Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Sep 2019, at 16:08, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> And type=site - but none of those three types of relation are widely
> supported by database users.


site is a mess, but the other two could be easily supported, they’re just not 
sufficiently important (used) yet...

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Sep 2019, at 21:13, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
> Can we agree that these should all be removed, or replaced with
> suitable sub-tag, ASAP? the sub-tag might be, say:
> 
>   historic:wikidata=Q2961670


-1 to this kind of redundancy (or outsourcing of definition authority, if the 
only description are wikidata references). Imho we should stick to self 
contained tags for describing things. Referring to related (instance) objects 
in third party open databases is fine, but we should not use foreign classes as 
tags, it should be possible by using just our tags to find out what something 
is. Our tags are human readable, and we should not give this up.

Cheers Martin 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Andy Mabbett]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 21:06, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

> 13 Sep 2019, 20:28 by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk:
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

>>> You have examples like tagging all ways that are a part of a street with
>>> the wikidata item about that street. You can't define those parts in
>>> Wikidata.

>> Use a relation.

> Introducing pointless relation to satisfy unneded rule is pointless.

Indeed it would be.

In this case, though the relation would not be "pointless".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 7:59 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> Anyone who thinks the preceding paragraph is off-topic because it's about
> Wikimedia should try to recall all the times on this list when somebody has
> insisted that rules is rules, even when the outcome of following those
> rules is sub-optimal.
>

Like the wiki saying lanes=* not counting all the lanes.  Never mind every
tool ever that consumes, validates or generates this data *does* include
all the lanes and there's zero reasons not to, and fixing omissions is as
easy as a roulette project searching against all ways with lane tagging and
cycleway=*...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 16:27, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

 So maybe the right way is to go case by case, and see how to deal with
> them.
>

Sounds like a plan.  If you find something exceptional, we'll try to figure
out what to do with
it.

For example, a lot of rails and motorways have all ways tagged with the
> same wikidata tag, in addition to the relation. I feel a lot of us think
> that only the relation should be left with the wikidata tag.
>

I think that IF there is already a relation then it's cleaner to just tag
the relation than all the
individual components (or, worse, both).  I don't think it's necessarily
wrong to tag the
individual components of a road with wikidata, although it could lead to
maintenance
headaches, but some feel strongly that should not be done.  Some have
argued not to
invent a relation just to be able to avoid tagging multiple things with the
same wikidata item
and I tend to agree: invent a relation if a relation is needed in its own
right, don't try to justify i
t with wikidata, but once you have a relation (for whatever other reason)
that's the right place
for the wikidata tag.


> I will be going through the taginfo list[1], and be unifying those tags.
> Is that ok for the majority here?
>

It's OK with me, but give it a week or two for any strong objections to
appear.

I could also make a wiki page of "What not to tag with wikidata=*" and put
> these two examples there.
>

>
Then later we can expand that list with consensus.
>

Sounds like a good idea.  It will probably have many statements along the
lines of "Most people
say X but some say Y" or "Opinion is divided."  But still a good idea if we
can at least narrow it
down a little.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

What I got out of this discussion is, part:wikidata will probably not be
widely used, but people still agree that most of the wikidata tags that are
on multiple OSM objects are wrongly tagged. So maybe the right way is to go
case by case, and see how to deal with them.

For example, a lot of rails and motorways have all ways tagged with the
same wikidata tag, in addition to the relation. I feel a lot of us think
that only the relation should be left with the wikidata tag. I will be
going through the taginfo list[1], and be unifying those tags. Is that ok
for the majority here?

I could also make a wiki page of "What not to tag with wikidata=*" and put
these two examples there.

Then later we can expand that list with consensus.

[1] - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/wikidata#values
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Joseph Eisenberg]

And type=site - but none of those three types of relation are widely
supported by database users.

On 9/14/19, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 13. Sep 2019, at 17:28, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>
>> part_of_a_group=yes tag.  And even without any of that,
>> an overpass query in the general area for artwork_type=statue + other tags
>> they have in
>> common will find them.
>
>
> actually there is a relation for groups:
> type=group
> and there’s also type=cluster
>
> Ciao Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Sep 2019, at 17:28, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> part_of_a_group=yes tag.  And even without any of that,
> an overpass query in the general area for artwork_type=statue + other tags 
> they have in
> common will find them.


actually there is a relation for groups:
type=group
and there’s also type=cluster

Ciao Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I agree, we shouldn’t create relations that combine 7 separate artworks
into one, or all the ways with the same street name, or all the peaks and
ridges in a mountain_range, just so that a wikidata= tag can be added to
the relation.

Relations are harder to maintain, and in the cases above are not necessary
for Openstreetmap:

1) artists often make related objects or even identical copies of
sculptures and place them in separate cities. We should map what is locally
verifiable: “there is an artwork here that looks like this”. Else what if
one of the dwarves is moved to Sydney? Is it still part of the same artwork
relation then? Such groupings are like categories.

2) a street or road made with many Openstreetmap ways can be handled by
routers and search applications just fine. And they can all be combined
into one linestring with post processing if needed, by looking at matching
“name” or “ref” fields. Adding a street relation is extra mapping and
maintenance work without adding new information

3) if it’s possible to verify the peaks and ridges of a named mountain
range, then map these as a natural=mountain_range way.

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:07 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 13 Sep 2019, 20:28 by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk:
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
> sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 14:34 Joseph Eisenberg 
> napisao je:
>
>
> Doesn't this mean that it would be better to create separate Wikidata
> items for each separate OSM feature, rather than creating a new OSM
> tag?
>
> You have examples like tagging all ways that are a part of a street with
> the wikidata item about that street. You can't define those parts in
> Wikidata.
>
>
> Use a relation.
>
> Introducing pointless relation to satisfy unneded rule is pointless.
>
> At least I prefer to keep allowing using wikipedia=*
> and similar tags on multiple elements.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13 Sep 2019, 20:28 by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk:

> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
>> sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 14:34 Joseph Eisenberg  
>> napisao je:
>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't this mean that it would be better to create separate Wikidata
>>> items for each separate OSM feature, rather than creating a new OSM
>>> tag?
>>>
>> You have examples like tagging all ways that are a part of a street with
>> the wikidata item about that street. You can't define those parts in
>> Wikidata.
>>
>
> Use a relation.
>
Introducing pointless relation to satisfy unneded rule is pointless.

At least I prefer to keep allowing using wikipedia=* 
and similar tags on multiple elements. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Andy Mabbett]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:43, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> Currently, the second most numerous wikidata tag in OSM
> is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2961670, an item that
> describes all the roman roads in historic Gaul in France. All
> those ways, close to 500 of them, have wikidata=Q296167.

Can we agree that these should all be removed, or replaced with
suitable sub-tag, ASAP? the sub-tag might be, say:

   historic:wikidata=Q2961670

>  I would give all these roads part:wikidata=Q29616

I would not.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 19:47, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 13:58, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> > if there is a property shared by all members of a group then it MUST be
> marked on
> > the group ALONE and not also on individual members.
>
> This is not the rule on Wikidata.
>

But I was applying that rule to OSM, not wikidata.  Wikidata can do
whatever it wants.
But if there's a wikidata item for a grouping then OSM mappers should not
apply that
item to individual members of the group.

> Yes, I've been bitten by this before.  Marking up Wikimedia images as
> being listed
> > buildings.  All went fine until I happened to mark a few that were
> collected in a group
> > of "Listed buildings in ."  Those changes were reverted
> because the
> > grouping itself was flagged as being of listed buildings.
>
> Do you mean categories on Wikimedia Commons? That's not Wikidata.
>

If I recall correctly, I made that statement in the context of rules being
over-zealously
applied.  That particular case happened to me over on the commons.  Nothing
in the
template said I shouldn't do that, nothing in any documentation I could find
said I shouldn't do that, what I did was consistent and made things more
usable.
But somebody decided that, by his interpretation of some arcane rule, I was
wrong.  So be
it.  It's something that happens across many open-source projects where
anarchy
semi-rules.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Andy Mabbett]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 22:24, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> Art or memorial installations like Stolperstein[1], which
> are distributed, but have one wikidata item.

We already cater for this, using sub-tags; say:

   project:wikidata=Q314003

or:

   memorial:wikidata=Q26703203

 (see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q314003 /
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q26703203 )


But perhaps this is better done through the templated link to
Q26703203 on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org and/ or Q26703203
/wiki/Tag:memorial%3Dstolperstein


--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Andy Mabbett]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 19:48, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 19:43, Mateusz Konieczny  
> wrote:

>> It gets tricky where wikidata has a
>> single object for things like
>> lake and surrounding wetlands
>
>
> Then the wikidata item is for the wetlands, which happen to have a lake 
> within them.  Map
> the wetlands and add the wikidata tag to it.

..and create a Wikidata item for (just) the lake.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Andy Mabbett]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 17:02, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

> Entries about shop brands (used in name suggestion index) got deleted.

That was over-zealous anti-spam action. Many such deletions were
challenged and reverted; any others should have been.

In such cases, including third-party identifiers (for example, Lidl
has an "EU Transparency Register ID") can help.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Andy Mabbett]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 13:58, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 13:35, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:

>> looking at the example, it seems here is such an issue with
> the "canonization status"=catholic saint. Why do the individual
> saints not have the property, but the group has it?

> if there is a property shared by all members of a group then it MUST be 
> marked on
> the group ALONE and not also on individual members.

