User talk:Rw

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposed feature: Snowshed

You haven't touched Proposed features/snowshed for a while. I was thinking of getting it further through the proposal process. A was thinking of to send a secondary RFC e-mail the get some attention and later go for voting. Can I coordinate this? --Kslotte 16:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure Rw 11:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Project of the Week

POTW: Hotspot

Hi Richard, I translated the POTW but I must say, that I'm a bit unhappy about the MapQuest focused topic. Of course it might be nice to win the bet and get more publicity.--!i!

So you want the result; better OSM data at landmarks. Is it bad to have better OSM data at landmarks because Ant mentioned it? Isn't improved OSM data at landmarks a positive result for everybody involved in OSM? Are you objecting to the message or the messenger? Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

But on the other hand I feel a bit miserable cause of the commercial touch, --!i!

But you like the challenge of winning the bet.Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes of course, because I agree that MapQuest makes important improvements to OSM technologies. But I would like more a distributed approach and not one single company getting that much influence. "If you only give gifts to that ones, you are sure to get something back, then what do you do special?" (Klaus Kinsky) --!i! This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

the lacking of a global aspect, --!i!

We've had this with other projects, see World Cup venues. Yes, global reach projects are better. Map a landmark in your area if you prefer. Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Right but shouldn't it be nicer if the POTW cares about that and creates a offer for everybody? --!i! This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

no concrete instructions,..--!i!

Many previous PotW have been improved by other OSMers after they were published. Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't proposed/discussed with the community. --!i!

I don't recall a previous PotW being discussed or approved by the community. This proposal has been on the wiki [1] for over a month. Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry my fault :( --!i! This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if POTW is your child it would be nice, just to avoid the current 'Hi folks, there is some work for you!" effect that might hit Mapquest more than it would be helpful. --!i! This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 15:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Every PotW is a call to action for mappers in one way or another. It is supposed to inspire or inform or remind or just get mappers out mapping. Not everybody went out and mapped baseball fields either. Do you hate me because I suggested mapping baseball diamonds? Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm all in favour of the POTW concept when it's a call to improve the map as a whole, destinated to the community worldwide and is advertising some entities and ways to map them. I'm against the concept when it is a call to "please map my backyard" or "improve my region or country" (excepted for humaniterian crisis with a real emergency) --[[User:Pieren|Pieren]
Do you object to the mapping Karachi from aerial imagery project from 09 May 2010? or when it is to help/promote a specific commercial data consumer like MapQuest or similar. --[[User:Pieren|Pieren]
Yes but nevertheless it's a global call to the community. Therefore we should pay attention on what we request, right? And is a "please help company XYZ cause of ABC to get their areas done!" (exaggerated) a good request in your eyes Richard? --!i! This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Is improving landmark data in OSM a benefit only to MapQuest, or to all users / consumers of OSM data? Is this project better if Ant does not get credit for submitting it? Should contributors hide what they contribute? Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes it's a benefit to the whole OSM community. But it's a question of control, too. Do we wan't to allow a company to control a company(even the nice ones) to use this media to get such influence on the community?
It's not about Ant or the text style (I like the text, really). --!i! This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
(btw, I don't understand why the discussion occurs on your user page and not on a POTW main page) --Pieren 16:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
the PotW main page is for the project, not for discussion or critique of the project. Did you mean the talk page? Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes I guess he's pointing at the Talk page. I agree that this would be a better place --!i! This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

POTW: Maintainer

Are you still actively involved in POTW - as in finding a replacement for the post of maintainer?
--Mjjzf 06:46, 25 September 2011 (BST)

Streetcar ad

Richard, I've added your photo to Using OpenStreetMap/Map examples. Maybe we can collect publicly visible examples of OSM maps there?

Update: I've also added a new category: Category:Map_examples.

/al

Missing file information

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

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

Are you the author of image File:401-404-dvp-complete.png ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing file information

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

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

Are you the author of image File:Prov-hwy.png ?

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

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

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Licensing - other images

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

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

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

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

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

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

Help

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

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

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

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

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing file information

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

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

Are you the creator of image File:Tagging.png ?

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

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

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Licensing - other images

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

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

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

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

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

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

Help

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

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

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

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

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Missing file information

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

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

Are you the creator of image File:PDshield.png ?

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

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

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Licensing - other images

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

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

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

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

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

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

Help

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

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

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

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

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)