macfreek

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About macfreek

  • Rank
    Level 2 Stud

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

660 profile views
  1. Part 33078 (https://rebrickable.com/parts/33078/food-hot-dog-sausage/) links to Brickset 33078 (https://brickset.com/parts/design-33078) but it should also link to the far more common Brickset 25994 (https://brickset.com/parts/design-25994).
  2. macfreek

    License for MOCs

    Suggestion: let users specifically add a license to their MOCs. E.g. "all rights reserved", one of the Creative Commons licenses or Creative Commons zero (CC0, sort of public domain). I like the Terms of Service of Rebrickable -- they are short, clear and sufficient. But for user submitted MOCs, the situation is not always clear. For example, Rebrickable currently forbids that MOC published elsewhere are added to the Rebrickable database, but is not clear about the conditions if other sites may copy information about MOCs from Rebrickable. On one hand, it is clear from the Terms of Service that the database may be downloaded and used for any purpose, including commercial. However, I suspect this does not apply to MOCs. Allowing (and encouraging) users to select a license makes their wish clear.
  3. I very much like Rebrickable, but can't really use it to keep track of MOCs that are not part of Rebrickable. For example, I have bought and build MOC-4491 (which has since disable on Rebrickable because the account of themongoose has been removed), and a mini Pooh-bear created by MisaQa. I kind of suspect that non-Rebrickable MOCs will become more common now that the LEGO Group has clearly has expressed interest in MOCs (previously with Cuusoo and LEGO Ideas and more recently with the acquisition of the BrickLink website last month). Since it is not clear under which license those MOCs have been published*, I can't replicate them here on Rebrickable, and thus not add to my Set collection. I previously used the Part lists to add them there, but is rather limited: you can only add 20 Part lists for a normal account, or 50 Part lists for a Pro account. So I'm curious: how do other people keep track of MOCs they own but are not part of Rebrickable? And related, what is the policy of Rebrickable on those MOCs? Would it somehow be possible to keep track of those without violating the copyright of the creator? Thanks for your suggestions! * For this reason, I clearly added a license to my MOCs, in the faint hope that they won't get disabled once my account is gone.
  4. A small suggestion to fix a minor annoyance: I currently add new sets that I buy first in Brickset, and import them in Rebrickable. However, everytime I do that, all MOCs that I've added to my inventory in Rebrickable are deleted: Since Brickset does not contain MOCs, there are always deleted after an import. Ideally, I like to continue importing, but don't want these MOCs to be deleted. I think this is possible with a checkbox that allows users that they want sets to be deleted or not. There seems to be three options. My suggestion is to implement two of them: Only add sets, don't delete any sets Add sets, but don't delete MOCs (or other sets that are in Rebrickable but not in Brickset) Add sets, and delete any set that is not in Brick (current default) (PS: In case you are wondering why I don't add them to Rebrickable and then export to Brickset is habit, nad originated when Brickset had more sets than Rebrickable in the database)
  5. So far, I haven't received a reply to this note. Is this the right place to report errors on the colour table?
  6. I very much appreciate your thoroughness. Thanks, and enjoy your new year!
  7. There seem other discrepancies in the colour tables found at different sources. I'm comparing Rebrickable, LDD, Brickset, LDraw, Peeron, BrickOwl, Swooshable, Ryan Howerter. I'll only report here when I'm certain of a mistake. The RB colour table seems to err for two LEGO IDs: Metal Blue (RB ID 137) lists LEGO IDs 145 and 137. LEGO ID 137 is Medium Orange, and should be removed from the Metal Blue line. Brown (RB ID 6) lists LEGO IDs 217 [Brown], 187 [Sand Yellow Metallic], and 25 [Earth Orange]. I'm not sure about the mapping, but the name for LEGO ID 187 is not "Sand Yellow Metallic", but "Metallic Earth Orange". There is a "Metallic Sand Yellow", but with LEGO ID 147 (not 187). "187 [Sand Yellow Metallic]" has to be changed to either "187 [Metallic Earth Orange]" or "147 [Metallic Sand Yellow]". The source of these names is LDD, and given that I just downloaded it from lego.com, I trust that source is correct. Please verify for yourself. Note that more sites seem to have confused Sand Yellow Metallic. Beside Rebrickable, Peeron and BrickOwl have an incorrect ID-Name mapping. LDraw, Swooshable and Ryan Howerter are on par with LDD.