This is not the rule on Wikidata.

>  DRY (don't repeat yourself) is rigidly enforced.

It is not, especially in cases like the above.

> Yes, I've been bitten by this before.  Marking up Wikimedia images as being 
> listed
> buildings.  All went fine until I happened to mark a few that were collected 
> in a group
> of "Listed buildings in ."  Those changes were reverted because the
> grouping itself was flagged as being of listed buildings.

Do you mean categories on Wikimedia Commons? That's not Wikidata.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Andy Mabbett]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 14:34 Joseph Eisenberg  
> napisao je:
>>
>> Doesn't this mean that it would be better to create separate Wikidata
>> items for each separate OSM feature, rather than creating a new OSM
>> tag?

> You have examples like tagging all ways that are a part of a street with
> the wikidata item about that street. You can't define those parts in
> Wikidata.

Use a relation.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 18:29:04 +0200
Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> pet, 13. ruj 2019. u 17:31 Paul Allen  napisao je:
> 
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:45, Janko Mihelić 
> > wrote:
> >
> > The correct way to group them is with a relation.  If we don't have
> > a suitable type of  relation then propose one.
> >  
> 
> My idea was to expand the general "part:wikidata=*" to more specific
> tags. For example, give all peaks and ridges of a mountain the
> mountain:wikidata=* tag, instead of part:wikidata=*. Part is just the
> first, nondescript step. If we decide on a better tag, we replace the
> part:wikidata with the new XXX:wikidata=*

"Part of" is frequently ill-defined.  To take your "mountain:" example,
mountain-climbers consider Little Tahoma to be a mountain, while
geologists consider it to be a satellite peak of Mount Rainier.  Given
that, how do you decide if Fryingpan Glacier is a
"mountain:wikidata=Q1367080" or a "mountain:wikidata=Q194057"?

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 17:31, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

My idea was to expand the general "part:wikidata=*" to more specific tags.
> For example, give all peaks and ridges of a mountain the
> mountain:wikidata=* tag, instead of part:wikidata=*. Part is just the
> first, nondescript step. If we decide on a better tag, we replace the
> part:wikidata with the new XXX:wikidata=*
>

Firstly, I see no reason for mountain:wikidata=*.   It's a wikidata tag for
a wikidata item about a
mountain applied to an object which is a mountain.  So wikidata=* is fine.
The "mountain:" bit is
redundant and causes more work for data consumers that already support
wikidata.

Secondly, having interim tagging schemes is a REALLY bad idea.  I'll
explain exactly why a
little further on.

Thirdly, don't force square pegs into round holes.  If we've mapped a peak
and there's
a wikidata item for that exact peak, then wikidata=*.  If there's no
wikidata item then wait
for somebody to write it or write a stub article yourself.  If there's a
wikidata item for a
peak but it has not yet been mapped then map it (provided you can confirm
it independently
because wikipedia articles may use sources that are incompatible with the
ODbL) and add
wikidata=*.  Similarly if we've mapped a mountain range with
natural=mountain_range
and there's an exact match with a wikidata item.  Don't try to force a peak
without a
wikidata item into a range as part:wikidata=*: map the range or write a
stub wikipedia
article about the peak (or both).

[Roman roads]

> I think the only sensible solution is to delete the wikidata tags from
>> *all* of them.
>>
>
I definitely agree with this. But I'm not going to be the one who does it
> :) It's bad mapping, but it's still somewhat useful information.
>

And THAT is why interim tagging schemes are a really bad idea.  Somebody
did that, for
whatever reason, and now there is reluctance to remove or fix it.  This
would be compounded
by the fact that somebody, somewhere will announce "In my country, my local
mapping group
decided to use part:wikidata this way..."  Your ideas for part:wikidata are
so vague that it
will end up being a complete mess.  Not even useful for holding a wikidata
item pending
invention of a redundant XXX:wikidata tag (there's still no reason for the
XXX), because a
fixme would do the same and also call attention to somebody who might
actually fix it.

BTW, a better way for marking Roman roads would be to use
historic=roman_road.  It's a
lapsed proposal, and doesn't show even on lutz's historic places map, but
it would allow
a simple overpass-turbo query and might even let you map them with uMap
(going by
the amount of data in just one Roman road, that's probably impracticable,
though).  It's
been used 2000 times, so you could probably use it without a formal
proposal.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

pet, 13. ruj 2019. u 17:31 Paul Allen  napisao je:

> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:45, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
> The correct way to group them is with a relation.  If we don't have a
> suitable type of  relation then propose one.
>

My idea was to expand the general "part:wikidata=*" to more specific tags.
For example, give all peaks and ridges of a mountain the
mountain:wikidata=* tag, instead of part:wikidata=*. Part is just the
first, nondescript step. If we decide on a better tag, we replace the
part:wikidata with the new XXX:wikidata=*


> I think the only sensible solution is to delete the wikidata tags from
> *all* of them.
>

I definitely agree with this. But I'm not going to be the one who does it
:) It's bad mapping, but it's still somewhat useful information.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:45, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

One problem with the current system is that if you click one of those
> dwarfs in OSM, and see it's linked to an object in wikidata, you have no
> way of seeing if that is the whole wikidata object, or just a part of that
> object, unless you download the whole OSM database. Or if you are a human,
> and you look at
>
 the wikipedia article, and see there should be a whole bunch of dwarfs.
> But that example doesn't seem as important.
>

You're trying to solve the data problem (to the extent that it even is a
problem) in a defective
way.  It's defective because wikidata is not an integrated part of OSM
designed to group objects.
It's outside of our control; even if we can abuse it that way,  a random
edit to wikidata will
lose the object grouping.  The correct way to group them is with a
relation.  If we don't have a
suitable type of  relation then propose one.  Don't use wikidata as a
workaround for not having a
suitable relation type or not having a part_of_a_group=yes tag.  And even
without any of that,
an overpass query in the general area for artwork_type=statue + other tags
they have in
common will find them.

It's not a problem for humans either.  If they're not interested in looking
at the data item then
it doesn't matter if it's tagged wikidata=* or part:wikidata=* because they
won't follow it.  If
they are interested in looking at the data item then it doesn't matter if
it's tagged wikidata=*
or part:wikidata=* because they'll reach the same data item either way and
realize there
are seven dwarfs.  And won't be able to find the other six easily from
there.  So a relation
is still the best way to do it, then apply wikidata=* to the relation.

Currently, the second most numerous wikidata tag in OSM is
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2961670, an item that describes all the
> roman roads in historic Gaul in France. All those ways, close to 500 of
> them, have wikidata=Q296167. That is obviously not good tagging. But how do
> you differentiate good wikidata tagging from bad tagging? I think this rule
> and part:wikidata are the way to clean this up. I would give all these
> roads part:wikidata=Q29616, and than that looks much closer to reality.
>

I think the only sensible solution is to delete the wikidata tags from
*all* of them.  That item is
for a category, not a unique object.  OSM relations are not categories
because we don't tag
categories (it would result in a gigantic taxonomic hierarchy of tagging).
Those road should
never have been given that wikidata tag; individual roads get a wikidata
tag only if that data
item applies solely to that particular road.

It seems to me that you're trying to find a way of mapping anything that
has a wikidata tag.
If so, that seems like a bad idea.  Use a wikidata tag to add extra
information about a unique
OSM object, don't invent OSM objects and/or ways of mapping things in order
to put every
wikidata item into OSM.  We could put wikidata=Q2 on every object,
following your line of
reasoning.  Oh, sorry, part:wikidata=Q2.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

12 Sep 2019, 11:43 by jan...@gmail.com:

> One problem
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 06:53 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> I still see no benefit in using part:wikipedia
>> or part:wikidata over current version.
>>
>
> One problem with the current system is that if you click one of those dwarfs 
> in OSM, and see it's linked to an object in wikidata, you have no way of 
> seeing if that is the whole wikidata object, or just a part of that object, 
> unless you download the whole OSM database.
>
You can download from taginfo 
distribution of wikidata values.

This is very easy to do and significantly
easier than processing full planet.

(I do this to detect and cleanup
invalid wikipedia and wikidata tags)___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Sep 2019, at 00:03, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> I'll just
> go and look at wikidata for stolperstein...  It's not identified as a 
> category, but it clearly is one.  It's
> a sub-class of commemorative plaque.  It makes no more sense to apply 
> Q26703203 to every
> stolperstein than it does to apply Q532 to every village.


I would see the Stolpersteine as a single, distributed artwork rather than many 
disconnected commemorative plaques of the same kind.
The way you see it determines how to represent it.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Sep 2019, at 23:24, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> 
> Art or memorial installations like Stolperstein[1], which are distributed, 
> but have one wikidata item. It's hard to imagine every Stolperstein will get 
> its own article. And a relation with all these nodes makes no sense.


every Stolperstein (or spot of Stolpersteine) could get a wikidata item. You 
don’t need an article for a wikidata item. Then they could be grouped in 
wikidata. And in OpenStreetMap you would link the individual wikidata items.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

One problem

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 06:53 Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> I still see no benefit in using part:wikipedia
> or part:wikidata over current version.
>

One problem with the current system is that if you click one of those
dwarfs in OSM, and see it's linked to an object in wikidata, you have no
way of seeing if that is the whole wikidata object, or just a part of that
object, unless you download the whole OSM database. Or if you are a human,
and you look at the wikipedia article, and see there should be a whole
bunch of dwarfs. But that example doesn't seem as important.

