User talk:ZeLonewolf

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If you've got something to say, say it here!

However, I prefer that you contact me on Slack (server: , Username: ZeLonewolf)



It may better to mention/link specific slack. USA Slack? Canada community Slack? HOT Slack? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't even realize there were multiple servers. ZeLonewolf (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


Thanks for your access=permit edit. I added clarification how it differs from access=private and also created starter of Tag:access=permit page Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, how do you know what the meaning of the tag is? Just that it is used often we do not know what the users meant. Where was the tag discussed and the meaning standardized? It was disputed in the past so how does it suddenly appear on the official wiki page? Thanks Aceman444 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I documented the tag's meaning for instances in which I have seen it used and am aware of what it means. In the US we have used it for areas in which someone must obtain a permit in order to legally access a place. If you are aware of other meanings for this tag, I would encourage you to document them also. Sorry, I am not aware of past disputes regarding that tag, and perhaps you could document those as well. I'm not sure what you mean by "official" wiki page, as the wiki, by its nature, is a collaboration and it is important that these pages describe how tagging is actually used. The meaning of access=private has not been vetted the Proposal process, therefore these pages are descriptive, and not prescriptive. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but just looking at places where a tag is used does not mean the autor's intention can be guessed. Buy 'disputed tag' I meant e.g. the discussion at Thus until now the 'permit' value didn't exist thus users could fold it into 'private' as is suggested there. So I wonder why is the value suddenly valid (of course people can invent any tag, but it then does not warrant to be included in a page that already exists and appears as prescritive as you say). If 'private' itself wasn't voted on either, then that should also be marked on the page and not even more values suddenly added with apparent validity on the same level as the already existing ones. Thanks Aceman444 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "valid" and "invalid" tags in OSM. The wiki only documents what exists and documents community consensus where it exists. Feel free to improve the relevant pages if you feel they are wrong or lacking. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes I understand that, I just wanted to say that the wiki should make it clear that in this case no consensus was made yet (which could be wrongly assumed by it being in the main page of 'access' tag) and the meaning of the tag is just a personal guess. Aceman444 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you familiar with ? Is there some reason to expect that use of that tag diverged from that proposal or that proposal described tag already used for a different purpose? @Aceman444: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
And how can we expect that all users of that tag have read that proposal and used the same meaning? Not everyone agrees to the proposal (see the discussion) and there was no voting yet, so nothing can be assumed about the contents of the page. Or is there some wiki rule about draft proposal pages? Aceman444 (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

New vote explanation

Thanks for a vote! As it turns out that bundling all vote changes in one was a clear mistake, I stopped the ongoing vote after you already participated. If you want you can participate in a new vote that was started at Proposed features/change vote counting rules - remove no show paradox. It includes only one of proposed changes. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed features/Tailings pond

Congratulations, this proposal is really well done! Thanks for all that work, it seems vote-ready :) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with refining it! --ZeLonewolf (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


Thanks for completing Proposed features/hazard ! I was busy with other things and didn't have time to look until now. --Biff (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


+rep Emilius123 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


Do you have maybe link to source of ?

BTW, similar handling is needed for some other uploads listed on Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

That image is a screen grab from a presentation made by Keri Nelson, Backcountry Coordinator of the Southeast Uthah Group of the National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, at an OpenStreetMap US Mappy Hour on September 22, 2021. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
And it applies also to I guess? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Same source. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The next one is - and Mapillary license definitely requires crediting author. Can you track down source of this image and link it and mention the author? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


Hi, I just wanted to let you know I have fixed the historic overview and key definition page, which also means that the essence of your 2020 edit was somehow reversed: I do not believe we should have relevance criteria in OSM, rather we should stick to our principal values, which consent the inclusion of everything as long as it is observable and described in a way that ambiguity is tried to avoid. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


The PR for rendering natural=shrubbery wasn't withdrawn. Hungerburg closed the issue he opened himself asking for rendering. My PR is still pending. --JeroenHoek (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah my bad, I didn't realize there was a separate issue and PR --ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:50, 10 June 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}}

Note: Maybe the current license on this file is wrong and a different one should be used! Wiki:Media file license chart may be helpful. If unsure, ask on Talk:Wiki

Data model

I saw your question on the AGM2022 site, and thought I could post this link to the Github discussion site: .... That's still all fairly low traffic, and very few participants. EWG is probably doing some sort of follow up, but somehow they've stopped publishing meeting minutes back in August, and I have no idea what they're up to. Mmd (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Good call on the link! Feel free to augment the question or I can do it. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, this wiki editor is driving my crazy. If you believe this is adding some value, please just go ahead and include the link in your question. I won't touch anyone's questions on that page... ;) Mmd (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Aerial source

What is the source and license of aerial imagery? Do you remember it? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)