User talk:Mateusz Konieczny

Building:part staircase

Hi Mateusz, I reverted your revert here: Key:building:part —Dieterdreist (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dieterdreist: if you reviewed this edit and can vouch that it was fine: then it is OK Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes it looks fine to me. I guess you also reviewed it to come to the conclusion it should be reverted. Was it because of the relatively low numbers, or do you think the value is not suitable as a "building:part", or something else? --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dieterdreist: I was mass-purging all edits by banned account of User:Rtfm (they made next sock), this was done without any review of content Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok, I think this one is ok. —Dieterdreist (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Examples for pedestrian roads

Hi, I would like to discuss our edits on the Tag:highway=pedestrian page – particularly this partial restoration of content I had removed. To me, this image depicts a wide, comfortable footway – but that's still a case for highway=footway. Unless there are other arguments than what's visible on the image (e.g. signage), I don't see it as a good example of a pedestrian road. --Tordanik 17:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Google using OpenStreetMap data

Re: "When Google stopped map maker? Maybe it was added not by Google employee but by someone convinced to work for corpo for free?"

I was offered a chance to be approved as a unpaid mapper for Google a while back, when I had been still adding photos and POIs to Google Maps. I believe if you are a trusted volunteer contributor you can still get access to update street names and perhaps even geometries, though I decided not to give a corporation free labor anymore. I suspect that you are right, these changes were probably copied from OpenStreetMap by a volunteer mapper who did not properly understand the copyright issues. --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Re:Source of file

Hi Mateusz, the image was generated only by OSM data, it was a screenshot from JOSM. I had initially uploaded the image to my account on a free social network that no longer exists called gnewbook. Here you can see other similar images from the mapping event in 2011. --Ovruni (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mateusz, the file which I used in Mashhad OSM wiki page is produced by myself via a web page that produces a .GIF file of mapping history of a location over the time. Unfortunately this useful site doesn't works yet, but I know that we could download and use its images whenever and where ever we want.

A place to drop of books does imply a place to pickup books…

That would be an amenity = library as stated in the proposal. If anything your opposing vote might indicate that more tagging options might be needed for self service pickup options that can be on or offsite of the library.

I would however state that 99% of the time the pickup location for books would be the library itself and pre-Covid 99% of all locations that offered drop off options still required going to the library itself to pickup and drop off books. Hence why this has been the focus for of the tagging proposal.

I respect your vote and thank you for your feedback. I just wanted to offer this perspective and see if I’m misunderstanding or understanding your objection so that if I need to revisit this for future votes I know I’m addressing all concerns.

Thanks, JPinAR JPinAR (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@JPinAR: "That would be an amenity = library as stated in the proposal" - where it is stated? "99% of all locations that offered drop off options still required going to the library itself" - I agree, but some places have such cases and leaving such obvious gaps almost always leads to misuse of approved tags Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I will consider a follow-up pickup location tag especially since now pickup via kiosk has become a thing. Thank you for the constructive feedback and community contribution. JPinAR (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@JPinAR: That would be really helpful! It would be nice to avoid repeat of say historic=wayside_shrine that is used for all shrines, not only wayside ones. I managed to push man_made=cross forward but it was likely too late to solve historic=wayside_cross from being used for all crosses Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Getting compound key documentation from the MediaWiki API

Hi, this is sort of tangential to the discussions we're having over in Talk:Wiki, so I'm splitting this off here for convenience. It sounds like you're building an interesting tool in Python. I'm surprised that you're finding it necessary to scrape user-facing pages, even from Python. If something about this wiki led you to that approach, versus something more structured, please let the administrators know so we can look into improvements. In general, scraping should be a last resort, so that in the future we don't end up constrained by what's essentially tagging writing for the renderer scraper.

I was just going back and double-checking one of my suggestions to make sure I wasn't misleading you. The following code is a port of the compound key description stuff in Module:Tag – everything but the language name fallback. It requires the Requests package, but there's also a built-in json module if you need to work with a different HTTP client library. I wouldn't be surprised if this runs faster than scraping the 404 page using something like BeautifulSoup.

#!/usr/bin/env python3

from itertools import product
import requests

key_parts = "construction:turn:lanes:both_ways".split(":")
# Enumerate all possible slices of the key, putting longer slices before their subslices.
key_part_range = range(len(key_parts))
key_part_slices = [key_parts[s:e] for s, e in product(key_part_range, reversed(key_part_range)) if e > s]
# Convert the slices into article titles.
titles = ["Key:{0}".format(":".join(s)) for s in key_part_slices]

# Query Wikibase for the data items' descriptions.
params = {
    "action": "wbgetentities",
    "format": "json",
    "sites": "wiki",
    "titles": "|".join(titles),
    # The OSM key name is always stored as the English label.
    # It needs to be part of the response so we can associate keys with their descriptions.
    "props": "labels|descriptions",
    "languages": "en",
}
request = requests.get("https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/api.php", params=params)
response = request.json()

# Annotate the key parts with their descriptions.
remaining_key_parts = key_parts
items = []
for qid, entity in response["entities"].items():
    # Omit missing data items.
    if type(qid) != str or "missing" in entity:
        continue
    label = entity["labels"].get("en") and entity["labels"]["en"]["value"]
    description = entity["descriptions"].get("en") and entity["descriptions"]["en"]["value"]
    key_part_slice = label.split(":")
    # TODO: Actually search remaining_key_parts for a common slice.
    if description and key_part_slice == remaining_key_parts[0:len(key_part_slice)]:
        del remaining_key_parts[0:len(key_part_slice)]
        items.append((qid, label, description))

# Output the list of key parts.
for item in items:
    print("* {1}: {2} ({0})".format(*item))

Output:

* construction: Used together with the higher-level tags like highway/building=construction to describe the type of feature which is currently under construction. (Q172)
* turn:lanes: A diagram of the turn lane indications on a one-way road. Each lane is represented by a direction such as left, through, or right, and the lanes are separated by vertical bars. Use key:turn:lanes:forward and key:turn:lanes:backward on a two-way road. (Q796)

The code is a bit dense, but it comes pretty close to the original Lua veresion, so let me know if you have any questions about how it works. Hope this helps.

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 06:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Minh Nguyen:

Thanks!

"I'm surprised that you're finding it necessary to scrape user-facing pages" - in this case I want to verify existence of user-facing pages for https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/discussions/3442 and to lesser extent https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/4225 - I want to link specific key pages where documentation exists. So I want to catch cases where all necessary building blocks exist but for some reason user generated compound page is missing, such as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:name:mos where compound page is not displayed

Right now specifically it is a Kotlin code (for https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/4225 ), but it would be easy to adapt. Still, this code cares what is shown to user - so checking generated pages is deliberate. After all, even if data items are listed and compound page lister is broken or disabled by design on some pages: it is still not shown to users. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, the scraping should be workable as long as it isn't coupled so tightly that StreetComplete would be broken by routine formatting changes. Others have been tinkering with the site stylesheets and banner templates lately, so it's only a matter of time before the 404 page gets some interior decoration too. :^) I guess the infobox needs classes/IDs/microformats too. It'll be interesting to see how this feature turns out. iD took a very different approach by hitting the MediaWiki API for data items and displaying that information inline. However, it doesn't have any compound key logic, because arbitrary combinations of key parts tend not to have dedicated fields anyways. Maybe that would change if it ever gains lane-editing functionality like StreetComplete has. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 07:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Minh Nguyen:: It is less fragile as the plan is to blindly link wiki pages based on simple rules (do not link values of freeform pages such as width=* or name=*, do not link value pages with cycleway: prefix like cycleway:surface=asphalt, link all building values such as building=office, always link key pages and so on). Right now only name:lang pages are not working as expected (as sometimes compound info is not shown). With script just verifying that linked OSM Wiki pages are actually containing info (useful compound pages or existing pages or redirects leading to an useful documentation page), and not running in app itself. Script above may be useful to test whether compound pages are missing some info and just assume that if this info is present then it will be used. As side effect I reviewed keys used by SC and created for example building=pagoda Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

How about subkeys unrelated to names, like change:lanes:both_ways (Q9383) and seamark:virtual_aton:mmsi (Q20907)? Should the individual parts be listed even though there's a pretty comprehensive description in the infobox? Or should the description be repeated outside of the infobox? – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 00:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Minh Nguyen: I would also expect listing compound part there, important part is providing links to pages with actual documentation and explanation. Without that I feel that creating OSM Wiki description pages would be substantial improvement and therefore worth doing. I am also considering "dedicated nonempty data item exists for this tag" as reason to create OSM Wiki description page but it is much weaker Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Mixed fence.png

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Mixed_fence.png Nie pamiętam, skąd wytrzasnąłem to zdjęcie, ale Google Photos nie pamięta, żebym je zrobił, poza tym pewnie byłby to JPEG. Najprawdopodobniej wyciąłem clipping toolem skądś. Pewnie będzie bezpieczniej wywalić je i zastąpić innym.

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Saddle holder removement

Hi Mateusz, i cannot understand the change https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Bicycle_parking&diff=2387687&oldid=2422493 where you also remove the saddle_holder. The comment for the change does not explain it. Can you please explain why it got removed? --Strubbl (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh i see, it got re-added again with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Bicycle_parking&diff=2423771&oldid=2389381 This version history is so confusing. Do you know how can this happen? --Strubbl (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Strubbl: no idea - maybe I edited old page version for some bad reason? Looks like I made some mistake there Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it is more a version history problem than a user problem, because in my change https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Bicycle_parking&diff=prev&oldid=2422493 i only added the saddle_holder value and did not change any other lines. But they occur as changed by me, which is not true. Maybe the version history of that template page is broken. --Strubbl (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Uses of access=permit

