User talk:TobWen

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hallo, ich habe es ja schon unter versucht. Bin sehr an einer Rueckmedung interessiert. Viele Gruesse, Dirk

Die lassen noch etwas auf sich warten, wir werden voraussichtlich aber Zugang zu den WMS-Diensten bekommen--TobWen 20:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


Hallo Tobias,

schau doch mal auf DE:Aachen Datenquellen vorbei :) --Head 10:05, 29 September 2010 (BST)

Geobasisdaten NRW / TIM-Online

Guten Morgen,
Ist das 'Gemarksungsverzeichnis NRW', dessen Verwendungs für OSM nach deiner Anfrage vom 16.01.09 gestattet wurde (DE:Gemarkungsverzeichnis NRW), mit den Daten von TIM-Online gleichbedeutend, oder handelt es sich dabei um zwei verschiedene Geschichten?
Durch das WMS von TIM-Online wären uns von ganz NRW u.a. aktuelle Liegenschaftskarten zugänglich (Straßen, Fußwege, Grundstücke, Höhenlinien, Grundrisse+Hausnummern).
Ist uns die Verwendung dieser Daten nach der Anfrage vom 16.01.09 gestattet, oder bezieht diese sich auf eine andere Quelle, bzw. erlaubt nicht die Verwendung aller Daten (inklusive Gebäude...)?
Falls uns die Verwendung gestattet ist, ist das ein unglaublicher Haufen aus validen Rohdaten und mir kribbelt es in den Fingern, den Liegenschaftskarte/Grundriss-layer nachzuzeichnen =D
MfG aus Erkrath, Michael O. --DerKuchen Last Edit 19:02 09:29, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Rückantwort zu Geobasisdaten

Hallo! Es handelt sich leider wirklich nur um das Verzeichnis. Ich habe den Link dort mal aktualisiert.

Schade, jetzt da wir die Bing-Bilder haben bräuchten wir nur noch eine Quelle für Hausnummern... --DerKuchen 16:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Nunja, wie Frederik Ramm sagte, ist OSM kein Abzeichnungsprojekt :-) --TobWen 15:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Luftbilder Kreis Unna

Hallo, habe über die Wochennotiz den Zeitungsartikel zur Freigabe der Luftbilder vom Kreis Unna gelesen. Wie liegen die Daten vor? Gibt es da einen WMS, TMS oder WMTS Dienst, den man zu den Standard-Listen in den gängigen Editoren hinzufügen könnte? --Klumbumbus (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Wir haben Zugriff zum WMS(T) des Kreises. Derzeit sind die Bilder noch identisch mit denen vom RVR, dies kann sich aber ändern (wenn Unna neue beauftragt oder sie verändert). Die URL werde ich sobald wie möglich publizieren, ich habe momentan ca. 100 Mails Rückstand und noch die FOSSGIS vor mir :( Wir werden auch noch andere Daten bekommen, Wünsche können an mich gerichtet werden :) --TobWen (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Alles klar. --Klumbumbus (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2018 (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:Tobwen area osm 01.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}} 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.


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) 09:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


Hello! And sorry for bothering you, but descriptions of files you uploaded need to be improved.

You have uploaded files which are licensed as requiring attribution. But right now attribution is not specified properly.

Please, ask for help if something is confusing or unclear in this message.

Please, fix that problem with this uploads - note that images with unclear licensing situation may be deleted.

Attribution may be missing completely or just be specified in nonstandard way, in either case it needs to be improved. Note that using CC-BY files without specifying attribution is a copyright violation, which is often unethical and unwanted. So clearly specifying required attribution is needed if license which makes attribution mandatory was used.

If it is applying to your own work which not based on work by others - then you can select own user name or some other preferred attribution or even change license to for example {{CC0-self}}

For your own work: ensure that it is clearly stated at file page that you created image/took the photo/etc

For works by others - please ensure that there is link to the original source which confirms license and that you used proper attribution, or that source is clearly stated in some other way.

Especially for old OSM-baded maps, made from data before license change on 12 September 2012 you should use "map data © OpenStreetMap contributors" as at least part of attribution

For old OSM Carto maps, which predate license change on 12 September 2012 you can use a special template {{OSM Carto screenshot||old_license}}

Are you author of the original OSM logo?

You uploaded - are you also author of that original logo? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither I am not the author of this artwork and nor I've have ever claimed this position. However - as described in 2009 - I have reworked the SVG lens effects to make the file easier to process in different applications. Since my changes were trivial, I cannot and will not cede any claims from them. If I violate a copyright by the trivial changes, the file can be removed. --TobWen (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you remember what was the source of your rework? (probably no, but wanted to ask just in case) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
At that time, I grabbed it either from the Wiki or the OSM website. May I ask why everyone suddenly wants to find out who created the logo? OSMF says that it holds the trademark for all OSM things. Wouldn't it be easier to ask there? --TobWen (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
See - basically noone cared about it for long time. Some files should be deleted (blatant copyright violations, easy to replace photos), some can be fixed (sadly not this one) and some added in good faith with just procedural issues (like this one) will stay Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
When I created and uploaded files, the consensus in OSM community was that all data on this wiki was published under CC-BY-SA 2.0. Newly uploaded, self-created text and artwork therefore also falls under CC-BY-SA 2.0. Other content had to be CC-BY-SA 2.0 compatible, marked accordingly or hosted externally. As I said: If in doubt, you can delete my data. Most of them are outdated anyway. --TobWen (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The problem with specifically logo is that deleting it is not a solution, you are not the copyright holder and CC-BY-SA 2.0 requires specifying author(s) :( So there is no good solution. Likely I will do the same what others did and start to ignore the problem Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)