User talk:Duja

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

track

Please, can you add complexity that I missed or rewrite it to be more neutral rather than simply deleting it? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Specify which kind of sign, clarify

Thanks for your edit on Tag:bicycle=yes and foot=yes.
You missed Key:foot and Key:bicycle that have similar text. Would be good if you update these also -- Emvee (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, Emvee. Done. Duja (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

What does this mean?

What documentation? Please expand on what you mean. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation:multipolygon&diff=next&oldid=2607259 --DaveF63 (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

DaveF63: Documentation = this very wiki, and all articles from Category:Tag descriptions which use {{Icon|r}} or {{Icon|a}}. This has been an point of misunderstanding since forever, see e.g.
I only tried to clarify it in a glaring manner. Duja (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

omission of the 13th floor

Hi, I saw you changed “USA” to “western countries” in the level key documentation, which countries does this refer to? In the comment you write “superstitious USA” was offensive, wouldn’t it be more offensive to extend the claim to all of the US and not just the superstitious part? Isn’t superstition the exact term for the phenomenon? —-Dieterdreist (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Dieterdreist: The current text, quote, "A building may skip certain level numbers, such as floor 13 in Western countries or floors 4 and 14 in Chinese-speaking countries" does not specify that it's systematically omitted in those countries, just that it may happen. It is trying to say, in a neutral manner, that 13 is considered an unlucky number in Western countries, and 4 or 14 in China. And that's all what we should say on the matter, insofar it affects mapping -- judgments about superstition are simply off-topic. w:Thirteenth floor has some examples, mostly from U.S. and Canada. Duja (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
From my understanding, mentioning "superstition" is a description, not a "judgement", and it was meant to say that the superstition in the country is the cause for omitting the number. From what I know, in the US it is quite systematic that the 13 is omitted for hotel floors and room numbers. I have never seen the 13 omitted in a western European country, this is why I reduced the term western countries to USA. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Privacy

Hi, I have noticed you added this sentence to the wiki: As an international project, we respect personal right to privacy regardless of national laws and international conventions. Can you explain what this means, i.e. what is privacy related information regardless of national law or international conventions? Is there a definition what is or is not privacy related? —Dieterdreist (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Dieterdreist: the intent was to express that we're driven by common courtesy and respect for privacy, rather than strictly legal framework that may (or may not) exist in the given part of the world. For example, mapping residents' names on a house may be legal in some parts of the world, but we don't do that nonetheless.
May I suggest that Talk:Mapping private information is a better place to discuss any article-specific wording than my talk page? Duja (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
we can continue on Talk:Mapping private information. I was just curious, because I think it is clear we do not map names of private people on houses, but some people are of the idea that mapping a private swimming pool, or a private path, is also private information that should not be mapped. Without a legal framework, for all but the very obvious questions (names of individuals) it is hard to decide what is protected. Also the question of businesses which are run under the name of a natural person, has been subject to discussion in the past. If we say we do not map anything related or relatable to natural persons, it would mean restrict mapping to natural features. It is also clear that we must necessarily respect the laws of the UK, because that's where we have our seat. --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Illegibility

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access&oldid=prev&diff=2824702 - which part was illegible? "If access to being customer is restricted" ?

the problem with current summary is that it claims that it is equivalent to fee=yes

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Mateusz Konieczny: Yes, that one. I would have mended it myself, but I couldn't figure out what zou meant by "access to being customer". You're right that it currently misleads into "fee=yes". Let's try to rephrase it... tomorrow. Duja (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
"access to being customer" - sometimes you cannot just pay. For example you may need to sign up for membership to be customer of some objects. Or imagine parking in front of a church, that is only for participant in a religious ceremonies. You cannot go into church and pay to be allowed to park there. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

About the natural and name tags

Hi. I’ve added this part on the name=* key, because various values of natural in taginfo looks like the key name was intended. I corrected various of them ([1], [2], [3], [4]). And I think there are other buildings with this problem: look at the last values of the key natural (taginfo). Cases like [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] looks like contributors wanted to use the name key instead of the natural key. That’s why I added the natural key of the name key wiki page. Cheers, Lepticed (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Lepticed. I understand your motivation, but I still think that those "Possible tagging mistakes" sections should only list the ones that are "easy" to make. ("Easy" being a subjective category, obviously). But people make all sorts of mistakes, and putting a name into natural=* sounds like a very careless (or very rookie) one.
For example, I've just perused the bottom pages of water=* on TagInfo and indeed, there's a variety of names or descriptions [11][12][13][14]. I'm sure similar situations exist with other common keys. Sure enough, those are worth reviewing and fixing, but IMO not documenting as a "possible tagging mistake". Duja (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Conditional restrictions

Hi Duja,

I was going to edit the conditional restrictions page some more but realised my proposed edits may tip us into an edit war.

Please would you explain what "Muphry's law" (sic) means as an explanation for your edit, which undid my own?

I was striving to keep language as simple as possible, so that as many people as possible can read the page. Among the aims was to drastically reduce the jargon: "normal" seems better to me than your "by default" 1) because it reduces the vocabulary needed 2) the word is at "threshold level" according to Cambridge English 3) it better matches the term "normal tag" (which is used as jargon on this page).

Simplicity and consistency seem to me good goals for technical documentation, even at the expense of a wide vocabulary and a fine sense of the mot juste. (In my opinion the wiki generally is too often written for people with an existing level of expertise, rather than for complete beginners - whereas writing for complete beginners will be equally helpful to those with existing expertise.)

Could we agree to revert to the simpler version, at least for this Overview section?

eteb3 (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

eteb3: [W] Muphry's law: "If you write anything criticizing editing or proofreading, there will be a fault of some kind in what you have written" was in reference to grammatical errors you make in your attempts of proofreading the text. The first time you left the sentence as
  • Those conditions are can be described using "conditional tags".
Later on, you deleted the main verb in another:
  • ''Conditional tags usually used with a normal, unconditional restriction tag.
I'm not against simpler language, but you don't appear to proofread your own sentences. And I think you tend to overdo it, since...
  • The normal tag is taken to be valid normally,

...while grammatical, is hardly clearer than by default - I believe that in 21th century every non-native speaker knows what it means.

Duja (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Muphry's law
Thanks for the explanation. I was editing on mobile, and it looks like that makes proofing the changes harder. (Not that I think anyone can be error-free in every edit - eg, your 21th century.)
"by default - I believe that in 21th century [sic] every non-native speaker knows what it means."
According to Oxford University Press "default" is at level C1 of the CEFR. The CEFR defines a level C1 speaker as able to "understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts". Personally I would like the wiki not to be demanding, so that it can be useful to as many people as possible.
With a view to making OSM a more congenial place to contribute, I'd find it easier to have this sort of discussion without a side of emotion if instead of a global, personal judgement ("grammatical errors you make ", etc, as if that's a defining part of me), the focus were on particular contingent actions (eg, "you have made" - even "you are making", if you think two instances constitutes [edit: consitute :-) ] an ongoing course of action).
But regardless of that, thanks for your thoughts.
eteb3 (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

railway=facility deprecation

Sorry, I did not see the discussion in the forum, thanks for pointing it out in the revert edit. I tried to find replacement tagging for railway facilites that don't have passenger traffic, like [this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4662739], but somehow the browser search function does not work in the discussion forum because it dynamically loads new post only after scrolling, and I'm not willing to read through 370 posts to find out. Maybe you know something about this? I have started to add a short section to the page introduction in <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Arailway%3Dfacility&diff=2910335&oldid=2910316>. --Rohieb (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Rohieb: I'm not much into railway tagging, really, so my revert was more procedural than I had substantial objections: it would be kind of odd to "undepreciate" a tag year and a half after the fact. On the other hand, there was no formal voting for depreciation, but that long discussion really touched upon a lot of station tagging issues, and there was sort of tacit agreement that facility was an overkill. If you do have concerns about it, feel free to continue the discussion on the Community forum (as the most watched place). Duja (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
P.S. On the Community forum, use the built-in search feature, located in the top right corner -- it can search long threads without loading all posts. Duja (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duja&oldid=2910416"