User talk:TomChance
Hi, User:Bruce89 has sugessted to change the value for the Proposed_features/Pedestrianised_road from pedistrian to precint. So I think its the best to start a new voting period. Can you please go to that page and vote again? Sven Anders 11:34, 20 September 2006 (BST)
Re: your edit summary that "SA is *not* viral, that's terrible fud", I think that's reading motives that aren't there. Some people (me included) occasionally use "viral" as a synonym for share-alike - it's not meant to be pejorative. If you're happier with a different word then that's cool :), but I wouldn't assume FUD. --Richard 13:59, 21 September 2006 (BST)
- Oh, sorry, I should have been clearer. People who say "viral" usually use it to spread FUD, and it's really unfortunate that well meaning people have taken it up. Share alike isn't a virus, it doesn't spread unintended and make things turn nasty ;-) TomChance 15:39, 21 September 2006 (BST)
- Hey, some viruses are good (sorry, couldn't resist). :) --Richard 16:05, 21 September 2006 (BST)
Ethical map
Hi Tom,
I saw on your user page that you are intersted in drawing ethical maps. I believe to remember having seen such a map on your website but I don't find it any more.
I would be very interseted in building an ethical map of Lyon with perhaps recycling facilities, bio and fair-trade shops, highlighted footways and cycleways, main public transports... Did you thought to any other ideas ?
Thanks !
FredB 10:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Fred, have a look here. To make these I basically spent a lot of time fiddling with osmarender to produce the base maps, I touched them up in Inkscape so that the labels were in the ideal places and then added the number bubbles. If you really wanted to go for it you could create new SVG icons for different kinds of ethical amenities but I never found the time. I'd definitely like to do something as comprehensive as your suggestion!
- What would actually be best would be a slippy map with those icons, highlighted ways and labels, so that people could zoom and move around. But when I did those maps it looked far too complicated. It would be wonderful to run a sister project highlighting ethical things, and perhaps even for example letting people tag ways according to their cycle-friendliness! TomChance 17:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
building=pavilion
Tom,
May I change your building=pavilion to building=clubhouse? For rationale see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Building
MikeCollinson 15:05, 2 May 2007 (BST)
Camberwell cake
That was weird. I made a cake diagram and uploaded it just now but I guess you were doing exactly the same thing at the same time. See versions of Image:Camberwell_cake.png. So I went to look at the finished wiki page and it was a different diagram. was extremely confused for a minute there. hehe -- Harry Wood 11:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like yours is a bit bigger so you might as well revert! I thought the list of attendees was pretty small so best to go with a few smaller local slices. Have fun tomorrow, don't think I can make it. TomChance 12:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- yeah. Judging by sign-ups so far, my big cake is looking optimistic, but there's a good chance we'll get more than four mappers signing up at the last minute. Might as well go for a bigger cake. Shame you can't make it! -- Harry Wood 14:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
cleaning up
hey, I started some cleaning in the german power area :-) ... what about Proposed_features/power_type - it deserves at least a link to the new tag, or? That's your turn :-) And by the way, it's in german, but I think you will understand what I mean because it's really not complicated ... what do you think about my small variation of your proposal in DE:Key:generator:output (start reading from "Mögliche Auszeichnungen" - that shouldn't be too difficult): we have the two kinds of energy (heat and electricity), if more is known, the kind of energy production, the kind of transportation matter, and the last section ("Nur Nennleistung bekannt") if nothing but the rated power is known. Just to let you know, I don't want to start a new discussion here :-) Greetings -- Schusch 23:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- perhaps another one to clean up: Proposed features/power method -- Schusch 00:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I should clean those proposals up. On your addition of "generator:output:heat" and "generator:output:cold", please remove them and refer to the discussion page of the proposal. As the proposal was debated it gradually moved from heat/cold/electricity to a combination of output:hot_water=yes and rating:hot_water=10MW to the final agreed proposal of output:hot_water=10MW. It confuses things if we also allow output:heat. TomChance 11:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- well, i didn't want to discuss it again ... I won't make it more complicated as you want it. Heat is easier then the knowledge about what the transport medium is (oil, saltwater, water etc.). Maybe you think it confuses things ... i want to make it easier and more logic. This is a wiki. -- Schusch 22:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- You could add some helpful notes, such as that heat is almost always supplied as hot water. The problem with "heat" is that you could have two values "heat" and "hot_water" to describe the same thing whereas it should only have one tag. Thanks for the work on the German pages! TomChance 12:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- well, i didn't want to discuss it again ... I won't make it more complicated as you want it. Heat is easier then the knowledge about what the transport medium is (oil, saltwater, water etc.). Maybe you think it confuses things ... i want to make it easier and more logic. This is a wiki. -- Schusch 22:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I should clean those proposals up. On your addition of "generator:output:heat" and "generator:output:cold", please remove them and refer to the discussion page of the proposal. As the proposal was debated it gradually moved from heat/cold/electricity to a combination of output:hot_water=yes and rating:hot_water=10MW to the final agreed proposal of output:hot_water=10MW. It confuses things if we also allow output:heat. TomChance 11:17, 25 November 2010 (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:BIO-BEDZED-13-04-11-001254.jpg ?
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.
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).
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified January 2022}} from the file page.
--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:03, 26 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 creator of image File:Peckham cake 2009.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.
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) 17:09, 23 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:Swk buildings sample.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|TomChance}} 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) 18:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)