[Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
thibaultmolleman at gmail.com
Wed Aug 26 11:14:38 UTC 2020
Yeah, makes sense.
Having ipfs be a valid image/file tag in osm would be a nice addition
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 if the average user is going to bother making me Wikimedia
account, figuring out how commons works, and then figuring out how to make
Wikimedia also seems to kind of force you to describe what each image is,
which I guess is isn't bad thing. (but I do think that a lot of images
don't need more context than just having them be on the node)
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 12:38 bkil <bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...] 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 Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page
> (the "User:" namespace), but by custom the uploading of small numbers of
> images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is
> allowed. Files relating to projects or events of the Wikimedia community,
> such as user meetings, are also allowed.
> > [...] For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could
> theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in
> photography" does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs. The
> fact that an unused snapshot of your friend could theoretically be used to
> illustrate an article on "Photographic portraiture" does not mean that we
> should keep all photographs of unknown people. The fact that an unused
> pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on
> pornography does not mean that we should keep low quality pornographic
> images (see also Censorship).
> > [...] Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an
> educational purpose:
> > Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself
> and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are
> plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose,
> such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational
> even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.
> Some other technology (like IPFS) may also be sufficient for such party
> photos and the mentioned Flickr also has a creative commons & public domain
> sharing option that allows reuse for stock footage.
> Also about uploading your party pictures as a child: you may not have
> received the informed consent of all models portrayed on the picture (i.e.,
> your family and other customers) that you have uploaded. For example in
> many countries, you must sign individual waivers if you want to publish the
> photographs that include identifiable humans. This is especially true with
> Commons, because the purpose of uploading is to contribute the content in a
> manner which allows other contributors to edit, remix and reuse your
> photographs in ways that you or your models did not anticipate.
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:54 AM Thibault Molleman <
> thibaultmolleman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>> (looking back on the deletion requests. Turns out they were just unsure
>> what the license was. (fair enough, uploaded them when I was 12 or
>> something, so probably didn't really know what I was doing).
>> Guess wikimedia commons galleries are a good solution then.
>> Maybe it should be made more clear on the wiki that this is the thing you
>> should do if you want to upload multiple images
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 11:30, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>
>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:04, Thibault Molleman
>>> <thibaultmolleman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Ah, I feel like there are certain images that might get deleted from
>>> > 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 just hosting images for Wikipedia.
>>> > 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" according to their
>>> > moderation team.
>>> There is no "moderation team" on Commons; deletion decisions there are
>>> made by the community of contributors at large (just like edits in
>>> Your images sound as though they would be in scope. Did you try to
>>> upload them?
>>> Do you have an example of an image which has been deleted from Commons?
>>> Andy Mabbett
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging