also might not be isn't the way to go about though. I'm not just going along with "standardization" (I don't think your way of doing it is anyway) because you say to and I don't think anyone else is either. There needs to be a wider discussion about the best way to go about it first, that isn't just based on your personal opinions. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit waring in shop=rental article

What specific fact are you disputing about what I wrote in the shop=rental article that 1. Couldn't have been discussed before being deleted 2. warrants everything I wrote getting deleted and edit wared? If nothing else you should have at least added on to it instead of deleting it if you disputed something, but I think everything I wrote is worth mentioning in the article. Especially the mass edits and editing waring of an admin by you to make the boast the numbers of the *:rental tagging scheme. Along with rental=* being an already established tagging scheme that has/had higher numbers before you screwed with it. So, what exactly do you take issue with or are disputing about what I wrote?

@Rtfm:, what facts that you keep deleting in the shop=rental article are just "opinions"? You can't just claim something is an opinion as a justification for deleting another persons writing or for edit warring them. You have to say exactly what you think is opinion and discuss it. Especially since you edit warred me again after I started this discussion and didn't respond to it first. Your the one that's all about providing important details to mappers. If your not willing to discuss things, then everything you have deleted should remain on the page to do just that. Since it's 100% and relevant to which tagging scheme people should go with. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverts without explanations are not OK

  1. In you removed some content and gave a reson for that - this is 100% OK
  2. In this edit was reverted based on other reasons - this is 100% OK
  3. In this edit was reverted without giving any reason for that - this is not acceptable.

If you have no reason for doing edit, then please do not do it.

If there is conflict - please start discussion on the talk page of an article (or edit page and give an explanation on the edit comment).

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd also include in that. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, @Rtfm: it is inappropriate to mark edits as "minor" when they revert changes, e.g.: - perhaps you accidentally have your wiki settings such that all your edits are "minor"? Please check your preferences and fix this, so that other users will be notified about your edits when they change the content of a page. It is appropriate to use the "minor" edit setting when you fix a minor typographical error. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a description how "minor" is defined ? In general I think there should be a description about wiki pages standards. In case you know one, please provide a link. rtfm Rtfm (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Rental namespace tagging scheme question

Currently with 681 uses rental=yes is the most used rental=* tag. How would it work with the namespace in cases where either the person doesn't know exactly what the place rents (just that it does) or where they just don't feel like adding the extra details (there's no obligation they do)? Would it be yes:rental=yes? Object_not_specific:rental=yes? Rents_things:rental=yes? Things:rental=yes? Object:rental=yes? Personally, my money is on yes:rental=yes, because that's totally a "refinement" of the rental tag and follows the KISS principle (fyi, that was sarcasm). Maybe you don't have an alternative to the rental=yes tag because it just doesn't fit your belief system to have one ;) Although, I assume you have thought it through enough to have one. Since you've been pushing the tag everywhere, doing undisclosed mass edits of it, etc etc. It would be really weird if you didn't account for a basic thing like how to tag something as just yes when doing all that or coming up with it. So, I'd really like to know what your great idea/suggestion about it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

So you think all of this was me ? and probably also the other namespaces which are all built following the same principle, see Namespace_tag_overview ? This is for example from December 2013 :
Paris Tuileries Garden Facepalm statue.jpg user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I don't think all of it was you and know where did say that. It should be pretty obvious that a couple uses of a tag can be in existence before someone else comes along to evangelize its use and push it on everyone through mass-edits. 100% if it wasn't for your evangelizing and screwing with the shop rental tag the other tagging scheme wouldn't even be a thing right now. It wasn't in 2013 when your citing. Anyway, I didn't ask about scuba diving tags. I asked what the comparable rental namespace tag is to rental=yes. Which you know is different. If you don't have one, just say so. Save the deflection and needless sarcasm for someone else though. As I've said before, if you can't even answer simple questions about your tagging scheme, and it is yours, without deflecting or being sarcastic (which is all you seem to do), then 100% its not worth supporting. So, just answer the question. What's the comparable rental namespace tag to rental=yes? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