Currently, the second most numerous wikidata tag in OSM is
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2961670, an item that describes all the
roman roads in historic Gaul in France. All those ways, close to 500 of
them, have wikidata=Q296167. That is obviously not good tagging. But how do
you differentiate good wikidata tagging from bad tagging? I think this rule
and part:wikidata are the way to clean this up. I would give all these
roads part:wikidata=Q29616, and than that looks much closer to reality.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Sep 2019, at 20:23, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Where wikipedia articles in a language do not match the wikidata then the 
> article or the wikidata
> is incorrect. 


the problem is not black and white, things can match in wikipedia, partially. 
And several wikipedia articles can match to the same wikidata object (which 
then will be more or less duplicated, because every article has a wikidata 
object). That’s what I tried to say: there is various overlap, and it can be 
different in different languages. Unless articles are translations, it is clear 
that they will likely have different coverage / breadth in different languages. 
I am reading a lot of wikipedia in three languages, and inter language is often 
not matching nicely or has different coverage and structure, but isn’t easy to 
fix either. You may not notice if you only follow the language links, but 
you’ll see when you do a search for the same topics in the other language and 
find similar pages.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Sep 2019, at 20:23, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> The
> question I'd consider important is have you mapped those two things as 
> distinct OSM objects?


with the current state I am not sure what wikidata is describing here, or if 
these are maybe duplicates. At some point in the past I was able to assign one 
to the place entity (a node) and the other to the administrative boundary 
(taking into account also the content of the related wikipedia article), but as 
it is now it doesn’t seem to be consistent anymore.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

12 Sep 2019, 02:03 by jan...@gmail.com:

> But I remember an artwork that was tagged somewhere, and it was consisted of 
> several murals spread around the city. Part:wikidata=* would be perfect for 
> that case.
>
Sounds like
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wroc%C5%82aw%27s_dwarfs 

(multiple sculptures distributed across city).

I still see no benefit in using part:wikipedia
or part:wikidata over current version.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

čet, 12. ruj 2019. u 00:04 Paul Allen  napisao je:

> In this case, I'm not convinced that we couldn't accept a many-to-one
> mapping of ways to
> wikidata.  But if you insist, put them in a relation of some kind.  Maybe
> a type=wikidata, even,
> although I suspect that would have more problems than benefits.
>

If anything, type=street. But I think part:wikidata=* would be fine.

If a relation makes no sense, a wikidata item shared by them probably
> doesn't, either.  I'll just
> go and look at wikidata for stolperstein...
>

I agree, Stolperstein isn't a good example, memorial=stolperstein is
enough. But I remember an artwork that was tagged somewhere, and it was
consisted of several murals spread around the city. Part:wikidata=* would
be perfect for that case.

So what you want is synonymous with "fixme."  But more complicated and
> requiring more work.
> I'm not convinced this is a good idea.
>

Well, a fixme, but also a correctly tagged link with wikidata.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 22:26, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 20:24 Mateusz Konieczny 
> napisao je:
>
>> can you give specific example of case
>> where part:wikidata would be better
>> than wikidata?
>>
>
> The classic example is a street. Streets are one of those objects in OSM
> which are defined by a unique name on several ways. So if a wikidata item
> is about a street, all ways get the same part:wikidata=*
>

In this case, I'm not convinced that we couldn't accept a many-to-one
mapping of ways to
wikidata.  But if you insist, put them in a relation of some kind.  Maybe a
type=wikidata, even,
although I suspect that would have more problems than benefits.

Art or memorial installations like Stolperstein[1], which are distributed,
> but have one wikidata item. It's hard to imagine every Stolperstein will
> get its own article. And a relation with all these nodes makes no sense.
>

If a relation makes no sense, a wikidata item shared by them probably
doesn't, either.  I'll just
go and look at wikidata for stolperstein...  It's not identified as a
category, but it clearly is one.  It's
a sub-class of commemorative plaque.  It makes no more sense to apply Q26703203
to every
stolperstein than it does to apply Q532 to every village.  Don't force
round pegs into square
holes and don't whittle down trees into round pegs so you can force the
resulting round peg
into a square hole.

If you have a wikidata item for a specific, unique stolperstein then you
can tag it, if you wish.
But adding Q26703203 to every stolperstein doesn't help anyone.  A data
consumer using
the query tool of standard carto to find out what the symbol is of gets a
list of tags, amongst
them being memorial=stoperstein, and stolperstein is a link to the OSM wiki
documentation,
the OSM wiki documentation has links to the wikipedia article and the
wikidata item.  Adding
a generic stolperstein wikidata item to all stolpersteine is redundant and
unhelpful.

Not only that, what happens when a stolperstein with the generic Q26703203
gets its own
wikidata item?  Semi-colon list, causing problems for some consumers?
Delete the
part:wikidata=Q26703203 and add a wikidata=*, thus confounding anyone
thinking an
overpass query for part:wikidata=Q26703203 will find ALL stolpersteine?
You are putting
stumbling stones in everyone's path here [pun intended].

OSM and Wikidata have different worldviews.  Don't insist on fitting
wikidata items to every
object in OSM.  Accept that sometimes our views of the world diverge so
much that there's
no straightforward relationship between one and the other.

And then it could be used when the mapper isn't sure how to map a wikidata
> item, so she just tags all the parts with part:wikdiata=*. Then someone
> more experienced shows up, and creates a valid relation, and sums up all
> those parts into one wikidata=* (and deletes the part:wikidata=* tags).
>

So what you want is synonymous with "fixme."  But more complicated and
requiring more work.
I'm not convinced this is a good idea.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 20:24 Mateusz Konieczny 
napisao je:

> can you give specific example of case
> where part:wikidata would be better
> than wikidata?
>

The classic example is a street. Streets are one of those objects in OSM
which are defined by a unique name on several ways. So if a wikidata item
is about a street, all ways get the same part:wikidata=*

Art or memorial installations like Stolperstein[1], which are distributed,
but have one wikidata item. It's hard to imagine every Stolperstein will
get its own article. And a relation with all these nodes makes no sense.

And then it could be used when the mapper isn't sure how to map a wikidata
item, so she just tags all the parts with part:wikdiata=*. Then someone
more experienced shows up, and creates a valid relation, and sums up all
those parts into one wikidata=* (and deletes the part:wikidata=* tags).

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolperstein
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 20:18, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 11 Sep 2019, 21:48 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 19:43, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
>
>
> It gets tricky where wikidata has a
> single object for things like
> lake and surrounding wetlands
>
>
> Then the wikidata item is for the wetlands, which happen to have a lake
> within them.
>
> Wikidata item was generated by bots.
> Wikipedia article was about lake and surrounding wetlands.
>

WIthout seeing the article I can't determine what it actually depicts.  The
Wikipedia article
about Cardigan mentions it's in the county of Ceredigion but it's an
article about Cardigan,
the title says Cardigan, the URL says Cardigan and the wikidata is about
Cardigan.  Is
the wikipedia article about the lake and mentions it's in wetlands, is it
about the wetlands and
it mentions the lake in them, or is it specifically about both?  Does the
wikidata item match
what the article says?  If the article and wikidata match, then associate
them with the lake or
the wetlands or (using a multipolygon) both, as appropriate.  If the
wikidata item doesn't
match the article then fix one or the other, or wait for somebody else to
do that, then map
accordingly.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Sep 2019, 21:48 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 19:43, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> It gets tricky where wikidata has a
>> single object for things like
>> lake and surrounding wetlands
>>
>
> Then the wikidata item is for the wetlands, which happen to have a lake 
> within them.
>
Wikidata item was generated by bots.
Wikipedia article was about lake and surrounding wetlands.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 19:43, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> It gets tricky where wikidata has a
> single object for things like
> lake and surrounding wetlands
>

Then the wikidata item is for the wetlands, which happen to have a lake
within them.  Map
the wetlands and add the wikidata tag to it.  This is no different from the
lamp post near me
being in Cardigan - it doesn't get the Cardigan wikidata tag.  Oh, but you
want somebody
querying the db about the lake to see the wikidata.  Multipolygon it (which
you should probably
have done anyway) and apply the wikidata to the relation not the components.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 19:35, Yuri Astrakhan 
wrote:

> One of the issues I frequently observed is that mappers keep trying to add
> a wikidata=... tag even when there is no perfect match. Having a
> part:wikidata or a similar tag would help those mappers - indicating that
> there is no perfect 1:1 match, but someone already looked at this specific
> object and found another item to be a partial match.
>

I got the impression part:wikidata (or is it wikidata:part?) was for
situations where two OSM
objects matched one wikidata item (better handled as a multipolygon and
adding the wikidata
to the multipolygon itself) or two wikidata items match a single OSM object
(better handled by
decomposing the OSM object into a multipolygon and adding wikidata to the
outers).  Now you
propose using this for fuzzy matching: it's sorta this wikidata item but
not really.  I think in situations
like that we should remove all associations to wikidata - otherwise it's
square peg/round hole.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Sep 2019, 19:59 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> Rule 3: If an object is a multipolygon relation containing several outers, 
> such as some
> university campuses, then the relation itself gets the wikidata tag for that 
> university,
> not the constituent polygons.
>
For object represented by single
area (closed way or multipolygon)
it works.

It gets tricky where wikidata has a
single object for things like
lake and surrounding wetlands___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Yuri Astrakhan]

One of the issues I frequently observed is that mappers keep trying to add
a wikidata=... tag even when there is no perfect match. Having a
part:wikidata or a similar tag would help those mappers - indicating that
there is no perfect 1:1 match, but someone already looked at this specific
object and found another item to be a partial match.

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 18:31, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>> Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 19:01 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <
>> pla16...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> to give a practical example:
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3734793
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1368377
>>
>> How should these be linked to OSM?
>>
>
> I have no real understanding of the legislative or other boundaries of
> quartieres in Rome.  The
> question I'd consider important is have you mapped those two things as
> distinct OSM objects?
> If you have, then add the appropriate wikidata tags to them.  If you
> haven't mapped them
> as distinct OSM objects then there is nothing for you to add a wikidata
> tag to.
>
> These are moving targets, they change nature every now and then
>> (administrative entity, or not, etc.).
>>
>
> If the wikidata is about the same object with the same boundaries then use
> it.  If they don't match
> then don't use it (or remap accordingly).  We're not trying to map
> everything that is in wikidata,
> we're adding wikidata, where appropriate, to things we have mapped.
>
> The basic assumption that crosslinked wikipedia articles are about the
>> same thing, already breaks, because different ("groups of") articles are
>> structured differently, what has one article in one language may have
>> several in another language.
>>
>
> Where wikipedia articles in a language do not match the wikidata then the
> article or the wikidata
> is incorrect.  But again, it's not about trying to map everything in
> wikidata or on wikipedia, it's
> about adding those tags, where appropriate, to things that are mapped.
>
> If there's a matching wikidata item to an OSM object then you're free to
> tag it (if you wish) but if
> there's not a matching wikidata item then don't add a mismatched item to
> an OSM object.  It's
> not possible to add wikidata tags to every object in OSM (like lamp posts
> or unnamed ponds,
> or specific park benches) and it's not possible to map everything that has
> a wikidata tag.  It
> is simply that if there is a wikidata item matching an OSM object then it
> is convenient for data
> consumers who wish to get more information about an object if we tag it.
> It's not mandatory
> for us to add wikidata and we certainly shouldn't force square pegs into
> round holes.
>
> Hmmm.  Rule 0: Don't force square wikidata items into round OSM objects.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 18:31, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 19:01 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen  >:
>
> to give a practical example:
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3734793
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1368377
>
> How should these be linked to OSM?
>

I have no real understanding of the legislative or other boundaries of
quartieres in Rome.  The
question I'd consider important is have you mapped those two things as
distinct OSM objects?
If you have, then add the appropriate wikidata tags to them.  If you
haven't mapped them
as distinct OSM objects then there is nothing for you to add a wikidata tag
to.

These are moving targets, they change nature every now and then
> (administrative entity, or not, etc.).
>

If the wikidata is about the same object with the same boundaries then use
it.  If they don't match
then don't use it (or remap accordingly).  We're not trying to map
everything that is in wikidata,
we're adding wikidata, where appropriate, to things we have mapped.

The basic assumption that crosslinked wikipedia articles are about the same
> thing, already breaks, because different ("groups of") articles are
> structured differently, what has one article in one language may have
> several in another language.
>

Where wikipedia articles in a language do not match the wikidata then the
article or the wikidata
is incorrect.  But again, it's not about trying to map everything in
wikidata or on wikipedia, it's
about adding those tags, where appropriate, to things that are mapped.

If there's a matching wikidata item to an OSM object then you're free to
tag it (if you wish) but if
there's not a matching wikidata item then don't add a mismatched item to an
OSM object.  It's
not possible to add wikidata tags to every object in OSM (like lamp posts
or unnamed ponds,
or specific park benches) and it's not possible to map everything that has
a wikidata tag.  It
is simply that if there is a wikidata item matching an OSM object then it
is convenient for data
consumers who wish to get more information about an object if we tag it.
It's not mandatory
for us to add wikidata and we certainly shouldn't force square pegs into
round holes.

Hmmm.  Rule 0: Don't force square wikidata items into round OSM objects.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

can you give specific example of case
where part:wikidata would be better
than wikidata?

11 Sep 2019, 20:38 by jan...@gmail.com:

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 19:31 Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> I am also against restricting wikidata tags to a 1:1 relationship. It would 
>> require restructuring of specific items either in osm or in wikidata, or 
>> both, just to have them linked nicely (at a certain point in time, because 
>> from then on, they will diverge again, inevitably).
>>
>
> I agree that 1:1 isn't always possible, that's why I propose part:wikidata=*.
>
>>
>>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 19:31 Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> I am also against restricting wikidata tags to a 1:1 relationship. It
> would require restructuring of specific items either in osm or in wikidata,
> or both, just to have them linked nicely (at a certain point in time,
> because from then on, they will diverge again, inevitably).
>

I agree that 1:1 isn't always possible, that's why I propose
part:wikidata=*.

>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 19:01 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> Rule 1: We only tag terminal instantiations which are unique objects, not
> categories.
> It is appropriate to use wikidata=Q275 for the Forth Railway Bridge; it is
> not appropriate
> to use wikidata=Q8471277 (category railway bridges) for the Forth Railway
> Bridge.
> Nor is it appropriate to use wikidata=532 (category village) for a village
> which does
> not have its own unique wikidata reference.
>


we do have wikidata subtags which will not always be used only for terminal
instantiations
We also have wikidata refs for tags in the wiki.



>
> Rule 2: "Lesser" objects goegraphically within an object that has a
> wikidata entry do not
> inherit that wikidata entry.  If the wikidata entry is for a particular
> town then objects
> within the town do not also get that wikidata tag.  My street is within
> the town
> of Cardigan but does not get the wikidata tag for Cardigan, nor does a
> lamp post
> on that street, nor does my house.  Two reasons: first, it would lead to a
> massive
> proliferation of tags; second, an article about Cardigan doesn't tell you
> about my
> house or the nearby lamp post.
>


to give a practical example:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3734793
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1368377

How should these be linked to OSM?
These are moving targets, they change nature every now and then
(administrative entity, or not, etc.).
The basic assumption that crosslinked wikipedia articles are about the same
thing, already breaks, because different ("groups of") articles are
structured differently, what has one article in one language may have
several in another language.




>
> Rule 4: For city states it all depends on whether the wikidata item is for
> the city,
> the state, or the city state.  In this case I'd be willing to use the same
> wikidata tag
> for a city state on two different OSM objects (the city and the country),
> but others will
> disagree.
>


I am also against restricting wikidata tags to a 1:1 relationship. It would
require restructuring of specific items either in osm or in wikidata, or
both, just to have them linked nicely (at a certain point in time, because
from then on, they will diverge again, inevitably).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 14:31, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> The rule I'm trying to implement, "A Wikidata item cannot be connected to
> more than one OSM item", might also be interpreted as a DRY rule. But I'm
> at least proposing part:wikidata, so we can have the benefits of DRY, as
> well as easiness of tagging WET tags.
>

I think we have different people understanding this in different ways (or
I'm misunderstanding
them).  So this is how I see it...

Firstly, we're talking about Wikipedia's wikidata, and objects are tagged
with wikidata=*.
We're not talking about the wikidata OSM's own wiki maintains.  I don't
think anybody has
confused the two so far, but at one point I wasn't sure until I re-read a
sentence.

Rule 1: We only tag terminal instantiations which are unique objects, not
categories.
It is appropriate to use wikidata=Q275 for the Forth Railway Bridge; it is
not appropriate
to use wikidata=Q8471277 (category railway bridges) for the Forth Railway
Bridge.
Nor is it appropriate to use wikidata=532 (category village) for a village
which does
not have its own unique wikidata reference.

Rule 2: "Lesser" objects goegraphically within an object that has a
wikidata entry do not
inherit that wikidata entry.  If the wikidata entry is for a particular
town then objects
within the town do not also get that wikidata tag.  My street is within the
town
of Cardigan but does not get the wikidata tag for Cardigan, nor does a lamp
post
on that street, nor does my house.  Two reasons: first, it would lead to a
massive
proliferation of tags; second, an article about Cardigan doesn't tell you
about my
house or the nearby lamp post.

Rule 3: If an object is a multipolygon relation containing several outers,
such as some
university campuses, then the relation itself gets the wikidata tag for
that university,
not the constituent polygons.

Rule 4: For city states it all depends on whether the wikidata item is for
the city,
the state, or the city state.  In this case I'd be willing to use the same
wikidata tag
for a city state on two different OSM objects (the city and the country),
but others will
disagree.

I'm guessing that of all the objections I'm going to get, most will be
about rule 3.  Because
I can see reasons to have it both ways.  So maybe it's not a rule, just a
suggestion.

Or maybe I'm missing the whole point of what you're trying to do.  Wouldn't
be the first
time.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Imre Samu]

> if we enforce the "unique wikidata id" rule.

imho: lot of unintended consequences.
The 2 community/database has a different rules, different focus, and
activity.
and I don't believe that 1:1 relationship is possible with the current osm
data model.

And mapping with a mobile phone,  it is impossible to fix a wikidata errors
for a beginners.
so I prefer the  loosely coupled relationship of the 2 system.

on the other hand - we need to analyze the problem more deeper, because lot
of (wikidata) tagging errors is hidden now.
so need some solutions ( QA checks )   ..   but we need to keep the
compatibility - as we can ...

As I know - the "wikidata" tags used mostly for labelling - so your
proposed change will be painful.
The "Localized map rendering" is also a high priority.  (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Top_Ten_Tasks#Localized_map_rendering
 )
so your proposal need some solutions for this problem - because the 2
problem is related.



