Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson <at> gmail.com> writes: > Hi All, > Lets just step back and reflect on this for a minute. I have reviewed the replies on this mailing list and there are a mixture of supportive comments, a few negatives and the remainder may suggest something but are neither negative or positive. > Lets look at the issues raised: > 1. Licence compatibility > Resolved in [1] > 2. Accuracy of what's in Wikidata > Remember it has to also match something in OSM. The tag enables people to use wikidata to enhance their maps but this remains optional. > 3. Keeping it up to date > > An API rather than an import was suggested but this would not work with existing tools (e.g Overpass) and we are adding wikidata tags to OSM anyway. When ways are split in OSM mappers already have to deal with existing tags - I don't see how this would be any different. Very few imports have a good strategy to keep them up to date (this doesn't mean that we should continue to turn a blind eye - just that we need to be fair to Edward's hard work) > > 4. Bridges identified as a problem case > > Suggest not automating bridges. > > 5. OSM vs Wikidata/Wikimedia Commons"It will surely not call people to contribute in OSM but rather directly in wikidata !" > > On this last point we need to focus on what is best for OSM now and not cloud our vision with any historic matters between OSM and Wikimedia Commons. Our strategy is to:"create and distribute free geographic data ... because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways" > > To me there are a few things that stand out: > > * Create and distribute - We aim to build our contibutor base and grow our user base. Working with the wikidata team will show that we are an open community. > * Geographic data - there are some parts that just don't suit OSM's model (we even have a maximum character limit on tags), linking to wikidata would help in this regard. > > * Restrictions - We have our own restrictions (verifiable on the ground, not changing to frequently) in OSM. A link to wikidata allows us to continue with these restrictions but still allow people to get at interesting non-geographic data. > > * Unexpected ways - Links to wikidata open up a wealth of rich data allowing new innovative ideas. > > In my mind this is a good move and should be supported. Point 3 above could be resolved by running the script regularly to see if there are any new matches. There have also been some good suggestions on this list such as a KeepRight style (i.e. QA) map where problematic objects (e.g. script finds more than one match) can be manually reviewed, confirming whether the script conflicts with any existing wikidata tags in OSM, checking whether the script would add a wikidata tag to an object when there is already a different object in OSM with that wikidata tag, and a check on the 400m distance rule [2]. > > Are these things possible Edward? > > Regards, > > Rob
Agreed. Thank you Edward for your good work. A few more points: This isn’t a deletionists’ charter and we shouldn’t rush to unload any tagging onto Wikidata without discussing the removal very carefully. Is there any scope for a Maproulette or similar style challenge to fill in matches that are too doubtful to import directly (such as slightly longer distances or mismatched names, but otherwise good), perhaps? You can’t do this with an API of course. As a British mapper I see no reason to exclude my own country from the import. -- Andrew _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