  8. @Lucky-Ramses, just to be clear, I don't want to break things, just to fix obvious errors. Given your posts, it seems best to follow the categorisation of BrickLink, and make sure the references are correct. That would entail: Map the two LEGO rust colours to Dark Orange, as BrickLink did. I'll submit change requests for those two parts. Keep BL Rust as a separate color from Red, as it is visually distinct. Same as BrickLink did. The only thing that still needs to be corrected is the colour tabel. If I'm correct, we need the following entries (with apologies for the poor-mans table formatting): ID Name LEGO LDraw BrickLink BrickOwl 216 Rust 216 [Rust] 27 [Rust] 83 [Rust] 484 Dark Orange 38 [Dark Orange, 484 [Dark Orange] 68 [Dark Orange] 54 [Dark Orange] DK.ORA], 216 [Rust] Do you concur with this?
  9. That's exactly my point. Yet, Rebrickable claims they are the same (In the chart at https://rebrickable.com/colors/, it has BL Rust and LEGO Rust on the same line). So you are saying Rebrickable is wrong, like me. Your proposal is to simply remove RB id 216. I'm perfectly fine with that solution. However, there are a few parts with that colour on Rebrickable. My question is what to do with those items. I gave a few proposals (like remapping those to Dark Orange). Which of those do you prefer? Or do you prefer something else?
  10. It seems there is an incorrect entry on the Rebrickable colour chart, concerning Rust. According to Ryan Howerter, the BrickLink Rust is distinct from Lego Rust. If Ryan is right (and given his knowledge on the subject, I think he is), BL Rust is just (Bright) Red (Lego ID 21, Rebrickable ID 4) in softer plastics. The "Rust" color on Rebrickable is similar to BL Rust. How to solve this? My first suggestion is to reclassify the parts with Rebrickable color 216 as Rebrickable color 4, and to to change the color table to add the following entries to Red (Rebrickable ID 4): BrickLink ID 27 and possibly BrickOwl 83. (BrickOwl seems to classify both BL Rust and LEGO Rust as the same color). LDraw seems to get it right. The Rebrickable color ID 216 can than be removed. The alternative is to keep Rust as a distinct Rebrickable color. In that case, Lego ID 216 and LDraw ID 216 should be removed from the line with Rebrickable ID 216. Now, there are still a few parts in LEGO Rust. According to Ryan: 51163cx1 and 48394, which are now classified as Dark Orange. So my second suggestion is to add LEGO ID 216, LDraw ID 216 (and possible BrickOwl 83) to Rebrickable ID 484. An alternative here is to repurpose Rebrickable color ID 216 as Lego color 216, and reclassify the above to parts to use Rebrickable color ID, and add keep LEGO ID 216, LDraw ID 216 with to Rebrickable ID 216, but also add BrickLink 68 (and possibly BrickOwl 83) to signify their different classification.
  11. Bedankt! [Thanks!] No need for the points. I'm trying to get my complete collection on Rebrickable, and am busy reporting some minor things anyway. Just wondering, given another recent thread, is there a naming convention? You named the patterns "15678pat0001" etc., so with the "pat" suffix. Most other printed/pattern parts use the "pr" suffix (and only 1 or 2 parts the "pb" suffix, apparently a mistake based on BrickLink convention). Is there a reason to use "pat" here instead? Or is there simply no convention?
  12. Part 31875 does not have a correct BrickLink mapping. This is a chameleon (misspelled as Cameleon on Brickset and here on Rebrickable). However, Rebrickable only contains one print, which is marked as the colour "lime". In reality, there are 3 prints (the purple-lime one in Lego set 41185-1 (2017), the all green one in Lego Friends magazine LEA-104 (not on Rebrickable), and the green-magenta one, source unknown to me). These prints are known as 15678pb01, 15678pb02, and 15678pb03 at BrickLink. So I'm inclined to submit a change request to change the BrickLink ID to 15678. Unfortunately, searching for 15678 does not yield any result at BrickLink. So my question: what should I submit as BrickLink ID in the change request?
  13. With apologies for my slightly neurotic personality: In that case, may I suggest the "x" or "bb" prefix for consistency? A quick analysis of 1182 parts not starting with a number revealed the following statistics of the most often used prefixes (with apologies for the poor-man table formatting): Count Prefix Usage 277 x Unknown part ID, often (minifig) accesoiries, or electronics 145 bb Bricklink ID 81 fab Fabuland 47 kkc Knights Kingdom Card 43 belvfem Belville female minifig 42 sailbb Cloth Sail 33 tech Technic Figure legs 28 js Minifig Jack Stone 24 bbcard BrickLink ID, Lego sports card 24 rb Rubber Band 23 flex Technic Flex Cable 21 create Creationary Game Card 14 u Unknown part ID 13 b Book 13 belvmale Belville male minifig 10 belvskirt Belville minifig skirt 10 clikits Clikits 9 case Packaging
  14. FYI, @TobyMac approved the submissions: bb695 as tilemodified0001 and bb696 as baseplate18x26. While the identifiers are a bit lengthy to my taste (especially since the printed parts will be e.g. tilemodified0001pr0001 etc), I think this is the best we can do.