Janko Mihelić  ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 11., Sze,
16:32):

> sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 15:37 Imre Samu  napisao je:
>
>>
>> imho:  The wikidata taxonomy is in very early stage.  but we can create
>> some SPARQL validating with https://sophox.org/ ;
>> but this is not for the average osm editors.  it is too complex task
>> - fixing wikidata and osm parallel ...
>>
>
> I agree, it won't be easy. But I also think it will be possible only if we
> enforce the "unique wikidata id" rule. If we don't enforce this, and just
> let the wikidata tag go it's own course, we'll get into a mess that will be
> hard to dig out of.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 18:04 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> AFAIK it is about structural needs of
> Wikidata itself. Entries about shop brands
> (used in name suggestion index) got deleted.
>


>From personal experience I was more fortunate in Wikidata so far, but maybe
they just haven't yet discovered my contributions, because a wikipedia
article I had set up for the same topic (a not-world-famous artist who is
making his living from art and has a long list of minor mentions in
national newspapers) got deleted in WP within a few hours but lives in
Wikidata for some years now.

The structural needs would IMHO be fulfilled: if you split  a wikidata
object (that is not contested, e.g. has a wikipedia page referenced) into
more objects and link them, they all depend structurally on each other
(within wikidata).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Sep 2019, 19:00 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <> 
> matkoni...@tutanota.com > >:
>
>> 11 Sep 2019, 15:32 by >> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com 
>> >> :
>>
>>> Doesn't this mean that it would be better to create separate Wikidata
>>> items for each separate OSM feature, rather than creating a new OSM
>>> tag?
>>>
>> impossible due to Wikidata rules.
>>
>> for example
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier 
>> 
>> changes from fence to wall to other
>> such sections are unlikely to pass
>> https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notabilit 
>> >> y
>>
>
>
> there's the rule "It fulfills a > structural need> , for example: it is 
> needed to make statements made in other items more useful."
>
AFAIK it is about structural needs of
Wikidata itself. Entries about shop brands
(used in name suggestion index) got deleted.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> 11 Sep 2019, 15:32 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:
>
> Doesn't this mean that it would be better to create separate Wikidata
> items for each separate OSM feature, rather than creating a new OSM
> tag?
>
> impossible due to Wikidata rules.
>
> for example
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier
> changes from fence to wall to other
> such sections are unlikely to pass
> https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notabilit
> y
>


there's the rule "It fulfills a *structural need*, for example: it is
needed to make statements made in other items more useful."

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Sep 2019, 15:32 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:

> Doesn't this mean that it would be better to create separate Wikidata
> items for each separate OSM feature, rather than creating a new OSM
> tag?
>
impossible due to Wikidata rules.

for example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier 

changes from fence to wall to othersuch sections are unlikely to 
passhttps://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notabilit 
y___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 15:37 Imre Samu  napisao je:

>
> imho:  The wikidata taxonomy is in very early stage.  but we can create
> some SPARQL validating with https://sophox.org/ ;
> but this is not for the average osm editors.  it is too complex task -
> fixing wikidata and osm parallel ...
>

I agree, it won't be easy. But I also think it will be possible only if we
enforce the "unique wikidata id" rule. If we don't enforce this, and just
let the wikidata tag go it's own course, we'll get into a mess that will be
hard to dig out of.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Imre Samu]

> we can't enforce some rules like "tag leisure=stadium can only be
connected
> to something that is, or is derived from Q483110 (Stadium) in Wikidata"

imho:  The wikidata taxonomy is in very early stage.  but we can create
some SPARQL validating with https://sophox.org/ ;
but this is not for the average osm editors.  it is too complex task -
fixing wikidata and osm parallel ...

$ wdtaxonomy Q483110
stadium (Q483110) •82 ×7252 ↑↑
├──Olympic Stadium (Q589481) •31 ×5
├──baseball park (Q595452) •8 ×240
├──Domed stadium (Q625797) •4 ×1
├──baseball field (Q809889) •8 ×25 ↑↑
├──velodrome (Q830528) •35 ×255 ↑
│  └──keirin racing track (Q11598565) •1 ×46
├──Dohyō (Q832429) •8
├──multi-purpose stadium (Q1049757) •8 ×104
├──association football stadium (Q1154710) •11 ×3241 ↑
│  ├──National Olympic Stadium (Q330033) •33 ↑↑
│  ├──Niigata City Athletic Stadium (Q7034374) •2 ↑↑
│  └──Estadio Independiente MRCI (Q66036711) •2 ↑
├──bullring (Q1193438) •17 ×246
├──naumachia (Q1431232) •20 ×1
├──athletics stadium (Q4256984) •2 ×12
│  ╞══National Olympic Stadium (Q330033) •33 ↑↑ …
│  ╘══Niigata City Athletic Stadium (Q7034374) •2 ↑↑ …
├──all-seater stadium (Q4728370) •1 ×3
├──Modular stadium (Q6889733) •2
├──Solar Powered Stadiums (Q7555943) •1
├──??? (Q11573504) •1 ×7
├──ice stadium (Q12019965) •9 ×138 ↑
│  └──ice hockey arena (Q3498109) •2 ×20 ↑
├──??? (Q17240246) •1
├──stadium project (Q20981001) ×2
├──Greyhound racing stadium (Q28174251) ×1
├──skiing stadium (Q31157863) ×4
├──??? (Q37025296) ×2
├──American football stadium (Q37985280) ×7
├──rugby league stadium (Q45290083) ×2
╘══Estadio Independiente MRCI (Q66036711) •2 ↑ …

( created with https://github.com/nichtich/wikidata-taxonomy tool )

Janko Mihelić  ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 6., P,
15:08):

> Last year there was a little discussion about unique wikidata ids in the
> openstreetmap database:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-August/038249.html
>
> It was more or less decided there was no problem with this. Nevertheless,
> I think we should consider having a hard rule of "*A Wikidata item cannot
> be connected to more than one OSM item*".
>
> Problems with not enforcing this rule:
>
> - the problem of a partially downloaded database, where one is never sure
> if a wikidata item is fully downloaded unless the whole database is
> downloaded.
>
> - we could get a flood of wikidata tags where one would, for example, tag
> every building in a town with the wikidata id of the town, because that
> building is a part of the town. Is that wrong tagging? Well, if the above
> rule is not in place, I'm not sure.
>
> - if a road segment has two road routes that are using it, then we should
> tag it as "wikidata=Q1234;Q5678". That means, if we want to find any
> wikidata id, we should be prepared to parse all wikidata tags and be
> prepared for semicolons. This slows down any wikidata searches
>
> - we can't enforce some rules like "tag leisure=stadium can only be
> connected to something that is, or is derived from Q483110 (Stadium) in
> Wikidata" because, if we tag all the parts of an entity, we can also tag a
> water fountain in the stadium, because that is a part of it.
>
> So I propose we enforce this rule, and we tag, for example, railways only
> on the route relation.
>
> If one wants to tag all route segments with a wikidata tag, I propose a
> general usage "*part:wikidata=**" which would be used when a single
> wikidata tag just isn't viable. Proposal wiki page here:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/part:wikidata
>
> Thanks for reading,
> Janko Mihelić
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

The rule I'm trying to implement, "A Wikidata item cannot be connected to
more than one OSM item", might also be interpreted as a DRY rule. But I'm
at least proposing part:wikidata, so we can have the benefits of DRY, as
well as easiness of tagging WET tags.

sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 14:59 Paul Allen  napisao je:

>
> This will come as a shock and a surprise to people on this list, but some
> open-source
> projects become obsessive about an overly-rigid interpretation of rules.
> In this case it is
> that if there is a property shared by all members of a group then it MUST
> be marked on
> the group ALONE and not also on individual members.  It doesn't matter
> that users would
> find it far more useful to be able to see that an individual saint is
> canonized, those users
> MUST be savvy enough about Wikipedia rules to know that they should then
> look at the
> parent group in order to get all the information they wish.  DRY (don't
> repeat yourself)
> is rigidly enforced.
>
> Yes, I've been bitten by this before.  Marking up Wikimedia images as
> being listed
> buildings.  All went fine until I happened to mark a few that were
> collected in a group
> of "Listed buildings in ."  Those changes were reverted because
> the
> grouping itself was flagged as being of listed buildings.  It matters not
> that when
> individual buildings are tagged the tag includes the listed building ID,
> which links
> to an external page describing the building and its reason for listing,
> whilst the
> collective tag cannot have that information.  It matters not that if you
> look at non-grouped
> listed buildings you see clearly that they are listed buildings but if you
> look at
> grouped listed buildings you have no idea that they are listed.  DRY.
> Rules is
> rules.
>
> Anyone who thinks the preceding paragraph is off-topic because it's about
> Wikimedia should try to recall all the times on this list when somebody has
> insisted that rules is rules, even when the outcome of following those
> rules is sub-optimal.
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 13:35, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> great. Typical issues one would expect are properties associated with the
> "wrong" object though, and looking at the example, it seems here is such an
> issue with the "canonization status"=catholic saint. Why do the individual
> saints not have the property, but the group has it?
>

This will come as a shock and a surprise to people on this list, but some
open-source
projects become obsessive about an overly-rigid interpretation of rules.
In this case it is
that if there is a property shared by all members of a group then it MUST
be marked on
the group ALONE and not also on individual members.  It doesn't matter that
users would
find it far more useful to be able to see that an individual saint is
canonized, those users
MUST be savvy enough about Wikipedia rules to know that they should then
look at the
parent group in order to get all the information they wish.  DRY (don't
repeat yourself)
is rigidly enforced.

