User talk:TomChance

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)

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)



May I change your building=pavilion to building=clubhouse? For rationale see

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)