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
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
From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
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
<frede...@r
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
>
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
elated tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> 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
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.
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
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
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
links and copy + paste in tag definitions
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
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.
19 matches
Mail list logo