Yes, I've been bitten by this before.  Marking up Wikimedia images as being
listed
buildings.  All went fine until I happened to mark a few that were
collected in a group
of "Listed buildings in ."  Those changes were reverted because
the
grouping itself was flagged as being of listed buildings.  It matters not
that when
individual buildings are tagged the tag includes the listed building ID,
which links
to an external page describing the building and its reason for listing,
whilst the
collective tag cannot have that information.  It matters not that if you
look at non-grouped
listed buildings you see clearly that they are listed buildings but if you
look at
grouped listed buildings you have no idea that they are listed.  DRY.
Rules is
rules.

Anyone who thinks the preceding paragraph is off-topic because it's about
Wikimedia should try to recall all the times on this list when somebody has
insisted that rules is rules, even when the outcome of following those
rules is sub-optimal.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 14:35 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

> Why do the individual saints not have the property, but the group has it?
>

 I'm suspecting it's "tagging for the renderer". They probably have
infoboxes in the Wikipedia article, and they would like that box to show
"saint". That should be fixed if a smarter infobox comes, which would show
two boxes, or something like that. But there is nothing stopping you to add
all the right properties to the two individual saints.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 14:34 Joseph Eisenberg 
napisao je:

> Doesn't this mean that it would be better to create separate Wikidata
> items for each separate OSM feature, rather than creating a new OSM
> tag?
>

You have examples like tagging all ways that are a part of a street with
the wikidata item about that street. You can't define those parts in
Wikidata.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 14:22 Uhr schrieb Janko Mihelić :

> sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 13:04 Martin Koppenhoefer 
> napisao je:
>
>> One problem is that wikidata does not allow to have the same wikipedia
>> article for several wikidata objects.
>>
>
> Yes it does. Look at this object:
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23837517
>
> Its about one saint, Constantia, who was always mentioned together with
> Felix, her saint brother. She has no wikipedia articles about her, only
> about them both:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_and_Constantia
>
> and so there is a wikidata item about them both, and it has a property
> "has part" which has values of Constantia and Felix objects. Constantia and
> Felix have a property "part of".
>


great. Typical issues one would expect are properties associated with the
"wrong" object though, and looking at the example, it seems here is such an
issue with the "canonization status"=catholic saint. Why do the individual
saints not have the property, but the group has it?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Joseph Eisenberg]

"and so there is a wikidata item about them both, and it has a
property "has part" which has values of Constantia and Felix objects.
Constantia and Felix have a property "part of"."

Doesn't this mean that it would be better to create separate Wikidata
items for each separate OSM feature, rather than creating a new OSM
tag?

On 9/11/19, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 13:04 Martin Koppenhoefer 
> napisao je:
>
>> One problem is that wikidata does not allow to have the same wikipedia
>> article for several wikidata objects.
>>
>
> Yes it does. Look at this object:
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23837517
>
> Its about one saint, Constantia, who was always mentioned together with
> Felix, her saint brother. She has no wikipedia articles about her, only
> about them both:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_and_Constantia
>
> and so there is a wikidata item about them both, and it has a property "has
> part" which has values of Constantia and Felix objects. Constantia and
> Felix have a property "part of".
>
> So in some cases we can divide the wikidata object if it helps with
> identifying the OSM object. But again, I'm not sure this is the case with
> Malta, because the article is about the state, and the city is "inside" the
> state. When you reference the state, you imply the city inside it. Felix
> and Constantia are totally separate entities, and you don't imply one when
> you reference the other.
>
> Janko
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 13:04 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

> One problem is that wikidata does not allow to have the same wikipedia
> article for several wikidata objects.
>

Yes it does. Look at this object:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23837517

Its about one saint, Constantia, who was always mentioned together with
Felix, her saint brother. She has no wikipedia articles about her, only
about them both:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_and_Constantia

and so there is a wikidata item about them both, and it has a property "has
part" which has values of Constantia and Felix objects. Constantia and
Felix have a property "part of".

So in some cases we can divide the wikidata object if it helps with
identifying the OSM object. But again, I'm not sure this is the case with
Malta, because the article is about the state, and the city is "inside" the
state. When you reference the state, you imply the city inside it. Felix
and Constantia are totally separate entities, and you don't imply one when
you reference the other.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 10. Sept. 2019 um 13:54 Uhr schrieb Janko Mihelić :

> Then in OSM city and city-state are different things. In Wikidata we only
> have an article about the city-state. This article also talks about the
> city, but the overall theme is the city-state. That means, only the
> admin_level=2 should get the wikidata tag. If we tagged everything that the
> article describes, we could tag every entity inside the relation
> (Monaco-Ville, formula race track, the port) with wikidata=Q235, and that
> makes no sense. We only tag the one entity that best points to the subject
> of the article.
>
> If that is not possible, use part:wikidata=*.
>


One problem is that wikidata does not allow to have the same wikipedia
article for several wikidata objects. This dependency makes it difficult to
split wikidata objects into fainer grained objects. Maybe in cases like
these, I would have to split the wikidata object in 3: one combining object
that is linked to the article and different objects for the city and the
state?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

10 Sep 2019, 12:06 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk:

> On Monday, 9 September 2019, marc marc wrote:
>
>> Le 09.09.19 à 16:18, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 9 Sep 2019, 15:14 by pella.s...@gmail.com:
>> > 
>> > Imho:the real problem, why we have multiple objects for
>> > "name:*"   tags? ( admin_centre, label, relation, ... )
>> > 
>> > Label is an  attempt to manually
>> > specify optimal place for placement of a label.
>>
>> the label doesn't need any tag
>> exept that some of them duplicate a country with a node place=country
>>
>
> The label node is also used for navigation and is used to indicate the city 
> centre.
>
> If I tell OSMand I want to go to Liverpool today, I don't expect it to direct 
> me to a residential street at the geographical centre.
>
I thought that this is meaning of 
admin_centre

Note that for example for a seaside town
in most (not all) map styles optimal
label placement is on the sea, not
in the city center.

And directing driver to closest road to
such label would not help.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

pon, 9. ruj 2019. u 16:24 Mateusz Konieczny 
napisao je:

> Monaco includes for example territorial
> waters while it is not a part of the city.
> City states may include also other areas
> that is not a part of the city.
>

Then in OSM city and city-state are different things. In Wikidata we only
have an article about the city-state. This article also talks about the
city, but the overall theme is the city-state. That means, only the
admin_level=2 should get the wikidata tag. If we tagged everything that the
article describes, we could tag every entity inside the relation
(Monaco-Ville, formula race track, the port) with wikidata=Q235, and that
makes no sense. We only tag the one entity that best points to the subject
of the article.

If that is not possible, use part:wikidata=*.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 9 September 2019, marc marc wrote:
> Le 09.09.19 à 16:18, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 9 Sep 2019, 15:14 by pella.s...@gmail.com:
> > 
> > Imho:the real problem, why we have multiple objects for
> > "name:*"   tags? ( admin_centre, label, relation, ... )
> > 
> > Label is an  attempt to manually
> > specify optimal place for placement of a label.
> 
> the label doesn't need any tag
> exept that some of them duplicate a country with a node place=country
> 

The label node is also used for navigation and is used to indicate the city 
centre.

If I tell OSMand I want to go to Liverpool today, I don't expect it to direct 
me to a residential street at the geographical centre.

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[marc marc]

Le 09.09.19 à 16:18, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
> 9 Sep 2019, 15:14 by pella.s...@gmail.com:
> 
> Imho:    the real problem, why we have multiple objects for
> "name:*"   tags? ( admin_centre, label, relation, ... )
> 
> Label is an  attempt to manually
> specify optimal place for placement of a label.

the label doesn't need any tag
exept that some of them duplicate a country with a node place=country
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

9 Sep 2019, 11:46 by jan...@gmail.com:

>> Monaco is a >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state 
>> 
>>
>
> I'm not convinced. If city-state is a city and a state in one, then why do we 
> have two objects in Openstreetmap? Then it should be one relation with 
> admin_level=2 + place=city
>
Monaco includes for example territorial
waters while it is not a part of the city.

City states may include also other areas
that is not a part of the city.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

9 Sep 2019, 15:14 by pella.s...@gmail.com:
> Imho:    the real problem, why we have multiple objects for "name:*"   tags? 
> ( admin_centre, label, relation, ... )  
>
Label is an  attempt to manually
specify optimal place for placement of a label.

It is therefore not reflecting reality, but
is manually placing label in specific map style
(that specific mapper wants to influence).

In other words it is something that should not
be mapped in OSM.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Settlements such as place=city are mapped as nodes, not areas, because
the centre of the settlement called "Monaco" is different than the
administrative boundary of the city-state of the same name. The island
of Singapore is mapped as a different feature than the Country
boundary=administrative, and the city itself is mapped with a node in
the centre of "downtown".

Wikidata does not always match the way things are in Openstreetmap - I
believe we do a better job of mapping reality, which means that
sometimes there are multiple features in OSM for something that
appears once in Wikidata.

