Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
Am Samstag, 4. Mai 2013, 02:26:08 schrieb Claus Stadler:
> >> Isn't this thread about pointing from outside to osm?
>
> Yes, so the simple suggestion is for OSM to extend the API to expose the
> wiki tags; something like
>
> Something along the lines of:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/wiki/{lang}/{article}
> And this would return the corresponding object(s).
There are variants in the way an article can be tagged. These are not only
different point of views on tagging, but also have different meanings.
wikipedia="fr:Bruxelles" makes Brussels a french speaking town with some
flamish speakers.
wikipedia="nl:Brussel" makes Brussels a flamish speaking town with some french
speakers.
So people may agreee on "wikipedia:fr" and "wikipedia:nl" for such an object
instead.
Because problems of these kinds are common, the api does on purpose not
distinguish any tags. Adding any kind of Wikipedia service to the main api may
give precedence that OSM may prefer certain ways of tagging. Or just put
unnecessary load on the main API, which uneccessary slows down editing.
However, a third party linking service is always fine.
Cheers,
Roland
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
>> Isn't this thread about pointing from outside to osm?
Yes, so the simple suggestion is for OSM to extend the API to expose the
wiki tags; something like
Something along the lines of:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/wiki/{lang}/{article}
And this would return the corresponding object(s).
Even better, if it was Linked Data API in the first place [1] ;)
Give me a bit and I can demonstrate (I need to recreate the index on the
node_tags column >_<) ;)
Cheers,
Claus
[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
On 05/04/2013 01:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2013/5/4 Claus Stadler >
Hi,
Shouldn't OSM use Wikipedia URLs as UUIDs where applicable rather
than Wikipedia referring to database identifiers? (The answer is a
clear 'yes' from my side.)
In fact there are the (wikipedia, *) tags - but not sure how good
the quality is - what can be seen on a first glance is, that
people mix URLs and article names, and also encoding.
there are also other tags to point from certain OSM attributes to
wikipedia, e.g.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/wikipedia%3Aoperator and
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/operator%3Awikipedia
but isn't this thread about pointing from outside to osm?
cheers,
Martin
--
Dipl. Inf. Claus Stadler
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Research Group: http://aksw.org/
Workpage & WebID: http://aksw.org/ClausStadler
Phone: +49 341 97-32260
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
2013/5/4 Claus Stadler > Hi, > > Shouldn't OSM use Wikipedia URLs as UUIDs where applicable rather than > Wikipedia referring to database identifiers? (The answer is a clear 'yes' > from my side.) > In fact there are the (wikipedia, *) tags - but not sure how good the > quality is - what can be seen on a first glance is, that people mix URLs > and article names, and also encoding. > > there are also other tags to point from certain OSM attributes to wikipedia, e.g. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/wikipedia%3Aoperatorand http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/operator%3Awikipedia but isn't this thread about pointing from outside to osm? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
Hi,
Shouldn't OSM use Wikipedia URLs as UUIDs where applicable rather than
Wikipedia referring to database identifiers? (The answer is a clear
'yes' from my side.)
In fact there are the (wikipedia, *) tags - but not sure how good the
quality is - what can be seen on a first glance is, that people mix URLs
and article names, and also encoding.
Cheers,
Claus
On 05/04/2013 01:34 AM, Jason Remillard wrote:
Hi,
In general is seems like it might be useful to have some kind of
somewhat permanent URL to an element inside of OSM. However, given
what exists today shouldn't Wikipedia be using the overpass API for
referencing OSM?
Thanks
Jason.
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 2:08 PM
To: Frederik Ramm
Cc: OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
I am less concerned about the Wikidata side - if they make a bad
judgement then it is their mess to clean up. I am however concerned
that if more people simply assume that the status quo is there to stay
("IDs are stable enough"), this will put pressure on *us* and limit
our flexibility in the future.
The OSMF has sent a pretty strong message saying that object IDs are
stable enough to base impactful legal decisions on them. It will look
silly for them to go back to the stance that IDs aren't stable after
all.
There's two sides to ID stability. One is stability during software or data
model changes and the other is stability during normal mapping. Frederik's
post was concerned more with the former.
The latter is more complicated. Because the original message linked to
London, it's worth pointing out that a few admin relations did get new IDs
in the redaction process for technical reasons and that periodically
relations get given new IDs because old large complex relations don't
interact well with the /history call.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
Dipl. Inf. Claus Stadler
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Research Group: http://aksw.org/
Workpage & WebID: http://aksw.org/ClausStadler
Phone: +49 341 97-32260
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
Hi,
In general is seems like it might be useful to have some kind of
somewhat permanent URL to an element inside of OSM. However, given
what exists today shouldn't Wikipedia be using the overpass API for
referencing OSM?
Thanks
Jason.
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>> From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balr...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 2:08 PM
>> To: Frederik Ramm
>> Cc: OpenStreetMap
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
>>
>> > I am less concerned about the Wikidata side - if they make a bad
>> > judgement then it is their mess to clean up. I am however concerned
>> > that if more people simply assume that the status quo is there to stay
>> > ("IDs are stable enough"), this will put pressure on *us* and limit
>> > our flexibility in the future.
>>
>> The OSMF has sent a pretty strong message saying that object IDs are
>> stable enough to base impactful legal decisions on them. It will look
>> silly for them to go back to the stance that IDs aren't stable after
>> all.
>
> There's two sides to ID stability. One is stability during software or data
> model changes and the other is stability during normal mapping. Frederik's
> post was concerned more with the former.
>
> The latter is more complicated. Because the original message linked to
> London, it's worth pointing out that a few admin relations did get new IDs
> in the redaction process for technical reasons and that periodically
> relations get given new IDs because old large complex relations don't
> interact well with the /history call.
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
> From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 2:08 PM
> To: Frederik Ramm
> Cc: OpenStreetMap
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
>
> > I am less concerned about the Wikidata side - if they make a bad
> > judgement then it is their mess to clean up. I am however concerned
> > that if more people simply assume that the status quo is there to stay
> > ("IDs are stable enough"), this will put pressure on *us* and limit
> > our flexibility in the future.
>
> The OSMF has sent a pretty strong message saying that object IDs are
> stable enough to base impactful legal decisions on them. It will look
> silly for them to go back to the stance that IDs aren't stable after
> all.
There's two sides to ID stability. One is stability during software or data
model changes and the other is stability during normal mapping. Frederik's
post was concerned more with the former.
The latter is more complicated. Because the original message linked to
London, it's worth pointing out that a few admin relations did get new IDs
in the redaction process for technical reasons and that periodically
relations get given new IDs because old large complex relations don't
interact well with the /history call.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
On 3 May 2013 23:22, Frederik Ramm wrote: > * some objects whose ID had not changed and who had been created by someone > who rejected the license were nonetheless kept if it could be shown that > they had been changed in a major way since; > > * some objects that had been freshly created by people agreeing with the > license change, but that were more or less copies of other objects from > non-agreers, were removed even though they had a different ID. The redaction bot code doesn't generally do that and if there were such cases then they were an insignificant minority compared to those where the change of the object's ID meant it was considered an entirely different object. It's strange that you'd negate that. > > I will not discuss this sub-thread further; object IDs are not stable and > nothing we did during the license change is suitable as a counter argument. The fact that the IDs are not persistent had been pointed out several times during the process and both you and the LWG have said (this is quite clearly stated their meeting minutes) that this isn't an issue big enough to bother. There were some statistics posted on the list and on IRC (from Simon Poole) stating it affected 0.1 to 1% of the database which is in the millions of objects range. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
Am 03.05.2013 23:08, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
On 3 May 2013 22:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:
On 03.05.2013 22:12, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
The consensus was that--at least for place relations which are the
target of the said property--OSM relation IDs are stable enough and any
changes in IDs can be easily rectified. Wikidata is a wiki after all.
I am less concerned about the Wikidata side - if they make a bad judgement
then it is their mess to clean up. I am however concerned that if more
people simply assume that the status quo is there to stay ("IDs are stable
enough"), this will put pressure on *us* and limit our flexibility in the
future.
The OSMF has sent a pretty strong message saying that object IDs are
stable enough to base impactful legal decisions on them. It will look
silly for them to go back to the stance that IDs aren't stable after
all.
There are two sides of stable. Of course a node created with id 123 will
always have id 123. But the tags of the node could change. So node 123
could be a restaurant in v1 and in v2 a node in a highway. So if you
have a restaurant-DB pointing to node 123 would fail
Henning
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
Hi, On 03.05.2013 23:18, andrzej zaborowski wrote: I don't understand -- wasn't the entire process based on the assumption that intellectual property persists as long as the object ID persists? No, that is a misconception. During the license change we deviated from that idea in both directions: * some objects whose ID had not changed and who had been created by someone who rejected the license were nonetheless kept if it could be shown that they had been changed in a major way since; * some objects that had been freshly created by people agreeing with the license change, but that were more or less copies of other objects from non-agreers, were removed even though they had a different ID. I will not discuss this sub-thread further; object IDs are not stable and nothing we did during the license change is suitable as a counter argument. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
On 3 May 2013 23:14, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 03.05.2013 23:08, andrzej zaborowski wrote: >> The OSMF has sent a pretty strong message saying that object IDs are >> stable enough to base impactful legal decisions on them. > > The OSMF has never sent messages saying that object IDs are stable or even > "stable enough" for anything; if you interpreted any of the license change > discussions in that way, you are mis-interpreting them. I don't understand -- wasn't the entire process based on the assumption that intellectual property persists as long as the object ID persists? Wasn't that in part your own decision? Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 11:08:01PM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 3 May 2013 22:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > On 03.05.2013 22:12, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> >> The consensus was that--at least for place relations which are the
> >> target of the said property--OSM relation IDs are stable enough and any
> >> changes in IDs can be easily rectified. Wikidata is a wiki after all.
