That's a good idea actually!
Although I guess there is a part of me that thinks that having just a
simple image tag without any fancy stuff is still best for a primary image
(so that apps that want to implement it don't need to start messing with
this new format and can just load that simple url.
See wikimedia_commons that may linki wikimedia commons
gallery.
Aug 26, 2020, 09:33 by me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk:
> As mentioned semi colon has issues with URLs. It may also be worth
> noting that a OSM value can only have 254 chars in it, a limit that
> would get hit quickly with a
I am curious is there any difference in practical use of this two tags.
Aug 25, 2020, 12:13 by vosc...@gmail.com:
> Hi,
> I have come across a new (to me) street sign In Italy:
> https://italy-cycling-guide.info/tips-advice/riding-in-italy/
> The road is a one-lane residential road on which
While I use the semicolon for some other tags already, the problem with
using it for something that has a URL.
Is that TECHNICALLYaccording to the specification, a URL can contain a
semicolon.
So I feel like the use of a semicolon in a url based tag isn't a good
solution
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020,
I added section at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Special_turn_rules_for_specific_vehicle_types
I also created
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:psv:lanes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_service_vehicles
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Psv=no
As mentioned semi colon has issues with URLs. It may also be worth
noting that a OSM value can only have 254 chars in it, a limit that
would get hit quickly with a few URLs.
I've thought about this before, I think we need 1 URL to point to
multiple images. But it can't just be a non standard HTML
If someone really needs multiple images on one object then
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator
is standard.
At the same time use for that seems dubious for this specific tag.
Aug 26, 2020, 07:41 by thibaultmolle...@gmail.com:
> Hi,
>
> It seems like there (still)
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:04, Thibault Molleman
wrote:
>
> Ah, I feel like there are certain images that might get deleted from Commons
> just because they don't "contribute to wikipedia articles".
That is not a valid reason for deletion from Wikimedia Commons.
Commons' scope is far wider than
Ah ok, I had a bunch of my images deleted that I uploaded when i was a kid
(maybe not the smartest thing to do at the time.)
They were birthday photos and put them up cause figured it could work as
stock photos (remember one site actually using one of them) and they got
deleted a couple years ago.
I didn't share my viewpoint yet here. In my opinion, there is usually no
need for more than one image on a POI (two at worst), so I don't see a
need. If you want to photograph each entrance of a school, why don't you
attach each photo to the respective entrance? If you made photographs of
each
sent from a phone
> On 26. Aug 2020, at 10:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> See wikimedia_commons that may linki wikimedia commons
> gallery.
there are quite some links in “image” for wikimedia commons categories (but not
all images in a category may be relevant for osm), a
I think what Mateusz was referring to was seeing if we could somehow copy
the system that commons uses?
(so that any app that can already accept wikimedia commons galleries also
can use this new system)
Cheers
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:31, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
No, I was thinking about linking Wikimedia Commons galleries.
(such linking also happens indirectly when wikipedia/wikidata tags get added)
Aug 26, 2020, 10:42 by thibaultmolle...@gmail.com:
> I think what Mateusz was referring to was seeing if we could somehow copy the
> system that commons
As mentioned on the linked wiki page, you can escape a semicolon by
doubling it:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator#Escaping_with_.27.3B.3B.27
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 9:11 AM Thibault Molleman <
thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I use the semicolon for some
Ah, I feel like there are certain images that might get deleted from
Commons just because they don't "contribute to wikipedia articles".
Maybe a special example but still:
Recently mapped a construction zone for a residential area and took a
couple photos. Those might not "belong on Commons"
Yeah, makes sense.
Having ipfs be a valid image/file tag in osm would be a nice addition
actually!
the main use case for having multiple images on one node was for example a
store, and you've just taken random images of the store (like you have on
Google maps and other map apps)
I do wonder
Well, in the Netherlands cyclestreet seems to be a "suggestional" traffic
sign. In Belgium cyclestreet it has a clear legal meaning. In Germany
bicycle_road has a clear (but quite different) legal meaning. So putting
the Dutch and Belgian thing together but not the German, that doesn't make
much
> [...] Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. [...]
> File in use in another Wikimedia project [...] [OR]
> File in use on Commons only: An otherwise non-educational file does not
acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page
or in a category on
Hi
Matthew Woehlke skrev: (25 augusti 2020 15:25:19
CEST)
>On 24/08/2020 16.25, pangoSE wrote:
>> Martin Koppenhoefer skrev: (24 augusti 2020 02:16:27 CEST)
>>> Also useful when the POI is approximately placed (e.g. in a
>>> neighbouring building, happens quite often, at least as long as most
Can you link photos/deletion requests?
Or talk page with deletion info? Maybe your country has no freedom of panorama
and large part of photo was with something copyrighted?
Or maybe there was no description?
When I asked about photos of bicycle parkings.
(such as
sent from a phone
> On 26. Aug 2020, at 12:35, joost schouppe wrote:
>
> So putting the Dutch and Belgian thing together but not the German, that
> doesn't make much sense.
I read this as a suggestion for a third alternative tag?
Cheers Martin
> > So putting the Dutch and Belgian thing together but not the German, that
> doesn't make much sense.
>
>
> I read this as a suggestion for a third alternative tag?
>
>
N!
:)
Just saying that there's similar concepts that could have had the same main
tag (and different clarifying
I feel like those examples (city gates and fountains) would be appropriate
places to use a wikimedia category.
Assuming the drinking fountains are unique, if not then do they need multiple
photos?
Thanks
Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
> On 26 Aug 2020, at 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Btw, I want to make it clear that I have nothing against the wikimedia
foundation. I think it's fair that they moderate like they do, because
their capacity isn't unlimited
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 14:51 Thibault Molleman
wrote:
> Can you link photos/deletion requests?
>
> Again, don't bother with
fietsstraat / rue cyclable are really 'a thing' in Belgium. Usually the
whole street is redesigned, it's not just a traffic sign on both ends. Red
asphalt, giant flower pots. Car drivers don't seem to realise that they are
not allowed to overtake cyclists in most of them though. So that's a bit
sent from a phone
> On 26. Aug 2020, at 12:18, bkil wrote:
>
> there is usually no need for more than one image on a POI
I have recently tagged some city gates and both sides would have been
interesting. The other kind of POI I am frequently taking photos are fountains
and drinking
Yes, there is a legal difference
*bicycle_road*
A German "Fahrradstrasse" (which is the prototype on which this tag seems
to be modeled) is a road exclusively for bicycles in the sense that
carries the the sign "Fahrradstrasse" without addition indicates that the
carriageway of the road is
>
> Can you link photos/deletion requests?
Again, don't bother with that. I was 13, didn't know what I was doing, main
reason why they were deleted according to the deletion requests were
because they didn't have a license attached to them, so they didn't know if
it was even allowed on there.
> The fact that the image is linked to an osm node is enough reason for the
> image to be online.
Sorry, I meant that images of generic drinking fountains can go in ‘Drinking
fountains in ’ and only need one image linked to the node.
A unique fountain deserves its own category
Sent from Jake
yeah, having a bot to automatically mark images that are being used in osm
sounds like a good solution tbh.
(next step would be to have a bot that automatically checks the Deletion
Request pages to see if any of the one being added there are osm linked
ones and make a copy to ipfs or something
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 19:39, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
>
> In practice you need horrific image quality,
> to the point of unasibility for deletion to
> succeed
>
So maybe the chance of deletion is low enough that we can drop the
argument that "wikimedia might delete it" when discussing using
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:26, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Summary#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose
>
> "hosts content that is useful for educational purposes.
> This means
26 Aug 2020, 20:34 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 18:03, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> Though note that in practice that it is fairly rare to delete things as out
>> of scope.
>>
>
> That's true. But the spectre of it happening
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 18:03, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Though note that in practice that it is fairly rare to delete things as
> out of scope.
>
That's true. But the spectre of it happening is raised whenever people
mention
using wikimedia images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Summary#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose
"hosts content that is useful for educational purposes.
This means content that could be used by Wikipedia,
other Wikimedia projects, or other projects that provide
knowledge,
Though note that in practice that it is fairly rare to delete things as out of
scope.
It is typically done for people uploading their private images in attempt to use
Wikimedia Commons as free storage, or for hosting their advertisements
and for things like
sent from a phone
> On 26. Aug 2020, at 14:44, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> In my opinion the "naked " German Fahrradstrasse is equivalent to
> highway=service|residential
> vehicle=no
> foot=use_sidewalk or sidewalk=separate if there is a separate sidewalk
> bicycle=designated
> maxspeed=30
Didn't we have an OSM tool in the past that showed points with broken
links? (Also I think the citations I've given earlier a few hours ago
should clear up what should or should not be deleted - by policy they
_should_ delete the lower quality image if a better quality image is also
available)
On
Have you considered uploading these to OpenStreetCam, Mapillary or whatever
comes after OSM migrates away from that one?
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 26. Aug 2020, at 15:21, Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 09:58 +0200, Thibault Molleman wrote:
> That's a good idea actually!
> Although I guess there is a part of me that thinks that having just a
> simple image tag without any fancy stuff is still best for a primary
> image (so that apps that want to implement it don't need to
CJ,
I didn't realize the accept header could work like that.
I think the system your propose is a good idea tbh.
Also, I wonder if it would be possible to host those on IPFS. (And make it
so that people who have spare bandwidth/storage can help host this image
repository)
Cheers,
Thibault
On
sent from a phone
> On 26. Aug 2020, at 15:21, Jake Edmonds via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I meant that images of generic drinking fountains can go in ‘Drinking
> fountains in ’ and only need one image linked to the node.
> A unique fountain deserves its own category
I named the
- I'm doubtful of the future of openstreetcam
- some people don't like Facebook to the point where they don't want to use
mapillary so we need to have an alternative
And that still doesn't solve the problem of not having a system to put
multiple images into one tag
Cheers
Thibault
On Thu, Aug
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:06, Thibault Molleman
wrote:
> Ah, I feel like there are certain images that might get deleted from
> Commons just because they don't "contribute to wikipedia articles".
>
The commons isn't quite that arbitrary. They allow images which are of
interest, but "of
Does it being on osm have enough justification for them to keep it though?
"it's not a wikimedia project, so it doesn't matter to us if it's linked on
osm or not"
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 15:39, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:06, Thibault Molleman <
> thibaultmolle...@gmail.com>
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 12:17, Thibault Molleman
wrote:
the main use case for having multiple images on one node was for example a
store, and you've just taken random images of the store (like you have on
Google maps and other map apps)
You may get pushback from the "OSM is not a gazetteer"
On 26/08/2020 07.12, pangoSE wrote:
I rest my case. Thanks for the examples. Could you help update the wikipage
about POIs to reflect this?
By "the wikipage", do you mean
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Points_of_interest? It isn't
immediately obvious where this information would be
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 14:52, Thibault Molleman
wrote:
> Does it being on osm have enough justification for them to keep it though?
> "it's not a wikimedia project, so it doesn't matter to us if it's linked
> on osm or not"
>
They make use of OSM data to create their own maps, so there is
48 matches
Mail list logo