On 9/9/19, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> pon, 9. ruj 2019. u 04:26 Joseph Eisenberg 
> napisao je:
>
>> Also see Singapore: it's an island, city and country. And more?
>>
>
> It's quite obvious Q334 is not about the island, it's about the city-state.
> So wikidata=334 on relation 1769123
>  is just wrong. It should
> be wikidata=Q1054746 .
>
> Janko
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Imre Samu]

>I'm not convinced. If city-state is a city and a state in one, then why do
we have two objects in Openstreetmap?

imho: compatibility with (old) osm softwares; (old) data models
( see more
https://2018.stateofthemap.org/2018/T107-Modding_the_OSM_Data_Model/ )

for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1790048269(as
admin_centre)  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6684051501(as label)
- has a lot of  "name:*"tags.
- then later wikipedia and wikidata tags has been added
- now lot of rendering software can extend the name translations from the
linked wikidata label. ( solving the licensing and tag inflation problems )

So some softwares using the wikidata for labeling.
Imho:the real problem, why we have multiple objects for "name:*"
 tags? ( admin_centre, label, relation, ... )



Janko Mihelić  ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 9., H,
10:48):

> Monaco is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state
>
>
> I'm not convinced. If city-state is a city and a state in one, then why do
> we have two objects in Openstreetmap? Then it should be one relation with
> admin_level=2 + place=city. As I understand, City-state doesn't mean it is
> a dual entity, it means this is a special kind of state, that is consisted
> only of one city.
>
> But if it really is a dual entity, then this tag is made for it, put
> part:wikidata=Q235 on both. But I don't think this is the case.
>
> Janko
>
> pon, 9. ruj 2019. u 02:58 Imre Samu  napisao je:
>
>> >> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
>> > Relation 1124039 should be  the only one with the wikidata tag.
>> > It's the only one that represents the country (boundary=administrative
>> + admin_level=2), which the wikipedia article is about.
>> > Relation 2220322 is a city (place=city). Wikipedia article is about the
>> country.
>>
>> imho: Monaco ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235 )
>> instance of(P31)
>> - "city-state"  ->  r2220322 (place=city)
>> - AND "country"->  r1124039  (country )
>>
>> so  1:2 relationship  ( 1 wikidata : 2 osm object)  is correct.
>> Monaco is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Janko Mihelić  ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 9., H,
>> 0:54):
>>
>>> ned, 8. ruj 2019. u 23:17 Imre Samu  napisao je:
>>>
 the 1:1 relationship is not so easy.
 What is your proposal for  Monaco (Q235) ?
 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235
 now: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q235#overview
 - 2 nodes
 - 3 relations
 Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?

>>>
>>> Relation 1124039 
>>> should be  the only one with the wikidata tag. It's the only one that
>>> represents the country (boundary=administrative + admin_level=2), which the
>>> wikipedia article is about.
>>> Relation 2220322  is a
>>> city (place=city). Wikipedia article is about the country.
>>> Relation 36990  is land
>>> area of a country (boundary=land_area). Not quite sure what it's used for,
>>> but it's not a boundary of a country.
>>> Nodes are helpers for label placement, which are not widely used by
>>> renderers anymore.
>>>
>>> Janko
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

pon, 9. ruj 2019. u 04:26 Joseph Eisenberg 
napisao je:

> Also see Singapore: it's an island, city and country. And more?
>

It's quite obvious Q334 is not about the island, it's about the city-state.
So wikidata=334 on relation 1769123
 is just wrong. It should
be wikidata=Q1054746 .

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

>
> Monaco is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state


I'm not convinced. If city-state is a city and a state in one, then why do
we have two objects in Openstreetmap? Then it should be one relation with
admin_level=2 + place=city. As I understand, City-state doesn't mean it is
a dual entity, it means this is a special kind of state, that is consisted
only of one city.

But if it really is a dual entity, then this tag is made for it, put
part:wikidata=Q235 on both. But I don't think this is the case.

Janko

pon, 9. ruj 2019. u 02:58 Imre Samu  napisao je:

> >> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
> > Relation 1124039 should be  the only one with the wikidata tag.
> > It's the only one that represents the country (boundary=administrative +
> admin_level=2), which the wikipedia article is about.
> > Relation 2220322 is a city (place=city). Wikipedia article is about the
> country.
>
> imho: Monaco ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235 )
> instance of(P31)
> - "city-state"  ->  r2220322 (place=city)
> - AND "country"->  r1124039  (country )
>
> so  1:2 relationship  ( 1 wikidata : 2 osm object)  is correct.
> Monaco is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state
>
>
>
>
> Janko Mihelić  ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 9., H,
> 0:54):
>
>> ned, 8. ruj 2019. u 23:17 Imre Samu  napisao je:
>>
>>> the 1:1 relationship is not so easy.
>>> What is your proposal for  Monaco (Q235) ?
>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235
>>> now: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q235#overview
>>> - 2 nodes
>>> - 3 relations
>>> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
>>>
>>
>> Relation 1124039  should
>> be  the only one with the wikidata tag. It's the only one that represents
>> the country (boundary=administrative + admin_level=2), which the wikipedia
>> article is about.
>> Relation 2220322  is a
>> city (place=city). Wikipedia article is about the country.
>> Relation 36990  is land
>> area of a country (boundary=land_area). Not quite sure what it's used for,
>> but it's not a boundary of a country.
>> Nodes are helpers for label placement, which are not widely used by
>> renderers anymore.
>>
>> Janko
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Also see Singapore: it's an island, city and country. And more?

 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q334 - instance of
Q3624078 sovereign state,
Q133442, city-state,
Q112099 island nation,
Q515 city
Q2264924 port city
Q6256 country

It looks like there is a separate entry for the main island:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1054746 - probably because there is a
separate wikipedia article.

- Joseph

On 9/9/19, Imre Samu  wrote:
>>> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
>> Relation 1124039 should be  the only one with the wikidata tag.
>> It's the only one that represents the country (boundary=administrative +
> admin_level=2), which the wikipedia article is about.
>> Relation 2220322 is a city (place=city). Wikipedia article is about the
> country.
>
> imho: Monaco ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235 )
> instance of(P31)
> - "city-state"  ->  r2220322 (place=city)
> - AND "country"->  r1124039  (country )
>
> so  1:2 relationship  ( 1 wikidata : 2 osm object)  is correct.
> Monaco is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state
>
>
>
>
> Janko Mihelić  ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 9., H,
> 0:54):
>
>> ned, 8. ruj 2019. u 23:17 Imre Samu  napisao je:
>>
>>> the 1:1 relationship is not so easy.
>>> What is your proposal for  Monaco (Q235) ?
>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235
>>> now: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q235#overview
>>> - 2 nodes
>>> - 3 relations
>>> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
>>>
>>
>> Relation 1124039  should
>> be  the only one with the wikidata tag. It's the only one that represents
>> the country (boundary=administrative + admin_level=2), which the
>> wikipedia
>> article is about.
>> Relation 2220322  is a
>> city (place=city). Wikipedia article is about the country.
>> Relation 36990  is land
>> area of a country (boundary=land_area). Not quite sure what it's used
>> for,
>> but it's not a boundary of a country.
>> Nodes are helpers for label placement, which are not widely used by
>> renderers anymore.
>>
>> Janko
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Imre Samu]

>> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
> Relation 1124039 should be  the only one with the wikidata tag.
> It's the only one that represents the country (boundary=administrative +
admin_level=2), which the wikipedia article is about.
> Relation 2220322 is a city (place=city). Wikipedia article is about the
country.

imho: Monaco ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235 )
instance of(P31)
- "city-state"  ->  r2220322 (place=city)
- AND "country"->  r1124039  (country )

so  1:2 relationship  ( 1 wikidata : 2 osm object)  is correct.
Monaco is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state




Janko Mihelić  ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 9., H,
0:54):

> ned, 8. ruj 2019. u 23:17 Imre Samu  napisao je:
>
>> the 1:1 relationship is not so easy.
>> What is your proposal for  Monaco (Q235) ?
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235
>> now: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q235#overview
>> - 2 nodes
>> - 3 relations
>> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
>>
>
> Relation 1124039  should
> be  the only one with the wikidata tag. It's the only one that represents
> the country (boundary=administrative + admin_level=2), which the wikipedia
> article is about.
> Relation 2220322  is a
> city (place=city). Wikipedia article is about the country.
> Relation 36990  is land
> area of a country (boundary=land_area). Not quite sure what it's used for,
> but it's not a boundary of a country.
> Nodes are helpers for label placement, which are not widely used by
> renderers anymore.
>
> Janko
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

ned, 8. ruj 2019. u 23:17 Imre Samu  napisao je:

> the 1:1 relationship is not so easy.
> What is your proposal for  Monaco (Q235) ?
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235
> now: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q235#overview
> - 2 nodes
> - 3 relations
> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
>

Relation 1124039  should
be  the only one with the wikidata tag. It's the only one that represents
the country (boundary=administrative + admin_level=2), which the wikipedia
article is about.
Relation 2220322  is a city
(place=city). Wikipedia article is about the country.
Relation 36990  is land area
of a country (boundary=land_area). Not quite sure what it's used for, but
it's not a boundary of a country.
Nodes are helpers for label placement, which are not widely used by
renderers anymore.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Imre Samu]

Thanks for the proposal,

> I think we should consider having a hard rule of "A Wikidata item cannot
be connected to more than one OSM item".

the 1:1 relationship is not so easy.
What is your proposal for  Monaco (Q235) ?
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235
now: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q235#overview
- 2 nodes
- 3 relations
Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?

