On 28 August 2014 12:04, SomeoneElse <li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk> wrote: > On 27/08/2014 22:15, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> Wikidata has data on each of these entities which either >> isn't in OSM (who's the mayor of this town/ vicar of this church?) > OK - not sure how that's a benefit to OSM as such, though > I'm sure people could do "useful unexpected things" with > those links. That's the point - the benefit is to OSM's users, whcih in turn benefits OSM in the same way any other enhancements does - making it more useful, attracting more contributors, etc. >> or which acts as a sanity check for what is in OSM (We can >> generate lists where the two disagree, for humans to check >> and fix). > That sounds useful, but sounds like "in theory someone > could generate a list" rather than actually volunteering to do so. Of course it's "in theory" - we haven't applied the tags, yet. >> Wikidata has multi-lingual labels for many objects, which OSM >> renderers can fetch via the Wikidata link. > That's definitely useful. It would allow us to split the > "verifiable on the ground" stuff from the other stuff - > it should save us having 190 names for Berlin that mostly > say "Berlin". Indeed. > Another one (mentioned on IRC) is a way to get up > to date population data for places - data that couldn't or > shouldn't be in OSM for licence reasons, > or (like your "vicars" example) is continuously changing > and not easily verifiable. >> What disadvantages do you forsee? > Maintainability, as has already been mentioned. With any > import there has to be a plan for "how do we make sure this > data stays up to date", and I'm not seeing that yet. I'm not anticipating many changes; this "import" gives a leg-up to a human process. > Another issue is with "dodgy data" on either the OSM or the > wikidata side. I've already mentioned "non-existing villages" > in wikipedia, but there are also examples where the OSM > side's iffy too, which could result in a false match. I addressed that in a earlier email >> I think the issues raised have been addressed; which do >> you feel have not been? > Specifally, comments such as "In my opinion, the risks of > doing this automatically are just too high", "+1 to not import > blindly but require human confirmation" and "that's why I > was asking how you proposed to measure it" in those > threads. The former pair are vague hand-waving; more specific points have been addressed, which covered such things (and there is no plan for "blind" importing). The latter was also addressed. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