rental article revert

I updated the rental proposal to better define what the tag is for, I plan to do an RfC and vote for it soon. As such, in the meantime outside of the "see also" section the rental article should only mention things directly related to the tag. Therefore, a discussion of a competing tagging scheme, that's what it is since you have mass deleted instances of rental to things you have used it on, isn't appropriate in the "possible values" section. Again, the namespace isn't a possible value of rental= anyway its a competing scheme that leads to its removal. However, I have at least linked to your competing (?) rental article, that seems to be just a list of random tags with the word "rental" in it. Although I'm not really sure what purpose it serves aside form giving you an opportunity to falsely accuse me of vandalism. None the less, I linked to it anyway in the sake of fairness. Hopefully that satiates your apatite for edit warring for the time being. At least on that article. As I need it to be relevant to proposal and without any off topic cruft. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Claims of vandalism and personal attacks

Hello. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from personal attacks from now on as insinuating that people are dumb, internet troll, saboteurs is really against the spirit of OSM and its whole "assume good faith" thing. Also, falsely accusing others of vandalism on random articles isn't good either and shouldn't be done. Vandalism is a very specific thing and was not what I was doing. Especially considering I did my part to try and correct things through discussion, that you either refused to engage in or just used as a way to insult me. You can't just ignore discussions, insult the other user, and then call them a vandal just because you don't like their edit. If it is actually vandalism the proper thing to do is take it to an admin. With the thing your claiming was vandalism the admin that got involved didn't think so and sided with me. So, instead of making baseless claims everywhere, you should just leave it be. Otherwise, if you continue it and the insults I'll report you to an admin. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I would, if someone finally would tell me how to deal with |such situations without "feeding the troll" or accepting the "sabotage" User:Rtfm Rtfm (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Know ones going to tell you how to deal with it because its not a real problem. Its one you've completely made up because its much easier to invent a narrative that allows you to malign me or anyone else who comes along (there have been many) as a dumb person committing sabotage, then it is to take responsibility for your actions, discuss things, or compromise. The things you claim are sabotage and vandalism are 100% made up and caused by your disingenuous actions. As are the confrontations your constantly getting in with everyone, not just me. Which are also 100% on you and over made up, invented, none sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of see also tags on shop=motorcycle

Why exactly did you remove the links to the shop=scooter and shop=mobility_scooter pages from the shop=motorcycle article? This is getting extremely tiring.

Continued edit warring on shop=motorcycle

I'd appreciate it if you stopped deleting references to established tags. It's better to show what all the possible options are so people can decide what is best to use for their situation, instead of trying to whitewash references to perfectly valid tags. Your deletion of the clothes= tag from the page is a good example. It's more then established for use in that situation and is actually supported in apps. Whereas, your whole motorcycle:clothes=* thing isn't. Same goes for the rental=* tag. Claiming they are bad because they are old and using that as an excuse to remove them from the article is utter none sense. At least I'm willing to still have your tagging scheme in articles along with the other tagging options. Even if I think it's complete garbage. Whereas, I didn't even come up with the clothes or rental tags, they are used by many other OSM users. Who's tagging preferences deserve as much, if not more, representation then your utter trash "tagging schemes" do. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Rtfm, stop with the edit warring on shop=motorcycle. The clothes=* tag is more then established and so are the other ones. The edit warring isn't going to accomplish anything and it's just getting tiring. I reported you to Tigerfall for it. So hopefully it won't continue. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
So, are you going to compromise by not doing the edit warring or deleting establish tags that other people want listed in the articles? Like I've said, whatever mine and others opinions are about your tagging schemes, no one is trying to remove all references to them from articles like your doing. At least I'm not. The only way forward here is to allow for listing the tagging options, along with their pros and cons, so people can decide on their own what tag to use. Everyone agrees its the way to do things and its how every other tagging article not loosely related to "motorcycle tags" is written. I fail to see why you find it so unreasonable to do the same here. So, are you willing to be reasonable and compromise? or is this just going to continue pointlessly? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

