2017-09-27 15:59 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: > Hi, > > On 27.09.2017 15:37, Simon Poole wrote: > > My take is that it adds a nearly impossible to maintain (consider your > > own Woolworth's example), non-speaking, foreign key > > We generally discourage foreign keys (that are only usable together with > a different data set and that are not signposted locally). > > When Wikidata keys were first added to OSM, I thought this was something > limited to place names of a certain importance and I didn't object. > > Seeing that this now leads to the automatic assumption that Wikidata IDs > are practically admissible *everywhere* where Wikidata has defined an > ID, I am having second thoughts about the whole issue. > > In theory, almost everything we map could be expressed by a Wikidata ID. > If welcoming a Wikidata link on a city place node means that by > extension I also have to welcome "amenity:wikidata=Q123456" on something > that is, say, an ice cream parlour because Q123456 is the generic > Wikidata category for ice cream parlours,
This is wrong also for me. The "translation" between tagging systems should be kept externally. > then I think I'd rather not have any Wikidata links in OSM at all. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
