sent from a phone
> On 2. May 2017, at 02:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> But without knowing a lot about the story and mechanisms behind it, the
> link you quoted above doesn't seem wrong. It is not called "castle" but
> "structure tagged as historic=castle in OSM", and the only things it
> seem
Hi,
On 05/01/2017 11:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I also thought like this, but not so rarely I have noticed people are
> not only adding this link as the first word, they are also replacing the
> following definition by the first paragraph of the English wikipedia
> article with the same n
From: Martin Koppenhoefer
Sent: 01 May 2017 22:07:11
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] wikipedia links and copy + paste in tag definitions
2017-05-01 20:06 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm
mailto:frede...@remote.org>>:
I wouldn'
2017-05-01 20:06 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm :
> I wouldn't worry too much.
>
> A Wikipedia link is an optional component that can be added to a tag
> description to someone who knows what the tag is about.
>
I also thought like this, but not so rarely I have noticed people are not
only adding this
Hi,
On 04/29/2017 10:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> A lot of tag definitions sooner or later get a wikipedia link to an article
I wouldn't worry too much.
A Wikipedia link is an optional component that can be added to a tag
description to someone who knows what the tag is about. If the Wiki
Hello all,
so what is the principle of the "organisation of information" in OSM ?
Up to now, I couldn't find a documentation that explains
the general philosophy how to tag items.
Cheers,
Thilo
> different organisation of information.
> will very likely not be what we want.
_
2017-05-01 14:43 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :
>
> > no, my main concern is that both have different scope, and that people
> are
> > modifying wikidata without looking at the use of osm tags.
>
> You wrote "sometimes we have multiple tags in OSM each covering a
> specific aspect or subtype of what is
On 1 May 2017 at 13:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> On 1. May 2017, at 12:37, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>> Do not falsely conflate "complex" with "worse". You original complaint
>> was, in effect, that there was a lack of complexity, now you complain
>> that there is.
> no, my main concern is that
> Do not falsely conflate "complex" with "worse". You original complaint
> was, in effect, that there was a lack of complexity, now you complain
> that there is.
In the OSM Wiki there's enough complexity
(and not everything is "orthogonal").
If you'd like to tag tourism POIs,
you should check sev
sent from a phone
sent from a phone
> On 1. May 2017, at 12:37, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> Do not falsely conflate "complex" with "worse". You original complaint
> was, in effect, that there was a lack of complexity, now you complain
> that there is.
no, my main concern is that both have dif
On 30 April 2017 at 09:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> On 30. Apr 2017, at 07:09, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>
>> No. The arguments made by Martin against linking to Wikipedia (which
>> are themselves weak) do not stand up at all for Wikidata
> actually in wikidata things are worse, because much mor
sent from a phone
> On 1. May 2017, at 01:50, Dalibor Jelínek wrote:
>
> IMHO you have chosen a bad example to illustrate your statement.
> There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia definition of castle.
> It fits perfectly for page castle_type=defensive
if you look at the details it still doesn
and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] wikipedia links and copy + paste in tag definitions
>
> On 29.04.2017 22:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > Don't link to WP, especially not in the beginning (as if their definition
> automatically was equal to ours), because even if
On 29.04.2017 22:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Don't link to WP, especially not in the beginning (as if their definition
> automatically was equal to ours), because even if the current state is fine,
> we don't control WP and don't know how they will structure their lemmas in
> the future.
T
sent from a phone
> On 30. Apr 2017, at 07:09, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> No. The arguments made by Martin against linking to Wikipedia (which
> are themselves weak) do not stand up at all for Wikidata:
>
>> Wikipedia articles have a different scope, and quite often there
>> are several articles
On 29 April 2017 at 22:03, Andrew Hain wrote:
> What about the Wikidata links that some pages have in their infoboxes? Is
> there the same objection there?
No. The arguments made by Martin against linking to Wikipedia (which
are themselves weak) do not stand up at all for Wikidata:
> Wikipedia
sent from a phone
> On 29. Apr 2017, at 23:03, Andrew Hain wrote:
>
> What about the Wikidata links that some pages have in their infoboxes? Is
> there the same objection there?
essentially yes. Nobody editing wikidata will check if their edits are in line
with OSM tag usage.
cheers,
Mart
What about the Wikidata links that some pages have in their infoboxes? Is there
the same objection there?
--
Andrew
From: Martin Koppenhoefer
Sent: 29 April 2017 21:26:36
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Tagging] wikipedia links and copy + paste in tag
A lot of tag definitions sooner or later get a wikipedia link to an article
(typically with the same name as the tag) attached to their beginning and/or
the first paragraph(s) are copied to the definition.
I'm sure people are acting in good faith when doing it, but I don't think it's
helpful. W
19 matches
Mail list logo