> Tomas, this is what I understand from what you are saying:
> * You download a geotagging wikidata dump and generate a table with
> latitude, longitude, and a wiki page title.
> * You also generate the same table from OSM for all nodes, ways (using geo
> centroid?), and relations (using ??)
> * yo
>
>
> I will repeat that this is not something which COULD be done, this
> comparison is something, what IS ACTUALLY DONE and has been done for
> years.
Tomas, this is what I understand from what you are saying:
* You download a geotagging wikidata dump and generate a table with
latitude, longi
>> So you have two tables of same structure. Voila. You can compare
>> anything (title, coordinates), in any direction with some
>> approximation if needed etc. No OSM wikidata involved at all.
>
> Thomas, this will not work. Matching wikidata & osm by coordinates is
> useless, because the coordi
https://osmcha.mapbox.com/ hasn't been showing new changesets since 5
days. Does anyone know why?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
You can compareanything (title, coordinates), in any direction with someapproximation if needed etc. That's the root of an evil. That comparison have to be done manually. I really don't understand why wikidata needs to be added. It needs to be added to avoid manual fixes of wikipedia links,because
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Tomas Straupis
wrote:
> > Tomas, you claimed that "It adds NO value." This is demonstrably wrong.
> You
> > are right that the same fixing was done for years. But until wikidata
> tag,
> > there was no easy way to FIND them.
>
> There always was.
> You simply
On 10/1/2017 5:39 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
Lastly, if the coordinates are different, you may not copy it from OSM
to Wikidata because of the difference in the license.
Just for clarity and anyone reading the archives later, copying from
Wikidata to OSM is also a problem because Wikidata permi
John, I guess it is always good to talk as a data scientist - with numbers
and facts. Here's why matching by coordinates would not work. This query
calculates the distance between the OSM nodes, and the coordinates that
Wikidata has for those nodes. I only looked at nodes, because ways and
relatio
>Assuming my above arguments has convinced you
No I still do not see a requirement here, but there again I'm only part of
the community and that's the concern you appear to be ramming this down our
threats. As for what iD does or does not do, I don't see that is relevant.
Why does OSM need it an
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:15 PM, john whelan wrote:
> Since an OSM object has lat and long value and it appears that wiki
> whatever also has one the entries can be linked.
>
Not so. The data is very often different between wikipedia, wikidata, and
OSM. Also, the same location could be a square
Rather than fill OSM up with automated edits that have not even been
discussed with the local community can we think more about functionality?
Since an OSM object has lat and long value and it appears that wiki
whatever also has one the entries can be linked.
"This gives you a very simple table
Hi everybody.
We already accepted wikipedia links keep in mind that wiki article isn't the
same abstraction as OSM object.
And the way we make a reference on wiki articles differs over time.
It was a link, it was an article name, it was a name with language prefix.
Wikidata id is a way to make a
On 1 October 2017 at 18:29, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>> Also, please elaborate which community has asked me to stay away???
>
> Lithuania.
Please can you point to the place where this was discussed and
consensus reached, also to where that was communicated to the wider
community?
> We are in act
2017-10-01 21:45 GMT+02:00 Tomas Straupis :
>
>
> >> When we create a POI detail page, we want to add a link (url without
> >> redirects) to a wikipedia page. To do that it is straightforward to
> >> use a value in wikipedia tag.
> > Great, thanks. As you can see, nothing in what I do breaks tha
>> It is mostly because you pushed the effort, not beaucse of
>> "advantage of wikidata". The same fixing has already been done for
>> YEARS before your effors based on wikipedia tags only.
>
>
> Tomas, you claimed that "It adds NO value." This is demonstrably wrong. You
> are right that the sam
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Tomas Straupis
wrote:
> 2017-10-01 20:04 GMT+03:00 Yuri Astrakhan:
> >> 2. Its not a WORK to automatically update one osm tag according to
> another
> >> osm tag (anybody can do it online/locally/etc). It adds NO value.
> >
> > It adds HUGE value, as was repeatably
2017-10-01 20:04 GMT+03:00 Yuri Astrakhan:
>> 2. Its not a WORK to automatically update one osm tag according to another
>> osm tag (anybody can do it online/locally/etc). It adds NO value.
>
> It adds HUGE value, as was repeatably shown. Thanks to Wikidata IDs, the
> community was able to see and
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Tomas Straupis
wrote:
> I guess the point is that:
> 1. Its ok to play with some pet-tag like wikidata
>
100 % agree
> 2. Its not a WORK to automatically update one osm tag according to another
> osm tag (anybody can do it online/locally/etc). It adds NO value.
I guess the point is that:
1. Its ok to play with some pet-tag like wikidata
2. Its not a WORK to automatically update one osm tag according to another
osm tag (anybody can do it online/locally/etc). It adds NO value.
3. It is totally unacceptable to introduce idea that wikipedia tag could be
remov
On 1 October 2017 at 14:03, Andy Townsend wrote:
> 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
Hi Daniel,
> Nice to see another unification effort, but I have a specific question: we
> have an interchange station in Warsaw called "Świętokrzyska". I marked it as
> one station some time ago in the middle of lines crossing.
> Lately somebody (namely https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/IraSer
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
On 1 October 2017 at 12:13, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> the consensus in the OSM community to link to Wikipedia articles, and
> other useful third-party sources?
> I find it fascinating how both you and Yuri seem to be eager to always
> deflect the discussion from the main subject, namely the aut
On Sunday 01 October 2017, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> If I noticed an inception date on a information sign next to a
> building, is this original research or a secondary source ?
The date on the sign is verifiable as a signed date, not necessarily as
a date connected to the building. Historic informa
On Sunday 01 October 2017, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> Or perhaps it is you who is "deep denial" about the consensus in the
> OSM community to link to Wikipedia articles, and other useful
> third-party sources?
May i suggest you to read my previous messages on this thread to find
the answer to that q
On 1 October 2017 at 10:06, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Sunday 01 October 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Wow, i had to read this twice to really believe what i was reading here.
I don't think this kind of sarcastic hyperbole helps to move things
forward, nor to engender an atmosphere of collegi
> Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, it rejects original research.
> OSM is fundamentally different in that because it is based on
> verification by original research.
I'm trying to understand this.
If I noticed an inception date on a information sign next to a
building, is this original re
Christoph, I am not talking about OSM or Wikidata or Wikipedia quality or
approaches. Please don't read more into it than what I am trying to state.
If we say that we want OSM objects to link to Wikipedia (and we clearly do,
judging by the number of wikipedia tags people have created), we need a
g
On Sunday 01 October 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
> Wikipedia created a stable ID system for these pages. Its called
> Wikidata. Please view Wikidata as first and foremost a linking system
> to Wikipedia articles. [...]
>
> Andy, you keep saying Wikidata is not verifiable data - but that's
> beca
29 matches
Mail list logo