thanks,
 Imre







Janko Mihelić  ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 6., P,
15:08):

> Last year there was a little discussion about unique wikidata ids in the
> openstreetmap database:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-August/038249.html
>
> It was more or less decided there was no problem with this. Nevertheless,
> I think we should consider having a hard rule of "*A Wikidata item cannot
> be connected to more than one OSM item*".
>
> Problems with not enforcing this rule:
>
> - the problem of a partially downloaded database, where one is never sure
> if a wikidata item is fully downloaded unless the whole database is
> downloaded.
>
> - we could get a flood of wikidata tags where one would, for example, tag
> every building in a town with the wikidata id of the town, because that
> building is a part of the town. Is that wrong tagging? Well, if the above
> rule is not in place, I'm not sure.
>
> - if a road segment has two road routes that are using it, then we should
> tag it as "wikidata=Q1234;Q5678". That means, if we want to find any
> wikidata id, we should be prepared to parse all wikidata tags and be
> prepared for semicolons. This slows down any wikidata searches
>
> - we can't enforce some rules like "tag leisure=stadium can only be
> connected to something that is, or is derived from Q483110 (Stadium) in
> Wikidata" because, if we tag all the parts of an entity, we can also tag a
> water fountain in the stadium, because that is a part of it.
>
> So I propose we enforce this rule, and we tag, for example, railways only
> on the route relation.
>
> If one wants to tag all route segments with a wikidata tag, I propose a
> general usage "*part:wikidata=**" which would be used when a single
> wikidata tag just isn't viable. Proposal wiki page here:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/part:wikidata
>
> Thanks for reading,
> Janko Mihelić
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I think that it is fine to repeat 
Wikipedia link 
(so probably also its Wikidata equivalent)
in some cases:
- streets with Wikipedia article
- structure that combines for example footway bridge and Weir- beach with 
Wikipedia article split into parts
due to differing surfacesetc


8 Sep 2019, 19:26 by jan...@gmail.com:

> Has no one any opinion on this? I have a feeling this is important for the 
> future of the Openstreetmap - Wikidata relationship..
>
> Janko
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 15:05 Janko Mihelić <> jan...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> Last year there was a little discussion about unique wikidata ids in the 
>> openstreetmap database:
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-August/038249.html 
>> 
>>
>> It was more or less decided there was no problem with this. Nevertheless, I 
>> think we should consider having a hard rule of ">> A Wikidata item cannot be 
>> connected to more than one OSM item>> ".
>>
>> Problems with not enforcing this rule:
>>
>> - the problem of a partially downloaded database, where one is never sure if 
>> a wikidata item is fully downloaded unless the whole database is downloaded.
>>
>> - we could get a flood of wikidata tags where one would, for example, tag 
>> every building in a town with the wikidata id of the town, because that 
>> building is a part of the town. Is that wrong tagging? Well, if the above 
>> rule is not in place, I'm not sure.
>>
>> - if a road segment has two road routes that are using it, then we should 
>> tag it as "wikidata=Q1234;Q5678". That means, if we want to find any 
>> wikidata id, we should be prepared to parse all wikidata tags and be 
>> prepared for semicolons. This slows down any wikidata searches
>>
>> - we can't enforce some rules like "tag leisure=stadium can only be 
>> connected to something that is, or is derived from Q483110 (Stadium) in 
>> Wikidata" because, if we tag all the parts of an entity, we can also tag a 
>> water fountain in the stadium, because that is a part of it.
>>
>> So I propose we enforce this rule, and we tag, for example, railways only on 
>> the route relation.
>>
>> If one wants to tag all route segments with a wikidata tag, I propose a 
>> general usage ">> part:wikidata=*>> " which would be used when a single 
>> wikidata tag just isn't viable. Proposal wiki page here:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/part:wikidata 
>> 
>>
>> Thanks for reading,
>> Janko Mihelić
>>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Tobias Knerr]

On 08.09.19 18:26, Janko Mihelić wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 15:05 Janko Mihelić wrote:
> "*A Wikidata item cannot be connected to more than one OSM item*".
[...]
> If one wants to tag all route segments with a wikidata tag, I
> propose a general usage "*part:wikidata=**" which would be used when
> a single wikidata tag just isn't viable. Proposal wiki page here:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/part:wikidata

Seems reasonable enough to me. It upholds the (generally desirable) 1:1
relationship while offering a realistic solution for items where there
is no single OSM element representing the feature as a whole. Streets
are probably the most prominent example where this would be used.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Jo]

For what it's worth, I think your proposal makes sense.

Polyglot

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 6:28 PM Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> Has no one any opinion on this? I have a feeling this is important for the
> future of the Openstreetmap - Wikidata relationship..
>
> Janko
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 15:05 Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
>> Last year there was a little discussion about unique wikidata ids in the
>> openstreetmap database:
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-August/038249.html
>>
>> It was more or less decided there was no problem with this. Nevertheless,
>> I think we should consider having a hard rule of "*A Wikidata item
>> cannot be connected to more than one OSM item*".
>>
>> Problems with not enforcing this rule:
>>
>> - the problem of a partially downloaded database, where one is never sure
>> if a wikidata item is fully downloaded unless the whole database is
>> downloaded.
>>
>> - we could get a flood of wikidata tags where one would, for example, tag
>> every building in a town with the wikidata id of the town, because that
>> building is a part of the town. Is that wrong tagging? Well, if the above
>> rule is not in place, I'm not sure.
>>
>> - if a road segment has two road routes that are using it, then we should
>> tag it as "wikidata=Q1234;Q5678". That means, if we want to find any
>> wikidata id, we should be prepared to parse all wikidata tags and be
>> prepared for semicolons. This slows down any wikidata searches
>>
>> - we can't enforce some rules like "tag leisure=stadium can only be
>> connected to something that is, or is derived from Q483110 (Stadium) in
>> Wikidata" because, if we tag all the parts of an entity, we can also tag a
>> water fountain in the stadium, because that is a part of it.
>>
>> So I propose we enforce this rule, and we tag, for example, railways only
>> on the route relation.
>>
>> If one wants to tag all route segments with a wikidata tag, I propose a
>> general usage "*part:wikidata=**" which would be used when a single
>> wikidata tag just isn't viable. Proposal wiki page here:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/part:wikidata
>>
>> Thanks for reading,
>> Janko Mihelić
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

Has no one any opinion on this? I have a feeling this is important for the
future of the Openstreetmap - Wikidata relationship..

Janko

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 15:05 Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> Last year there was a little discussion about unique wikidata ids in the
> openstreetmap database:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-August/038249.html
>
> It was more or less decided there was no problem with this. Nevertheless,
> I think we should consider having a hard rule of "*A Wikidata item cannot
> be connected to more than one OSM item*".
>
> Problems with not enforcing this rule:
>
> - the problem of a partially downloaded database, where one is never sure
> if a wikidata item is fully downloaded unless the whole database is
> downloaded.
>
> - we could get a flood of wikidata tags where one would, for example, tag
> every building in a town with the wikidata id of the town, because that
> building is a part of the town. Is that wrong tagging? Well, if the above
> rule is not in place, I'm not sure.
>
> - if a road segment has two road routes that are using it, then we should
> tag it as "wikidata=Q1234;Q5678". That means, if we want to find any
> wikidata id, we should be prepared to parse all wikidata tags and be
> prepared for semicolons. This slows down any wikidata searches
>
> - we can't enforce some rules like "tag leisure=stadium can only be
> connected to something that is, or is derived from Q483110 (Stadium) in
> Wikidata" because, if we tag all the parts of an entity, we can also tag a
> water fountain in the stadium, because that is a part of it.
>
> So I propose we enforce this rule, and we tag, for example, railways only
> on the route relation.
>
> If one wants to tag all route segments with a wikidata tag, I propose a
> general usage "*part:wikidata=**" which would be used when a single
> wikidata tag just isn't viable. Proposal wiki page here:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/part:wikidata
>
> Thanks for reading,
> Janko Mihelić
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

Last year there was a little discussion about unique wikidata ids in the
openstreetmap database:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-August/038249.html

It was more or less decided there was no problem with this. Nevertheless, I
think we should consider having a hard rule of "*A Wikidata item cannot be
connected to more than one OSM item*".

Problems with not enforcing this rule:

- the problem of a partially downloaded database, where one is never sure
if a wikidata item is fully downloaded unless the whole database is
downloaded.

- we could get a flood of wikidata tags where one would, for example, tag
every building in a town with the wikidata id of the town, because that
building is a part of the town. Is that wrong tagging? Well, if the above
rule is not in place, I'm not sure.

- if a road segment has two road routes that are using it, then we should
tag it as "wikidata=Q1234;Q5678". That means, if we want to find any
wikidata id, we should be prepared to parse all wikidata tags and be
prepared for semicolons. This slows down any wikidata searches

- we can't enforce some rules like "tag leisure=stadium can only be
connected to something that is, or is derived from Q483110 (Stadium) in
Wikidata" because, if we tag all the parts of an entity, we can also tag a
water fountain in the stadium, because that is a part of it.

So I propose we enforce this rule, and we tag, for example, railways only
on the route relation.

If one wants to tag all route segments with a wikidata tag, I propose a
general usage "*part:wikidata=**" which would be used when a single
wikidata tag just isn't viable. Proposal wiki page here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/part:wikidata

Thanks for reading,
Janko Mihelić
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging