We need our own OSMdata instance in between to describe real world objects and concepts. And maybe we could even solve the ridiculous amount of duplication we're experiencing at the moment.
True, the editor software will have to be adapted to cope with merges and splits, so the human editor can decide what OSM object(s) belong to what real world object(s). Either that or we should start using relations more intelligently. But they are heavyweight and supposedly they are also "complicated". Polyglot 2015-05-29 10:58 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > 2015-05-28 23:00 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>: > >> On 28 May 2015 at 09:50, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > e.g. the "en:Spanish Steps" / "de:Spanische Treppe" are >> > called "Scalinata di Trinità dei Monti" in the local language (it is >> located >> > at "piazza di Spagna", that's where the foreign name comes from, while >> in >> > Italian it is called after to church it leads to). Naturally, OSM has >> the >> > original name of this world famous monument, but Wikidata hasn't. >> >> It does now. >> > > > OK, this is one point for you, but it also proves my point: wikidata at > the moment is not sufficiently mature (IMHO) to replace name tags in > different languages in OSM. Of course you can fix wikidata issues (if you > understand how it is done, I haven't had enough time yet to understand how > to make edits like this, and the fact that not all tags are shown to me > (e.g. only 4 out of all language labels, after I have explicitly clicked on > "in more languages")) doesn't help. > > // sidenote: > > Now I could link the wikidata object of the spanish steps to the OSM > object and get an Italian name. But I will not have an Italian wikipedia > article about it, because it is covered in the spanish square (piazza di > spagna) article in Italian. How would I ideally procede now? > > a) in wikidata link the article of the piazza di spagna (in italian) to > the wikidata object about the spanish steps? > > a2) like a) but link to an anchor: Piazza_di_Spagna#La_scalinata ? > > b) in wikipedia split the italian wikipedia article in 2, one for the > square and one for the steps? > > c) in osm add an additional tag like > wikipedia:it=Piazza_di_Spagna#La_scalinata to the steps object? > > d) something different... > > //sidenote off > > > >> > If we were to massively use wikidata _instead of duplicating some >> details >> > from there also in our db_ we would have to improve wikidata as well, >> >> You'd be welcome to do so. ... > > >> > and impose our entity structure on them, >> >> Really? Good luck with that. >> > > > what I meant, and what you do confirm below: if for instance there is an > object in wikidata which is an administrative entity and a geographic place > at the same time, but for OSM we'd need 2 distinct objects, we will have to > split the wikidata object. This could be done only if there wasn't > resistance from other wikidata users who might want to keep the current > unmodified object because it links better to wikipedia articles. We might > introduce another object that linked the split objects onto one, which > could serve for wikipedia articles, etc. but this is a much more > complicated procedure than changing tags in OSM alone. > > We've always said that we wanted editing to be simple, so that we can > maximize the amount of available editors, but with the tight integration of > another dynamic dataset (for one of the core competences we are dealing > with: toponyms) > > > >> >> > or it won't work in some cases (and if it doesn't work in some case, it >> doesn't work at all). >> >> That is, of course, nonsense. >> > > > OK, let's say it is nonesense, because you can accept that a solution > works for most of the cases and try work around those that don't work. > Currently (all names in OSM) we don't have these problems though. > > > >> >> > Another issue I see with wikidata is that it contains information and >> > details about spatial objects, but it doesn't contain the geometry it >> refers >> > to. >> >> The geometry is in OSM, is it not? Why would Wikidata want to replicate >> that? >> > > > IMHO you have to understand to which geometry you are referring when you > make edits, or you might break stuff without noticing it. Wikidata editors > would have to look at OSM geometries to ensure that their edit maintains > consistency, and OSM users would have to check wikidata to see if editing > something in a certain way (e.g. merges or splits, adding tags, changing > geometry) is OK or whether they have to split the wikidata object and > update the wikidata link. It is not impossible, but it is an enormous > amount of complexity added, and it also augments the risk of > non-availability of the backend by 100% (because now we depend on 2 > services and not on one). > > > I want > >> > to point out is that there seem to be different criteria defined for >> > different languages: >> >> These descriptions aid users; they are not proscriptive. There are >> also local and cultural variations. Just like "city" in OSM. > > > > Maybe these are descriptions to aid in some regional wiki projects and > proscriptive rules in others like Germany, where rules rule? Just like in > OSM ;-) > It would rather confuse than aid me if the descriptions in some language > says something is foo and in another language they tell me it is not foo. > > > > > TL;DR; wikidata is a gorgeous project, combining their knowledge with ours > is very promising. Still, in my opinion, for the current state of where > they are (and where the tools to combine both are), I would _not remove > tags_ from OSM just because the same information might be available in > wikidata. > > Cheers, > Martin > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