In [1] you removed my warning against different and unknown uses of access=permit and ask "Are you aware of anything indicating that access=permit has serious use in a different meaning?" . I think I do. I see many people put this like motor_vehicle=permit tag on many forest roads, that are signposted "Only for motor vehicles of National forest authority" or "Only with permission from National forest authority". I really doubt the authority will grant permission to random tourists wanting to park their campervan on top of a hill. I tried to contact the mappers on how they meant it, but they never reply, they often seem to be ocassional drive-by changes from people with few changesets. So as the tag hasn't been approved yet, nobody knows how people use it and what it means for them. I just do not want people slap access=permit on any road with a sign having "permit" in its text, without understanding the implication. We do not need another access=permissive which is a really unfortunatelly chosen word that 50% people use wrongly thinking it means "needs permit" (and one that is not granted "regularly", thus basically it is "private"). I don't know if it is caused by bad translations in editors, or why that is. So let's not create the same situation here. Aceman444 (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Your revert on Russian–Ukrainian war

On Russian–Ukrainian war I changed "territory of Ukraine" to "Ukrainian controlled territory" and you reverted that. Your change summary shows "have you actually discussed this change with anyone? if yes, please link discussion in edit description". No, I have not. Nobody of the prior Editors did so. And I also don't need to. There is no rule that changes need to be discussed beforehand. This is just how Wikies work. Now you did not give a reason for the revert. Why do you think my contribution was harmful and needed an immediate revert instead of discussing conflicting opinions on the talk page? I think my edit was constructive and to the benefit of the OSM Community and the Ukrainians. The relatively new User:Bezdna initially added the text (User:Velikodsky just translated it) and I did not find any community reference for the rules given. Beforehand I read the talk page and after your revert Russian–Ukrainian war @ OSM community, but I found no evidence that a majority of the Ukrainian community backs what is written on the Wikipage. Please abstain from further reverts of such edits unless there are clear signs of vandalism, disruptive edits, or unexplained content removal. See wikipedia:Help:Reverting! --phobie m d 07:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Phobie: Previous edits there were in fact discussed. You even mention this discussion, but to make it easier I linked it in the page. Maybe request stated there is in fact outdated, maybe it is position of minority of mappers. Maybe page should be edited to make clear that it is request from part of community not official policy (I am NOT encouraging you to do so). Maybe you can create poll at Ukrainian subforum or global one (I am NOT encouraging you to do so) But editing request made by others to change its phrasing and meaning and introduce internal contradictions is at best dubious. And if we are linking Wikipedia pages then I am going to link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

No, previous edits where in fact not discussed. First the Wikipage had been created, without a link to some consensus. Second the Wikipage had been advertised on the forum. Third a critical discussion started on the talk page. Fourth a critical discussion started in the community forum. You just added the forum-advertisement and not the critical-discussion to the Wikipage. Talking about dubious: There is still no reference to a consensus of the Ukrainian OSM community and the request needs shaping/editing. If something should never be edited "Wiki" is the wrong platform. Talking about BRD: I was bold, you reverted, fine but you missed the "be specific about your reasons in the edit summary". Not having discussed something beforehand is NOT a reason. Now I prefixed the appeal with a disclaimer. This should help people stumbling over that page. --phobie m d 10:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Phobie: I see no obvious version with current page version, though changing meaning of appeal made by someone else without discussing it with them still seems dubious to me (where such appeal should be posted, how much context should be given and how it should be presented is a separate can of worms) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It was meant as clarification. It is currently unclear what "territory of Ukraine" means, but "currently controlled" or "including occupied and annexed" would be unambiguous. My new edit lists the problems of the appeal without editing it, but just to pleases you personally. I still think the appeal itself should be adjusted, preferable by a consensus. Discussions have shown that there is no consensus and therefore I think it is good if individuals are bold and change the appeal to be less ambiguous. A discussion on the talk page would be more productive than a revert in this case. --phobie m d 07:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

OSM attribution in MAPS.ME

In the current version of the app, the attribution is located at the top of the screen for a few seconds. It seems that this can be considered compliance with the attribution, although partial

https://i.imgur.com/Bga3t77.png

E8 hiking path

Hi Mateusz, I recently saw you are involved in editing at Germany/Wanderwege-Netz. I am completely overwhelmed with editing here myself, so I would like to ask for your help. The E8 long-distance hiking path has a northern and southern variant in Germany, more precisely between the Donnersberg mountain and the city of Tauberbischofsheim. However, as you can see here, there is a huge gap between Speyer and Buchen, where the path is also existing in reality, but missing on the map. Here is a PDF document of the local Odenwaldklub (Association) what is accustomed for this section of the path. It contains the local hiking paths which are congruent with the E8 in the Odenwald (all existing on OSM), so it should be no problem to add the E8 southern variant on OSM. Is it possible for you to help out here? I hope it's not much of work to do. Regards Stefan1893 (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Stefan1893: sadly, I was only doing technical maintenance. I would ask for help at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/de/56 - login with OSM account, German seems preferred there (note: I have no idea can we use that source) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I asked there. Regards Stefan1893 (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Blocked Tiles page revision

With the aim of clarifying the different reasons for blocks, separating the "user" and "developer" content from each other and making it more actionable (i.e. more descriptive in how to fix the block issue), I've drafted a new proposal to replace the Blocked tiles with User:MarkWoodbury/Blocked_tiles_draft. As I see you've recently been involved with editing the original, I'd welcome your input and comments/proposals on the new draft. Thanks! --MarkWoodbury (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)