Such an awesome discussion, thanks! * https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:GoToLinkedPage can already be used to open a Wikipedia page when you only have a Wikidata ID. It even accepts a list of wiki sites. For example, this link automatically opens the wiki page for Q3669 in the first available language ("pt" in this case)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:GoToLinkedPage?itemid=Q3669&site=enwiki,ptwiki * Sarah, thanks for the heads up about Nominatim using Wikipedia tags. I recently added page popularity (pageviews) to the OSM+Wikidata service. Another metric is the number of Wikipedia articles in different languages per topic (sitelinks count). Together, they can be used to calculate relative weights. * I am a bit radical, but not enough to propose we get rid wikipedia tags just yet. They sometimes provide a good indication of the original intent. Once Wikidata is used in all the tooling, we may revisit, but not until then. But yes, wikipedia tags are very unstable, especially when articles get renamed because multiple places have identical names, thus creating a link to disambig. So in general, they often go stale and become less useful without any indication. * Oleksiy, OSM can use any data from Wikidata because of the public domain dedication (CC0), but the reverse depends on if the OSM contributor agreed to dedicate their edits to public domain. Without it, OSM data is licensed under ODbL, and cannot be copied. We should make it easier to detect what piece of OSM data is in PD. I do like your USB analogy :) About names - you will be surprised to discover that MB and other places are actively pursuing Wikidata integration because WD tends to have a huge names list, possibly bigger than OSM itself? * Christoph, a very valid point in general. Do you have any statistics on how often multiple meanings per osm object is a problem? In my experience, this is very rare, but hard to say without numbers. For the case of the island being both a country and a land feature, I think it would benefit OSM to actually have two objects with the same geometry - e.g. two relations containing the same way(s). One relation would treat it as an admin boundary, with all the related tags, the other - as a land feature. Data consumers would treat them separately. Conflating tags related to both concepts into one object is not very good. In a more general terms, you usually have three cases: -- 1:1 (most common imo) -- one osm obj being a part of larger page (e.g. a list of churches). I don't think wikidata/wikipedia tag is appropriate in this case, as that page is not about this specific object, but about a class of similar objects. We could use listed-on:wp, or partof:wp, or some other tag. -- Your case - multiple concepts for the same object. Use either a semicolon separated list of wd ids, or (better) - create multiple relations to describe multiple concepts. * Frederik, that bit of a small personal attack is uncalled for. I exposed a lot of existing bad data, not added it. And I created complex tooling to help everyone resolve it as a community, rather than try to tackle all of it by myself. A system for fixing problems is always better than one person doing it by hand, and later retiring because the challenge is too great. Also, corresponding wikidata tag is not a bad data - it is simply a copy of the existing Wikipedia tag, making it easier for tools and humans to find and fix. As for your last email - fetching *corresponding* wikidata items is not an error - its a duplicate of an existing information. That information might be incomplete, but that's a separate issue. * Lester, I'm not sure I understood your Douglas Adams example, PM me and lets try to figure it out. It might has to do with ranking of each statement See also: Feature request for any lang fallback: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T176321
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk