Sorry that it took me a while to reply, I was out of office and just came back now.
Il giorno 10 giu 2016, alle ore 21:07, Minh Nguyen < m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> ha scritto: is this your interpretation or is it explicitly defined like this? I'm astonished that these 2 concepts are supposedly structured vertically and not horizontally in wikidata <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q486972> is defined in Wikidata as a subset of <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56061>. I agree that this is a suboptimal relationship – anyone can edit it's not a big problem to have errors in the relations as long as everybody can agree that it's an error and should be corrected. But the fact that this wrong relation still sits in there and doesn't actually get corrected is a bit troubling, particularly as this is IMHO a major bug which has influence on all settlements that are in wikidata. Another issue I believe to have found in this item looking at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q486972 : the first words, (I believe it is meant to be the definition, although it does not explicitly say so,) are "densely populated geographic location - populated place - settlement - human community - inhabited place" - - Now when you think about a ghost town, it clearly is a human settlement, but this definition falls short in covering it. I would prefer, rather than a collection of related terms (human community, inhabited place etc), a complete sentence that defines the term, e.g. "a human settlement is a place where a community of humans lives or lived and decided in the past to settle and create dwellings." (surely could be improved, just an example). There are lots of unanswered questions in wikidata, and probably, by judging from the current state of the data, not enough editors to manage to look through all of it. Another issue that comes to mind: what about contradictions between an article and a wikidata object? How is the relationship between the articles and wikidata? Apparently, you can only associate on article to one item, so this suggests a strong relationsship, but clearly there are articles in many languages, and there will be lots of contradictions between those languages (because there are lots of articles, and because nearly noone cross checks different languages). IMHO it would have been a better idea to have a less strong relationship, something like "this article has information about this item" (and hence allow multiple articles to be associated with an object) rather than what it seems conceptually to be thought of now (the articles and this wikidata object deal with the same thing, are the same thing, here in article form and here as mathematical relations). For me these are just more indications that we should not base automatic edits on this source at the moment. Generally, in OSM we are proud about the high quality of our data, because the mappers base their work on first hand experience and human judgement, and we shouldn't give these up just to gain a little more editing convenience (IMHO). We do have very strict guidelines for imports and automated edits, and IMHO this new features falls into the second category... Cheers, Martin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
