On 01/10/2017 13:05, Andy Mabbett wrote:
And now you're making things up.
just two posts earlier in this thread you said
> I don't think this kind of sarcastic hyperbole helps to move things
> forward, nor to engender an atmosphere of collegial collaboration.
> Please resist the temptation to use it.
I would respectfully suggest that you follow your own advice.
There's a valid discussion to be had about "how OSM does things vs how
wikipedia/wikidata does things". Back in 2016 in another context I
mentioned "Common End" in Derbyshire on this list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-November/077139.html
. It's in wikipedia as "a place noted on a map" (which is correct - OS
maps include it). It doesn't in any verifiable sense "exist" though.
Wikidata has it https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5153341 as both a
"hamlet" and a "fictional location". Whether that's "correct" or not is
a decision for wikidata - I've no idea what their definition of "hamlet"
is and whether it includes a locality that probably used to exist in
some sense but all on-the-ground trace of the name has disappeared, but
it's entirely reasonable to discuss the areas in which different
contribution customs will result in different data, and how we handle
links in those cases.
Best Regards,
Andy
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
