User talk:Vibrog

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Abandoned

I was only seeking to unclog the Proposed features page. I don't think it's my job to clean accessory edits for a proposal that never actually got off the road (as far as I can tell: the last meaningful edit was in March). I've only followed he procedure on the Proposed page. If you want to reactivate the proposal, feel free. I'm sure not going to eliminate it back again. Circeus 16:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IMBA

Thanks for the note about the IMBA rating proposal, I'll keep an eye on it. --Colin Marquardt 21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OpenTouchMap

Thanks for your suggestions. Could you please specify what exactly does not work when adding a link to your home-screen ? (because it works for me) Nochmaltobi 21:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It leaves the browser, but no home screen app icon appears. vibrog 20:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Chaning ski playground to piste:type=ski playground?

I thought perhaps it would be a good idea to merge Tag:leisure=ski_playground into the tags of piste maps. piste:type=playground? (The reason I choose playground instead of ski_playground is because it will autocomplte easier.) Just thought it might be a good thing to promote it by having it in the same page as the others. Erik Johansson 07:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea, Erik. vibrog 14:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

protect_class=27

Hello! I am reaching out to you because you documented the use of protect_class=27 on No:Map_Features.

As of current overpass inspection, Norway is currently the only place in which the tag protect_class=27 is used (6 usages worldwide, all in Norway). Thus, I have updated Template:Protect_class#Social-protected-area to reflect this usage. However, since it is only used in Norway, I wonder if the Norwegian community might consider alternative plain-language tagging such as ownership=public, related_law=*, designation=*, access=*, leisure=nature_reserve/park, etc., instead of protect_class=27. This would allow us to completely eliminate this confusing tag from the database! Of course, if the Norwegian community prefers to stick with this tag, that is perfectly okay, also. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2021 (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:Caveentrance.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.

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:55, 6 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:Nordic Cross Country Ski Track.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" 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|Vibrog}} 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) 16:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)