shop=scooter deletion request

your baseless insults and accusations aside, what about a shop tag is "disturb a namespace"? There is no shop:scooter shop:anything namespace that it would be disturbing. So your deletion request doesn't make any sense. Neither does your claim that it is "disturbing name space based logic", what namespace based "logic" is it disturbing exactly and if it is, why wouldn't it also apply to the shop=ski tag that you created an article for, that has namespace tags you invented? Or do your criticisms just apply to shop tags I create articles for and not ones you do? It's pretty ridiculous to pick and choose what shop tags you think are acceptable to use based on some arbitrary thing, like that they are "disturbing a namespace" whatever that means. In that case, you could just invent a namespace for whatever you want and then claim all shop tags are bad because you say so. At least in the case where I took issue with the neutrality of your motorcycle tag overview article, neutrality is an actual thing and other users agreed with me. No one is going to agree there shouldn't be shop tags anymore because they don't follow "namespace logic." Not that shop=scooter does anyway though, even if it was an actual thing and not just something you probably made up just to be retaliatory. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, sure got your Way with the edit warring and other crap didnt you? And to think I'm suppose to be the dumb one here ;)

When to mark edits as "minor"

Perhaps you accidentally have your wiki settings such that all your edits are "minor"? Please check your preferences and fix this: click on "Preference", then on the "Editing" tab and uncheck the box that says "Mark all edits minor by default". It is inappropriate to mark edits as "minor" when they revert changes or when they make signicant changes to an article. --Jeisenbe (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This issue has not yet been addressed. Please do not mark your changes as "minor" when they make significant additions or subtractions from a page. --Jeisenbe (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rtfm: The change at Key:company, which effectively undid all changes on that page is definitely not minor (Special:Diff/1997399/1998320). Edits undoing changes should be never tagged as minor. If you are not sure, please do not tag any edits as minor. This pattern occurred multiple times recently (Tag:shop=trailer, Tag:amenity=music_venue). Please address this issue now. I will block you for a week, because this needs to change. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 12:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


Using redirects wrongly seems to be a repeated issues. So, when do you think it is correct and useful to use a redirect and when isn't?

Tantrum throwing

It's pretty clear you don't the patience or ability to interact with other users without getting upset and lashing out. It's seriously getting in the way of the quality of the Wiki. Both your tantrums, along with the repeatedly bad edits and edit warring aren't improving the Wiki any. Maybe you should take a break from editing for awhile. It seems like your way to personally invested in this. So, it might be a good idea to step back from it until you can handle things more appropriately. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

shop=motorcycle table

Its utterly pointless and just clutters the article to have a table for one type of tagging. Especially when 99% of what's in the table isn't helpful. I could give a crap about tables in other articles. Saying I can't make one article more easily readable because others aren't is circular deflective garbage. There's plenty of examples of tables in the wiki that add the other worthless cruft yours does. Maybe take an example from one of them, or better yet just skip the table. Its completely uncessary and doesn't add anything useful. Everyone knows what a damn tire looks like and what the tire means. Its not helpful to have a visual aid for things people aren't going to be confused about. Also, that table in particular is worthless because it just lists tags already listed in the article above it. You dont need to list the same tags multiple times in the same article. Its not helpful to anyone. Seriously.

That's your personal point of view. But if obviously the majority sees it as useful. I'd call that a "general agreement" or consensus. I already created a page about "general wiki principles" where it could be documented when to use a table and when not, but this has also be vandalised (by a redirect which points to a page which doesn't explain these topics) rtfm Rtfm (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Request regarding wiki discussions

As you might have noticed, I asked user Adamant1 to refrain from editing any pages they have edited between 1 and 16 April 2020, except for their talk page and my talk page. Additionally, I asked them not to comment on edits made by you and not to edit a page that you will edit, except for their talk page, until 16 June 2020.

I would like to ask you in turn, not to initiate any discussion with them for this time span, too. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 19:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your intervention, I will certainly avoid any confrontation rtfm Rtfm (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, looking at Talk:Tag:shop=vehicles, I see that you initiated exactly this kind of discussion I asked you to avoid. You wrote: But you both [Jeisenbe, Adamant1] seem to ignore this fact. I'm not sure about the reason, don't you map enuogh or is it an act of sabotage ? (insertion of user names for clarification) Your statement sounds provoking to me. This kind of provocation needs to stop. Please take a few days off from wiki editing and reconsider your statement. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 10:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
So how would you call it to sabotage nearly all my edits, for example the recent removal of a link to the opening hours tool ? I don't think it's appropriate that I need to stay polite if some users mostly act destructive. It's something else if it's just about point of views (regarding formatting of a page or similar) rtfm Rtfm (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Edits are not being sabotaged. I did not revert the edits which added the links to the external opening_hours tool, but merely removed the links and opened a discussion in the Talk page for the affected pages, as well as here (below). Another 2 users have agreed with me, both here and at another page. Sometimes we all make mistakes by adding or removing things from wiki pages without getting community consensus, so all of us sometimes have our edits changed or reverted. This happens more often if changes are made without discussing them first, or without checking first how tags are being used in practice. --Jeisenbe (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Exactly this "merely removed" is freakin' me out meanwhile. If there's no alternative which makes sense and there's no '"cludder" as of the information, either replace it by a better way to describe it or let the info in. But solely using the "Del" key as often as possible doesn't make the wiki more "readable" (unless I'd really appreciate it to be simple). Please discuss before removing things, if it's just as you don't understand the reason for the info. Especially in the opening_hours example : try to imagine your mum should understand it. It's similar to any user who just wants to edit his "own" data (such as a shop or restaurant). BTW: there were also users congratulating me for the tool link as it's helpful. And I'm not wondering that among potentional millions of users there might be some naysayers. If they are against, they should propose a better alternative. Just opposing is a no go rtfm Rtfm (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC).

Another example where you removed helpful info (and had no clue what you're doing) : --> since when do offices not have a reception ? rtfm Rtfm (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Opening_hours tool links

  • I don't think we should have a link to the opening_hours tool [3] on every shop page. Mappers can be expected to follow the link to opening_hours=* to learn about the format. Similarly, we don't give a long explanation about all the different Addr tags, or the different names tags, on each feature page. --Jeisenbe (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with User:Jeisenbe. --Nakaner (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Certainly the opening_hours page could be cleaned up alternatively. But affected shops (and similar) nearly don't got a chance to easily figure out how to edit their opening hours (at the moment). And as long as easy frontends (like are rare, there should be a possibility to check the syntax format without reading manuals for half an hour. That would raise the acceptance of OSM edits by those whose data is affected. rtfm Rtfm (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

please stop trying to hide your failed fraud

Your false redirect at EN:Key:motorcycle friendly (attempt to override Key:motorcycle friendly) is yet another attempt to handle a failed voting fraud. Please stop trying to hide this attempted (and failed) voting fraud documented at Proposed features/motorcycle friendly/tag description.

I would really forgot about this long time ago without your continued attempt to erase it, and everyone is doing sometimes stupid things.

Please, stop reminding everyone about this attempted fraud. Everyone will forget sooner or later, but reminding everyone about it will not help. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested ban

I opened requesting banning you due to your legal threats and other undesirable activity Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That's the right way to really make me do this : rtfm Rtfm (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Cooling down period

Dear RTFM, there have been several complaints about your behaviour recently, including requests for banning you from the Wiki. A cursory check of your User- and Talk-page show quite a few cases of combative language. I don't really have much time to look deeper into this right now. So I ask you to please refrain from editing on this Wiki for this week except your User- and Talk-page, and those two please without adding any insults, name-calling or similar language. This will hopefully cool down tempers on all sides and give me some time to find out what this is all about. Thank you for your cooperation. --Lyx (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Lyx, this is an example why I talk about "sabotage" : - If this isn't making it worse by purpose, I don't know what else. Stumbled on it as someone with common sense edited the description in the wiki rtfm Rtfm (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Lyx Another example, food trucks and similar re-defined : (for hundreds which were tagged as shop=street_vendor. Similar with several (standardised) address blocks in the wiki : . Makes no sense at all, so I'd call this sabotage. user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Rtfm: For mapping issues please refer to Data Working Group. Looking at the history of Tag:shop=deli, I struggle to see any sabotage. You replaced wiki text with a template and Mateusz Konieczny disliked the replacement and undid it. I already had a discussion with him about the use of this template about a year ago. When analysing the user's contributions tagged as "undo", I noticed that he undid quite a lot of changes but not limited to your edits.
Please avoid commenting on Adamant1's contributions until 16 June as I have asked you on 17 April. Thanks! --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 12:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Probably it would be wiser to create a page about wiki standardisation instead of several years of discussion. Especially as some discussions remind me of "alternative facts" user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, first one needs to propose and discuss a standard, because one needs supporters willing to follow the standard. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 13:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Article link

Can you provide a link to the article you cited?

