On Tuesday 28 November 2017, Jo wrote: > > Grouping objects in associatedStreet and river relations (and adding > wikidata identifiers on them) partly solves this, but > associatedStreet wasn't liked much and is pretty much dead in the > water and in the river relations, only the linear features are > included, not the riverbank area ways. > > Does it make sense to create pages for this on the wiki? Or would > several people have issues with such a proposal?
We had a discussion some time ago on the talk list regarding how the idea of wikidata IDs already clashes with the idea of on-the-ground verifiability and the established rule not to have external IDs in the OSM database. My current view of that discussion is largely outlined in: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-October/079126.html Having additional tags representing abstract concepts and categories of features would further exacerbate this problem. If what you want to tag part_of:wikidata representas a spatially defined and as such verifiable concept you should map it in OSM and what features are part of this derives from the spatial relationship and existing tags in OSM - in other words part_of:wikidata would be kind of 'is_in all over again'. If what you want to tag with part_of:wikidata is a class of objects or category you should look for an existing tag or invent a new tag describing this class/category and you can add the wikidata ID to the tag page on the wiki describing the relationship (which again of course is not necessarily a 1:1 relationship). Tagging something like part_of:wikidata instead of either of this looks to me like delegating the recording of mapping information and with that the authority of defining concepts and classes to an external authority (wikidata) with ultimately incompatible standards. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