> >
> > I am less concerned about the Wikidata side - if they make a bad judgement
> > then it is their mess to clean up. I am however concerned that if more
> > people simply assume that the status quo is there to stay ("IDs are stable
> > enough"), this will put pressure on *us* and limit our flexibility in the
> > future.
>
> The OSMF has sent a pretty strong message saying that object IDs are
> stable enough to base impactful legal decisions on them. It will look
> silly for them to go back to the stance that IDs aren't stable after
> all.
What are you talking about?
Jochen
--
Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.jochentopf.com/ +49-721-388298
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
Hi, On 03.05.2013 23:08, andrzej zaborowski wrote: The OSMF has sent a pretty strong message saying that object IDs are stable enough to base impactful legal decisions on them. The OSMF has never sent messages saying that object IDs are stable or even "stable enough" for anything; if you interpreted any of the license change discussions in that way, you are mis-interpreting them. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
On 3 May 2013 22:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 03.05.2013 22:12, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>> The consensus was that--at least for place relations which are the
>> target of the said property--OSM relation IDs are stable enough and any
>> changes in IDs can be easily rectified. Wikidata is a wiki after all.
>
> I am less concerned about the Wikidata side - if they make a bad judgement
> then it is their mess to clean up. I am however concerned that if more
> people simply assume that the status quo is there to stay ("IDs are stable
> enough"), this will put pressure on *us* and limit our flexibility in the
> future.
The OSMF has sent a pretty strong message saying that object IDs are
stable enough to base impactful legal decisions on them. It will look
silly for them to go back to the stance that IDs aren't stable after
all.
Cheers
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
Hi,
On 03.05.2013 22:12, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
The consensus was that--at least for place relations which are the
target of the said property--OSM relation IDs are stable enough and any
changes in IDs can be easily rectified. Wikidata is a wiki after all.
I am less concerned about the Wikidata side - if they make a bad
judgement then it is their mess to clean up. I am however concerned that
if more people simply assume that the status quo is there to stay ("IDs
are stable enough"), this will put pressure on *us* and limit our
flexibility in the future.
I fear that some day soon we'll have a good idea about re-organising our
admin bounds that involves large-scale changes, and then people come to
us and say "ah, that's unfortunate because we at [insert some other
project or product or company] had assumed that relation IDs are
relatively stable...".
As soon as everyone who uses our relation IDs as external pointers signs
a document that says "I know I am doing something that could potentially
backfire and if it does I swear that I will not try to exert pressure on
OSM but instead tell my own users that it is entirely my fault for being
short-sighted and that I had been warned", then I guess that's fine ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 03.05.2013 18:15, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: > >> Just wanted to notify those who didn't know: There is now a property >> (P402) in use in Wikidata to link the corresponding entry to a relation >> ID in OSM. >> > > This is a very bad idea and should not be used. > I assume you think this is bad because OSM IDs are not stable with respect to the objects they represent? It seems this was discussed by the Wikidata users when there was a very recent proposal to delete this OSM ID property (P402): https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Property:P402 The consensus was that--at least for place relations which are the target of the said property--OSM relation IDs are stable enough and any changes in IDs can be easily rectified. Wikidata is a wiki after all. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
Hi, On 03.05.2013 18:15, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: Just wanted to notify those who didn't know: There is now a property (P402) in use in Wikidata to link the corresponding entry to a relation ID in OSM. This is a very bad idea and should not be used. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
Hi. Just wanted to notify those who didn't know: There is now a property (P402) in use in Wikidata to link the corresponding entry to a relation ID in OSM. Example: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q84 With regards, Svavar Kjarrval signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] street-less addresses and Nominatim
Hi, due to popular demand OSM's search engine, Nominatim, has recently received support for the addr:place[1] tag. This tag can be used to make addresses searchable by Nominatim that do not belong to a street. Simply replace the usual addr:street with addr:place containing the region/place the housenumber belongs to. For example, this building: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/185887900 can now be found with this query: http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search.php?q=4+Pomocnia For technical reasons, Nominatim requires that the location in your addr:place tag is mapped as well (and not too far away). Currently, it will happily attach your address to admin boundaries level 8 and higher, to place nodes of village level or smaller and also to named landuses. (The latter might be useful for block-based addresses.) This hopefully allows to cover most addressing schemas but there is one known exception: the conscription number schema used in some parts of Eastern Europe. Nominatim will either pick up the conscription number (if you add addr:place) or the street number (if you add addr:street) but it cannot process both at the same time. This will be fixed at some point but requires more extensive changes. If your country has some other addressing that still doesn't work with Nominatim, please let us know, preferably via trac[2] or github[3]. Happy address hunting Sarah [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:place [2] https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ [3] https://github.com/twain47/Nominatim/issues ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