That's a bit diffcult to answer without context, but I assume you mean this one : structural problems rtfm Rtfm (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
It shouldn't be. You accused specific editors of being paid actors because of an article as a justification to get your way on something. So, there should be an article that specifically calls those specific editors paid actors. Otherwise, it's just a baseless, false accusation. An article about general problems in OSM that doesn't mention the specific people your making the accusation about doesn't cut it. Otherwise, anyone could use it to accuse anyone, including you, of pretty much anything. So, either you have specific evidence about the exact users your making the claims about or you should stop making them.
That said, plenty of people involved in the project (probably most of them), benefit from it financially in some way. That's how it works with a lot of platforms like this one and there's zero wrong with that. Even Woodpeck, who constantly goes off about commercial interests being involved in OSM, owns a company selling shape files and therefore benefits financially from the project. So, attacking people for it is completely ignorant as to how things work. Especially as a way to attack us for our issues with what your doing. It's totally ridiculous to claim any of the basic edits your making would have any effect on anything, financially or otherwise. Let alone would anyone be wasting their money paying anyone to edit war you. What you've done has had zero impact on the project at all, period. That's just a fact. Even the stuff we don't get in arguments with you about. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop manipulations '346 237 usages of "capacity" is "noone" ?' while readding capacity:seats=* (not capacity=*) is not OK, especially as capacity:seats=* has 178 uses.

Please stop misleading edit descriptions (especially as it will not help to hide real changes, people learned to not trust what you put as edit description) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

In you again used misleading edit description Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Recreating without any mention of severe venerability problems is also not OK Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Please review how a tag is used before creating a new page to document it

The new pages Tag:office=university and Tag:office=healthcare appear to have been created without investigating the actual usage of the tag in the OpenStreetMap database.

Please review how a tag is being used in at least a couple of countries, especially when it has only been used 100 or 200 times, before documenting it. A tag: or Key: page, unlike a Proposal, is a documentation of how things are actually done. This requires research. If you wish to propose tags, you may do this at say Proposed_features/Tag:office=university which will make it clear that the description is a suggestion. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This shows once again that you're only holding thigs up instead of improving them. I'm still uncertain if by purpose, but I assume so. In case you had another logic, describe it in the wiki. But to ignore that there are in fact offices in universities as also in hospitals and similar healthcare institutions is in the best case ignorant, if not sabotage of the wki logic. rtfm Rtfm (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Of course there are offices in universities. I'm asking that if you want to document the tag office=university, please check how this tag is being used in more than one country. Your documentation suggested that it was a way to tag a university faculty (aka department or division), but more often it is used for administrative or services offices, e.g. student services, registrars etc, and the way you wrote the new page did not mention this usage. --Jeisenbe (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replied at Talk:Tag:office=university rtfm Rtfm (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sales Etc. Etc. namespace proposal

I was under theNamespace impression that you abandoned your namespace proposal because no one wanted to do it. If not, you should take the idea to a vote so we can either implement the thing if that's what the community wants or be done with it. In the meantime though, adding tags abandoned tags that no one wants to use to important main pages like Namespace as examples of "standard ways of doing things" when they aren't isn't helpful or an improvement on anything. So, you should desist from doing it. Either take your proposed tags to a vote or stop posting them everywhere. Especially in places where they clearly don't belong. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Especially considering the alternative, electronics_repair=*, has like 575 uses and is therefore clearly the more accepted tag for that) --Adamant1 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

If marking pages as approved please link proposal


In case of marking tag as approved always add also link to proposal where it happened. Apply your username and read documentation of relevant templates how to do this Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice to know, but it wasn't me Please stop spamming. rtfmRtfm (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
IN you modified dirtbike:scale page to mark status as approved. What is the relevance of ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with criticism of your tag inventions

You have invented a couple of tags that have been criticised by other users, such as shop=street_vendor where users noted that the use of this tag prevents the specification of what that shop actually sells, and that alternative tags exist. I might add that this tag breaks the inherent logic of the shop=* key, because I guess you can't buy street_vendors at that shop. Your reaction to criticism so far seems to be to sneak references to your tags into the documentation of other tags, so unsuspecting users might use them despite the problems (that they would not know about unless they lookup the tag page). At least in the recent case of adding your tag to shop=jetski you also used a disparaging changeset comment. This is a very unproductive way of doing things that helps no-one (yourself included) and does nothing to improve OSM. Please deal with criticism by commenting on the factual points made by others, try to convince them, and be open to the possibility that in some cases others might have the better arguments. The goal of this wiki is to document OSM tagging and together find ways of improving it. Who invented what tagging is totally irrelevant and will be forgotten over time anyways. --Lyx (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with "logic"

"because I guess you can't buy street_vendors at that shop" Nice own goal. I just cite the most common shop types : Do you think you may buy "convenience" or "supermarket" there ? How about shop=travel_agency ? Regarding "criticised by other users", that's mainly three (out of millions). I wouldn't call that representative. The other ones are just not keen to deal with this ignorant behaviour here and therefore don't participate in those senseless dicussions. Had a couple of positive feedback that "finally someone takes care". rtfm Rtfm (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Change on tag:shop=motorcycle

Hi Rtfm,

I struggle to understand you intentions behind Special:Diff/2007347/2092663. As I see it, you removed links from this page, wrote a comment about another user in the edit summary, and marked your edit as minor. Given that you were asked not to mark such edits as minor multiple times already, one could take this as a provocation. Can you offer an explanation? --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 00:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

o.k., I think this time I must say it loud and clear (unless not polite) : Adamant1 is just a "forum troll", I haven't seen any productive input yet. He's also NOT interested or got ANY knowledge about this topic but his only interest is destructive. And meanwhile I'm wondering whether experienced guys like you are unable to figure this out or if this is part of a "strategy". rtfm Rtfm (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to remove any misunderstandings: That is exactly the impression that I get of you, that you are just here for trolling. I haven't seen any productive input yet. I still hope that your edits are not caused by malice but only by the fact that you have no clue at all how OpenStreetMap tagging works. But your throwing around of insults in all directions makes this harder by the day. --Lyx (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Instead of senseless accusations, could you give an example of which "logic" you talk ("how OpenStreetMap tagging works") ? My impression is that here are a bunch of people which try to avoid any progress. Especially when supporting trolls like Adamant1 (which really never referred to any established logic, but seems to try to spread confusion). Would you call the establishment of a standardised namespace non-productive ? There are a bunch of others which appreciate that. Example *:repair. It makes no sense at all to have this discusswed for every single shop type (especially vehicles shouldn't have a totally different syntax).  Rtfm (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
You asking for specific examples instead of "senseless accusations" is pretty rich. More so because in the same message you called me a troll and the only evidence you cited for it is a link to your talk page. Which isn't evidence of trolling. Plus, your whole hyperbolic and unsupported claim of vandalism in the discussion you created. Frankly, I find it weird that your one who's edits are repeatedly getting reverted and called out in multiple places, by multiple people (including DWG members), but yet someone else besides you, who isn't having any of that happen to them, is the vandal. Your only tactics seem to be endless projection and slander. I would totally consider that a provocation. Personally I'm sick of being maligned everywhere of being a troll, vandal, Etc. Etc. Just as much as I am sick of you calling DWG members fools, administrators spin doctors, Etc. Etc. At this point you've called so many people trolls and vandals for such a wide range of things that the words are pretty much meaningless and it's pretty ridiculous that you've been allowed to take this whole endless slander campaign against everyone so far without any sort of consequences. That's not even to speak of your edits. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism especially by Adamant1

This guy recently renamed hundreds of motorcycle shops to "clothes" (unless most of them also sold other motorcycle equipment). His newest "achievement" is electronics_repair. And I bet all of the entries were also edited by him. But after some senseless actions from the admins I'm a bit tired to check that. List to be continued, but all he likes to spread is more confusion  Rtfm (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Explain reverts

Please, explain your reverts such as and use edit comment Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Explain : A shop / hotel / else which rents cars at least contains the element "car rental company", so the link to wikidata is IMHO correct and helpful. In which way it should be "mismatching wikidata" (please explain) ?. The missing comment was accidentally due to repeated logout. rtfm Rtfm (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

industrial=factory reverts

I'd appreciate it if you stopped the useless reverts on the industrial=factory page and give your opinion on the talk page of the industrial tag if you disagree with it being depreciated for man_made=works. Just saying you don't understand words isn't a valid reason to revert someone though. Look in a dictionary or read the tags description. What part of "The term works is used to denote an industrial production plant, also known as a factory" don't you get? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of other people discussion messages

I'm pretty sure you've told this before, but don't delete other people's talk page messages. It's an extremely bad faithed destructive way to respond to people or deal with messages you disagree with. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


Stop trying to remove de facto widely used and support tags like second_hand=* from articles. If you do, your just going to be reverted. I don't feel like edit warring over it. Let alone do I want another article to get locked just because your incapable of keeping your banal, authoritarian tendencies in check. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, Rose
Based response. Of course it doesn't keep you from not getting reverted, but I don't think you care that much if you do. Trolls are going to troll after all. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, do not add mismatching wikidata

For example in you linked "year 1511" to sailing club tag. Why? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

shop=motorcycle edits

Seriously, stop screwing with the article. Your just going to get reverted. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, do not make article harder to edit by converting perfectly fine tag lists to Template:Common tags to use in combination

re Template:Common tags to use in combination makes things harder to edit, translate and improve. Please stop forcing it on wiki pages. Especially without explanation like in (BTW, undisccussed mass edits can be reported to DWG if they actually happened) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The supposedly undiscussed mass edits he's talking about were already reported to the DWG, by me, because he was the one doing them. Which led to said edits being reverted and him being blocked for a few weeks. Not surprising really, at this point it's almost a guarantee that whatever he says is either completely made up or massive projection. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I am again requesting you to stop adding this template to wiki pages Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

museum=aerospace revert

Jesus Christ, what don't you get about planes being a different industry then aerospace? Instead of lying out of the side of your neck by calling me a vandal to justify your petty edit warring just add a picture of an actual space museum. Are you seriously that incapable of not acting like a childish, two faced, coward every time someone edits an article you've edited? Seriously dude, not everything has to turn into a mud slinging edit war. Grow a pair and just add a better picture. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. I just did it for you since your clearly incapable of doing even a menial task like changing an image without throwing a tantrum or otherwise turning it into a massive issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Misleading images

Please stop adding misleading images. Temporary objects are not mappable in OSM, and especially mobile launchers like are not mappable. Please do not add huge galleries. OSM Wiki pages are not places to gather all images mildly related to a given tag. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

So how about this tag ? (seems quite "temporary" to me)
LOADING TAG LIST... (If you do not see this tag list, you need to enable JavaScript)
This table is auto-generated. See Template:Taglist for a documentation on it.
Please don't remove images which are helpful, but replace them with better ones (example : military=launchpad. Seems to have beean fine as of the Revision as of 11:05, 11 May 2020 by Mateusz Konieczny) Rtfm (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It depicts long-term ammunition storage, appears to be building staying in one place - not a mobile vehicle Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I opened to get more review about whether moving vehicles and ships are valid and helpful images or is it better to get rid of them as misleading. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Robot shops

With Commons sometimes it helps to search for the name of a specific shop. In this case "Fraley's Robot Repair Pittsburgh" came up with the image I added to the article. Whereas, "robot shop" didn't give me anything except the you added. Maybe next time put the small amount of time it takes to find a different image instead of acting childish over it. Using a search field isn't that difficult. Especially on Commons. Thanks.

"In use" versus "proposed"

I'm copying my changeset comment here in case you didn't get it. "Sure, not "every" tag needs to be proposed. But ones with less then ten use where there's a single person recommending them probably should be. Or at least have their status set as proposed until they are actually "in use" beyond 5 uses mapped by one or two people."

At the end of the day the status of a tag is extremely superficial and meaningless anyway. At least it is when the tag only has a few uses. Except from what I'm aware "in use" means "widely used." Not say used twice by a single person as part of their pet project. I can't remember exactly where it was right now, but I'm pretty there was a conversation about tag status' where that was the consensus. If I remember correctly I think someone said a tag has to have a couple of hundred uses to be considered "in use." Which personally, I think is over kill, but it shouldn't be under 10 or 20. Otherwise nothing would qualify as "proposed." I'll look around for the discussion though. But in the meantime, the tag is proposed. Really, if anything it's a synonym of other tags and shouldn't be used or documented at all, but that's a different issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I asked about it on Your free to participate. Or you could keep throwing childish tantrums, I guess. Whichever. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Repair namespace

Is there a reason you can't create something like* where the information can go and then add a link to it in the repair=* article? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


Why do you think tag 1 is obsolete? service:vehicle:tyres key is used 6 728 times worldwide, while other tags have a maximum of 210 times. Maybe it's better to discuss it on the forum? —Grass-snake (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's high time to consolidate what should have been discussed here : Rtfm (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Use edit description

In case of marking tags as deprecated please use edit descriptions. It is also preferable to link place where deprecation was discussed, if it was. See Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

templates on new pages


  • Please update your template that you paste when creating new pages.
Ideally, it should look like this:
| key           = 
| value         = 
| image         = 
| description   = 
| group         = 
| onNode        = 
| onWay         = 
| onArea        = 
| onRelation    = 
| requires      = 
| implies       = 
| combination   = 
| seeAlso       = 
| status        = 
| statuslink    = 
| key           = 
| image         = 
| description   = 
| group         = 
| onNode        = 
| onWay         = 
| onArea        = 
| onRelation    = 
| requires      = 
| implies       = 
| combination   = 
| seeAlso       = 
| status        = 
| statuslink    = 
  • The "wikidata=" parameter has already been removed from the template, please don't add it to new pages.
  • Please don't add "Tags used in combination" to pages that are not main tags, but only properties or attributes. The idea is that tags such as [name], [website], or address should only be next to the main tag
  • Please don't add the {{Common tags to use in combination}} template - it's deprecated because it makes editing difficult. Instead, you can manually paste a list of tags that can be easily edited in the future or reordered, which this template doesn't allow. maro21 17:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Discuss before making edits

Following a complaint at I have reverted your latest edit to . Before making any further edits to that page please engage in the discussion at . This is not the first example of this sort of behaviour from you; with a DWG hat on I've had to deal with it plenty of times before (see e.g. ). SomeoneElse (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Congrats, you helped (again) a guy who'd like to sabotage any standardization (and then likes to finger point to others) Rtfm (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
With respect, that is utter garbage. I've dealt with the user who's edit you reverted many times before and "sabotage" is the last thing I'd associate with them. You, on the other hand, have had run-ins with the admins here and the moderators on OSM many times. OSM as a project requires that people work together; you seem incapable of doing that. SomeoneElse (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
So reverting hundreds of entries which make sense is "working together" in your point of view ? I'd rather say it's pure arrogance Rtfm (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
They discussed it with other mappers. You did not. SomeoneElse (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Misleading images, again

I am again requesting to stop adding misleading images. Please stop adding to an image of an art project. If any such shop exists, please add image of it.

Adding image of art project pretending to be a robot shop is misleading as it is unclear is even a single shop=robot actually exists.

See also this discussion Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked from content namespaces

Hello, you have been blocked from editing the main content namespaces, including tagging pages, for one year. I am applying this probationary measure because you have continued to make unilateral changes to tagging documentation, in spite of other administrators' calls for restraint, while making misleading claims and ad hominem accusations. Your passion for standardization and progress via the wiki is noted, but the wiki does not operate in isolation. It is part of the OSM project and fundamentally a collaborative tool. You will be able to edit in the talk namespaces, as a last-ditch encouragement to engage in productive discussion. Consider this a final warning from the administrators. If the antagonism persists during or after your probation, it will result in a permanent block across all namespaces. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)