Re: [OSM-talk] # with color code
The value is defined as an hexadecimal rgb code, starting with a #. I think most data consumers try to decode it with or without a #, its an easy to fix typo. Yves Le 28 septembre 2017 18:59:15 GMT+02:00, James a écrit : >usually # specifies that it's a hexidecimal number vs a base 10 number. >When you have letters A-F it's obvious that it's hexidecimal and can be >implecitely converted. > >The issue is when you don't have letters: >255 > >in hexadecimal 255 is >2*16^2 >+ >5*16^1 >+ >5*16^0 >= 512+80+5=597 > >255 base 10 would be represented by ff in hex. > >On Sep 28, 2017 12:08 PM, "Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com" < >jacknst...@sprynet.com> wrote: > >> It's been my experience that colors render just fine without a '#' >before >> the code number. Is usage of a # prefix really necessary? What >problems >> will occur if it isn't attached? Thanks :) >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] # with color code
usually # specifies that it's a hexidecimal number vs a base 10 number. When you have letters A-F it's obvious that it's hexidecimal and can be implecitely converted. The issue is when you don't have letters: 255 in hexadecimal 255 is 2*16^2 + 5*16^1 + 5*16^0 = 512+80+5=597 255 base 10 would be represented by ff in hex. On Sep 28, 2017 12:08 PM, "Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com" < jacknst...@sprynet.com> wrote: > It's been my experience that colors render just fine without a '#' before > the code number. Is usage of a # prefix really necessary? What problems > will occur if it isn't attached? Thanks :) > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #375 2017-09-19-2017-09-25
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 375, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9500/ Enjoy! weeklyOSM? who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages where?: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] # with color code
It's been my experience that colors render just fine without a '#' before the code number. Is usage of a # prefix really necessary? What problems will occur if it isn't attached? Thanks :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*
2017-09-28 15:01 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend : > (in the case of the Aldis discussed elsewhere I suspect that there will > always enough info to say which is which in other tags or using geographic > location). > in the case of Aldi Nord and Aldi Süd, you'd have to know the precise position of the "Aldi equator" in order to say which is which (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aldi_branches_in_Europe.svg ). Other tags will hardly help you out. If you have the division it isn't a very complicated case though, because this is about 2 brothers who divided the world so that they would never compete with one another. When there aren't clear borders / areas it is different. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Multipolygon relations and disjunct geometries
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 02:52:29PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Recently I was presented with an Error message of my favorite editing > software, when I tried to upload a changeset where several pyramids in Giza > (Egypt) together are known by a common name. > > JOSM told me there was an Error in my data. An Error for the JOSM validator > is something that is most likely wrong and should usually be fixed. > > The reason for the error was that I had created a multipolygon, but had > left tags which are referring to an area, on the member objects (outer > ways). This is something I believe is completely regular and happens as > soon as some property of one of the members is not valid for the relation > as a whole, e.g. because the name is different, etc. > > What is your opinion on this? If the outer ring is a single closed way it is a polygon in its own right and it is perfectly okay that it has its own (polygon) tags. Those tags only apply to this particular way then. If the outer ring is made up of several ways, the tags on them only apply to each way by itself. If those are "line" tags, like highway, or something like a wall, that is fine. But they can't be "polygon" tags like landuse etc. because there is no polygon there. If you need this, you'll need another multipolygon relation combining those ways. This is somewhat different than the older interpretation when we still had old-style multipolygons. But with the new-style multipolygons interpretation, the tags from a collections of objects are *never* aggregated into a larger whole. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org https://www.jochentopf.com/ +49-351-31778688 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*
On 27/09/2017 17:14, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: * Problem #1: In my analysis of OSM data, wikipedia tags quickly go stale because they use Wikipedia page titles, and titles are constantly renamed, deleted, and what's worse - old names are reused for new meanings. This is a fundamental problem with all Wikipedia tags, such as wikipedia, brand:wikipedia, operator:wikipedia, etc, that needs solving. The solution does not need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than what we have. * Problem #2: the *meaning* of the "wikipedia" tag is ambiguous, and therefor cannot be processed easily. The top three meanings I have seen are: a) This WP article is about this OSM feature (a so called 1:1 match, e.g. city, famous building, ...) b) This WP article is about some aspect of this OSM feature, like its brand, tree species, or subject of the sculpture c) Only a part of this WP article is about this OSM feature, e.g. a WP list of museums in the area contains description of this museum. * Problem #3: data consumers need cleaner, more machine-processable data. The text label is much more error prone than an ID: McDonalds vs mcdonalds vs McDonald's vs ..., so having "brand=mcdonalds" results in many errors. Note that just because OSM default map skin may handle some of them correctly, each data consumer has to re-implement that logic, so the more ambiguous something is, the more likely it will result in errors and data omissions. The brand:wikidata discussion is about #1, #2b, and #3. Are we in agreement that these are problems, or do you think none of them need solving? 1) Not a problem as such. If something has changed on the wikipedia side then something may need checking on the OSM side. It might be as simple as "someone's just renamed the wikipedia page" then fine just fix the link - but it needs a human to check it. What might have happened of course is that the object has changed in the real world (been renamed, moved, or changed in some other way) and the object in OSM needs a resurvey, or perhaps can be changed based on existing knowledge, but either way it still needs checking. 2b) If someone's added a wikipedia link to an OSM object that represents a tree to point to the wikipedia page of that type of tree, than that's not helpful. There's no need for the link, since the tree type is already tagged in OSM. 3) This depends on the data consumer. If you're simply trying to impress people with the volume of data that you have access to then you might indeed want an a large number of unmaintainable extra links of dubious provenance. Realistically though in my experience (as I've written elsewhere in this thread) data consumers do care about the quality of the data that they're processing, and the fact that the person adding the object spelt "McDonald's" differently is something that they may well have a view about. In a different context I've written elsewhere about the work that went in to create the list at https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1401 which involved looking at how people tagged certain sorts of features in OSM. Free tagging is both a strength and a weakness of OSM - without it the data wouldn't get captured at all, but with it people do have to look at the data that's been added - but it's what data consumers do already. You could argue that a "brand:wikidata" key makes their job easier, but if they want to do a proper job it probably doesn't make a lot of difference. Another example - I recently looked at the usage of "natural=fell" in OSM with a view to rendering it. It surprised me that this query http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/s2q showed at least 3 different types of objects with the same OSM tag. A data consumer can't assume that what they thought that something meant (perhaps after reading the OSM wiki) is what mappers actually do - they'll need to filter the data they're consuming based on actual OSM usage. In the case of "brand:wikidata" they may want to filter out obviously bot-added values because there was no local knowledge of that data and go back to what other tags the mappers added (in the case of the Aldis discussed elsewhere I suspect that there will always enough info to say which is which in other tags or using geographic location). Best Regards, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Multipolygon relations and disjunct geometries
Recently I was presented with an Error message of my favorite editing software, when I tried to upload a changeset where several pyramids in Giza (Egypt) together are known by a common name. JOSM told me there was an Error in my data. An Error for the JOSM validator is something that is most likely wrong and should usually be fixed. The reason for the error was that I had created a multipolygon, but had left tags which are referring to an area, on the member objects (outer ways). This is something I believe is completely regular and happens as soon as some property of one of the members is not valid for the relation as a whole, e.g. because the name is different, etc. What is your opinion on this? Cheers, Martin PS: For reference, this is the ticket with which I tried to convince the devs to remove this test: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/15360 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Osmose-QA - Mapillary traffic signs matching
do you intend to upload these to OSM, and if yes, are you going to create traffic sign objects or will you add traffic sign information to nearby osm objects like roads? Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM
( Done it again ) On 28/09/17 11:57, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> I have found wikidata entries that don't have wikipedia pages and I would >> expect that but it would be nice to have confirmation that this is >> actual practice? > Yes, it is. for example this: > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18983100 > > is the Wikidata item about an ornamental gate, made by a locally > well-known artist, which exists in OSM as: > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2312982822 > > Never in a million years will it qualify for its own Wikipedia article. That is exactly the sort of object I'm talking about :) wikidata links to an image and the Artists page, but the Artists page does not link to the Gate back to the wikidata object. I would expect other data to be added to the notes entry on the Artists page, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Tolkien has no way to add the anchor for each object on his Catalogue? Moving forward, every artist's catalogue would be a list on wikidata and managed from that list? Another simple example from the wikidata walk through is the location of the headstone for Douglas Adams burial in Highgate cemetery. wikidata should probably have an object for that with links to Highgate cemetery and OSM could have a complete set of all gravestones on the site, or link to an external copy of that list. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM (was: Overlapping brands)
2017-09-28 13:28 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > If their first language doesn't use Latin roots they will also have to > look up "name". > sorry, seems "name" has Germanic roots. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM (was: Overlapping brands)
2017-09-28 10:53 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend : > On 28/09/2017 09:28, Jo wrote: > Many mappers (especially those with a first language that doesn't use many > Greek roots) will I suspect struggle with what "name:etymology:wikidata" > actually means. > > maybe, but they could look it up. If their first language doesn't use Latin roots they will also have to look up "name". While I don't want to endorse this specific tag, I don't think we should criticize it based on the tag name (which IMHO is quite precise and self-explanatory). Yes, if you completely miss any european cultural background, all tags are difficult (and this is not limited to the word "etymology"). Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM
Here is an entry I added to Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q37873776 I tried to create a Wikipedia article for it, but it got shot down immediately. Wikipedia doesn't like companies, even if they do provide public transport services and even if it's a red link in another article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakar_Dem_Dikk_Workers_Democratic_Union&diff=797050840&oldid=411077118 I don't expect the wikidata entry to be removed. It conforms to their inclusion rule 2. If they do remove it for some unfathomable reason, our links will indeed go stale. That's too bad. Polyglot 2017-09-28 12:53 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > 2017-09-28 12:07 GMT+02:00 Jo : > >> My experience is that adding something we map (or refer to like the name >> of a mayor) to Wikipedia is absurdly hard to accomplish. Adding it to >> Wikidata is trivially easy in comparison. So the inclusion rules for >> Wikipedia and Wikidata are very different too. This also means that not >> every entry present in Wikidata will have a Wikipedia article. It might >> have an article in one of the other Wikimedia projects, or it might only >> exist in other projects like OpenStreetMap. I added thousands of schools in >> Uganda to Wikidata, if you want an example. >> > > > > The criteria for inclusion in wikidata are here: > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability > > Basically the object has to meet at least one of these requirements: > > 1. link to an object in a wikimedia project > 2. refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material > entity > 3. It fulfills some structural need, for example: it is needed to make > statements made in other items more useful. > > > The fact that nobody has yet removed what you have added doesn't mean it > won't be removed in the future (similarly to how wikipedia articles I had > linked from osm have been removed after many years), e.g. a (leftist) > comunity centre was dismissed, in a second attempt, as "localism", "not > known to the major part of the population", the articles in national > newspapers about it dismissed as "not relevant" (or "could go into > wikinews"). There was a first attempt to delete the page which didn't pass, > so the deletionists tried again until they succeeded: > https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale:Registri > &page=CSOA_La_Strada > > Cheers, > Martin > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM
On 28 September 2017 at 11:41, Lester Caine wrote: > I have found wikidata entries that don't have wikipedia pages and I would > expect that but it would be nice to have confirmation that this is > actual practice? Yes, it is. for example this: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18983100 is the Wikidata item about an ornamental gate, made by a locally well-known artist, which exists in OSM as: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2312982822 Never in a million years will it qualify for its own Wikipedia article. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM
2017-09-28 12:07 GMT+02:00 Jo : > My experience is that adding something we map (or refer to like the name > of a mayor) to Wikipedia is absurdly hard to accomplish. Adding it to > Wikidata is trivially easy in comparison. So the inclusion rules for > Wikipedia and Wikidata are very different too. This also means that not > every entry present in Wikidata will have a Wikipedia article. It might > have an article in one of the other Wikimedia projects, or it might only > exist in other projects like OpenStreetMap. I added thousands of schools in > Uganda to Wikidata, if you want an example. > The criteria for inclusion in wikidata are here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability Basically the object has to meet at least one of these requirements: 1. link to an object in a wikimedia project 2. refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity 3. It fulfills some structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful. The fact that nobody has yet removed what you have added doesn't mean it won't be removed in the future (similarly to how wikipedia articles I had linked from osm have been removed after many years), e.g. a (leftist) comunity centre was dismissed, in a second attempt, as "localism", "not known to the major part of the population", the articles in national newspapers about it dismissed as "not relevant" (or "could go into wikinews"). There was a first attempt to delete the page which didn't pass, so the deletionists tried again until they succeeded: https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale: Registri&page=CSOA_La_Strada Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM
On 28/09/17 10:55, Andy Townsend wrote: > Obviously wikipedia/wikidata's rules for inclusion are very different to > ours (in some cases the opposite - wikipedia says "no original research > - please copy from some other source"). There are plenty of examples of > things that people think should be in wikipedia and aren't, and also > things that shouldn't be in wikipedia/wikidata (because they don't > exist) and are. While I'm not up to speed with the latest state of play on wikidata, I understand that it is a lot better at inclusion than wikipedia. My main complaint about wikipedia has always been that it is rather to 'elite' in the way it blocks articles someone takes a negative view about. I have found wikidata entries that don't have wikipedia pages and I would expect that but it would be nice to have confirmation that this is actual practice? In the UK taking an open source list and adding it to wikidata should be a starting point for things like say 'streets', but many of those objects do not need wikipedia articles, just an automatically generated page from wikidata direct. My own problem is that buildings on those streets add another order of magnitude of of objects and should every one have a wikidata id? OSM in many areas does have a large number of objects against which building details can be added ... such as the brand/operator/chain of the shop or service located at the property. In the UK, NLPG provides ( if it was open sourced ) a complete list of properties in the UK, and would be the best source for an accurate list against which to work. Add similar databases around the world and one can build a complete model of the whole world. Not something I think wikidata would want to duplicate fully? But wikidata could perhaps provide links to the other databases containing fine detail much like the NSG lists streets which are then used as the base for NLPG objects. On my day job I've got material that needs indexing, and more often than not there is no article on wikipedia or in wikidata and at that point I have a chicken and egg problem. Do I create a wikidata stub so I have the ID with which to cross reference ... do I add a stub wikipedia article ... or do I just manage things with my own id's. OSM only comes into the picture here in managing and displaying location data but it's the ID of premises such as birth, death and activity locations that overlay all the objects I'm working with. Premises listed on the UK national census are a typical fairly reliable source I'm working with daily ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM
On 28 September 2017 at 11:23, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 28/09/2017 11:13, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> >> On 28 September 2017 at 09:53, Andy Townsend wrote: >> >>> "objects named after Leuven" >>> I'd have thought that this sort of "extra non-geographical information" >>> was >>> better held outside of OSM, and then link back into OSM via e.g. >>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q118958 or even >>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikipedia=nl%3ALeuven >> >> Objects named after Leuven MUST NOT be tagged "wikidata=Q118958", nor >> "wikipedia=:Leuven" >> > Indeed, and I'm not suggesting that they should be. Please read what I said > (at least once before posting). Please dial down the snark. I read what you wrote, more than once, because it was not clear what you meant; but on re-reading that was indeed what you seemed to suggest. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM
On 28/09/2017 11:13, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 28 September 2017 at 09:53, Andy Townsend wrote: "objects named after Leuven" I'd have thought that this sort of "extra non-geographical information" was better held outside of OSM, and then link back into OSM via e.g. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q118958 or even https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikipedia=nl%3ALeuven Objects named after Leuven MUST NOT be tagged "wikidata=Q118958", nor "wikipedia=:Leuven" Indeed, and I'm not suggesting that they should be. Please read what I said (at least once before posting). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM (was: Overlapping brands)
On 28 September 2017 at 09:53, Andy Townsend wrote: > "objects named after Leuven" > I'd have thought that this sort of "extra non-geographical information" was > better held outside of OSM, and then link back into OSM via e.g. > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q118958 or even > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikipedia=nl%3ALeuven Objects named after Leuven MUST NOT be tagged "wikidata=Q118958", nor "wikipedia=:Leuven" -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM
My experience is that adding something we map (or refer to like the name of a mayor) to Wikipedia is absurdly hard to accomplish. Adding it to Wikidata is trivially easy in comparison. So the inclusion rules for Wikipedia and Wikidata are very different too. This also means that not every entry present in Wikidata will have a Wikipedia article. It might have an article in one of the other Wikimedia projects, or it might only exist in other projects like OpenStreetMap. I added thousands of schools in Uganda to Wikidata, if you want an example. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23742566 I also found way to refer back to OpenStreetMap through the reference url property of the coordinate location. License wise this shouldn't be a problem, as I helped out with the import of those schools into OSM. It might be trickier to do this for objects that only exist in OSM, due to the difference in license between both projects. Polyglot 2017-09-28 11:55 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend : > On 28/09/2017 10:36, Marc Gemis wrote: > >> Andy are you now saying that it is OK to have 1 wikidata tag on each >> street, so someone can create an external list of streets with >> Wikidata ids to represent some kind of collection (like "all streets >> named after Leuven") ? >> > Firstly I'm not saying "what is or is not OK" - that's essentially the > point of this discussion, to find out what people do think. > > What I'm saying is that the expression of that sort of relationship > possibly doesn't belong in OSM itself (because it's not really > on-the-ground verifiable, or at least in many cases it won't be). > > If a street passed whatever tests wikipedia impose to have a wikipedia > entry, and by inference a wikidata one (wikidata items essentially being > all created from wikipedia, with links added later) then yes, by all means > add a wikipedia/wikidata link to the OSM object, then add your "etymology" > link within wikidata. > > Obviously wikipedia/wikidata's rules for inclusion are very different to > ours (in some cases the opposite - wikipedia says "no original research - > please copy from some other source"). There are plenty of examples of > things that people think should be in wikipedia and aren't, and also things > that shouldn't be in wikipedia/wikidata (because they don't exist) and are. > > Best Regards, > Andy > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM
O, I even believe that e.g. all (or a large number of) Dutch streets are in Wikidata without having a Wikipedia article for the individual streets. On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > Thanks for explaining, Andy. > > Please note that as I said before, it is not true that there is a > Wikipedia article for each Wikidata item. E.g. There is a whole group > working on inventarising art in musea. They do create Wikidata items, > but no Wikipedia articles for the individual items. It is true that > each Wikipedia article (or page) has a Wikidata entry, but not the > other way around. > > regards > > m > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: >> On 28/09/2017 10:36, Marc Gemis wrote: >>> >>> Andy are you now saying that it is OK to have 1 wikidata tag on each >>> street, so someone can create an external list of streets with >>> Wikidata ids to represent some kind of collection (like "all streets >>> named after Leuven") ? >> >> Firstly I'm not saying "what is or is not OK" - that's essentially the point >> of this discussion, to find out what people do think. >> >> What I'm saying is that the expression of that sort of relationship possibly >> doesn't belong in OSM itself (because it's not really on-the-ground >> verifiable, or at least in many cases it won't be). >> >> If a street passed whatever tests wikipedia impose to have a wikipedia >> entry, and by inference a wikidata one (wikidata items essentially being all >> created from wikipedia, with links added later) then yes, by all means add a >> wikipedia/wikidata link to the OSM object, then add your "etymology" link >> within wikidata. >> >> Obviously wikipedia/wikidata's rules for inclusion are very different to >> ours (in some cases the opposite - wikipedia says "no original research - >> please copy from some other source"). There are plenty of examples of >> things that people think should be in wikipedia and aren't, and also things >> that shouldn't be in wikipedia/wikidata (because they don't exist) and are. >> >> Best Regards, >> Andy >> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM
Thanks for explaining, Andy. Please note that as I said before, it is not true that there is a Wikipedia article for each Wikidata item. E.g. There is a whole group working on inventarising art in musea. They do create Wikidata items, but no Wikipedia articles for the individual items. It is true that each Wikipedia article (or page) has a Wikidata entry, but not the other way around. regards m On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 28/09/2017 10:36, Marc Gemis wrote: >> >> Andy are you now saying that it is OK to have 1 wikidata tag on each >> street, so someone can create an external list of streets with >> Wikidata ids to represent some kind of collection (like "all streets >> named after Leuven") ? > > Firstly I'm not saying "what is or is not OK" - that's essentially the point > of this discussion, to find out what people do think. > > What I'm saying is that the expression of that sort of relationship possibly > doesn't belong in OSM itself (because it's not really on-the-ground > verifiable, or at least in many cases it won't be). > > If a street passed whatever tests wikipedia impose to have a wikipedia > entry, and by inference a wikidata one (wikidata items essentially being all > created from wikipedia, with links added later) then yes, by all means add a > wikipedia/wikidata link to the OSM object, then add your "etymology" link > within wikidata. > > Obviously wikipedia/wikidata's rules for inclusion are very different to > ours (in some cases the opposite - wikipedia says "no original research - > please copy from some other source"). There are plenty of examples of > things that people think should be in wikipedia and aren't, and also things > that shouldn't be in wikipedia/wikidata (because they don't exist) and are. > > Best Regards, > Andy > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM
On 28/09/2017 10:36, Marc Gemis wrote: Andy are you now saying that it is OK to have 1 wikidata tag on each street, so someone can create an external list of streets with Wikidata ids to represent some kind of collection (like "all streets named after Leuven") ? Firstly I'm not saying "what is or is not OK" - that's essentially the point of this discussion, to find out what people do think. What I'm saying is that the expression of that sort of relationship possibly doesn't belong in OSM itself (because it's not really on-the-ground verifiable, or at least in many cases it won't be). If a street passed whatever tests wikipedia impose to have a wikipedia entry, and by inference a wikidata one (wikidata items essentially being all created from wikipedia, with links added later) then yes, by all means add a wikipedia/wikidata link to the OSM object, then add your "etymology" link within wikidata. Obviously wikipedia/wikidata's rules for inclusion are very different to ours (in some cases the opposite - wikipedia says "no original research - please copy from some other source"). There are plenty of examples of things that people think should be in wikipedia and aren't, and also things that shouldn't be in wikipedia/wikidata (because they don't exist) and are. Best Regards, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM (was: Overlapping brands)
Andy are you now saying that it is OK to have 1 wikidata tag on each street, so someone can create an external list of streets with Wikidata ids to represent some kind of collection (like "all streets named after Leuven") ? m. On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 28/09/2017 09:28, Jo wrote: >> >> >> All OSM objects with a name (in several languages) referring to a city. >> More zoomed in: >> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/s20 >> > ... except that it isn't necessarily "all objects" - it's "a list of objects > in OSM manually curated by you". You're still going to have to monitor > changes to those objects and look for new instances of "objects named after > Leuven" in the real world and newly added to OSM. You happen to be using a > "name:etymology:wikidata" key in OSM to do this, but frankly you could keep > that list anywhere - it doesn't depend on "etymology" wikidata tags in OSM. > Many mappers (especially those with a first language that doesn't use many > Greek roots) will I suspect struggle with what "name:etymology:wikidata" > actually means. > > I'd have thought that this sort of "extra non-geographical information" was > better held outside of OSM, and then link back into OSM via e.g. > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q118958 or even > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikipedia=nl%3ALeuven . > > I'm not saying that it isn't a great project - it's exactly the sort of > thing that many OSMers do for many different sorts of data. I'm just not > convinced that it depends on the ability to create more and more > unverifiable keys within OSM. > > Best Regards, > Andy > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM (was: Overlapping brands)
On 28/09/2017 09:28, Jo wrote: All OSM objects with a name (in several languages) referring to a city. More zoomed in: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/s20 ... except that it isn't necessarily "all objects" - it's "a list of objects in OSM manually curated by you". You're still going to have to monitor changes to those objects and look for new instances of "objects named after Leuven" in the real world and newly added to OSM. You happen to be using a "name:etymology:wikidata" key in OSM to do this, but frankly you could keep that list anywhere - it doesn't depend on "etymology" wikidata tags in OSM. Many mappers (especially those with a first language that doesn't use many Greek roots) will I suspect struggle with what "name:etymology:wikidata" actually means. I'd have thought that this sort of "extra non-geographical information" was better held outside of OSM, and then link back into OSM via e.g. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q118958 or even https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikipedia=nl%3ALeuven . I'm not saying that it isn't a great project - it's exactly the sort of thing that many OSMers do for many different sorts of data. I'm just not convinced that it depends on the ability to create more and more unverifiable keys within OSM. Best Regards, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping brands (was "Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*")
If we would have stable ids, then this 'problem' could be resolved by adding the foreign keys to our objects to Wikidata, which is their normal way of operating. It took me a few messages to explain to the Wikidata contributors that we don't have stable ids and that the best way forward was to add links to Wikidata on our side. Are you all saying this was incorrect? Do you have a better solution? Stating that foreign keys shouldn't be in OSM at all is not very helpful. Some examples of what can be achieved with references made to wikidata: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuven#External_links I created some lua code, which generates the following Overpass Query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/s1Z All OSM objects with a name (in several languages) referring to a city. More zoomed in: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/s20 I did the same for some persons. Of course it took me a while to filter (manually) the OSM objects to know for which ones the name:etymology:wikidata key was correct. Some referred to Leuvenheim for example. It is not trivial to find all these objects, if the reference to wikidata would be missing in our data. The same goes for names of kings and queens as their names got 'recycled' a lot. Princes and princesses named after their grandparents. Anyway, I think a case can be made for including references to wikidata in OSM and as coverage becomes more and more complete, more interesting queries become a possibility. Of course just like constant improvements need to be made to the geographic component of our data, the meta data also needs maintenance. Some will say it's futile, others will say it's interesting to create these sorts of links. Polyglot 2017-09-28 1:36 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend : > On 27/09/2017 19:47, Marc Gemis wrote: > >> >> Is "the same geographical area" relevant ? Why should a data consumer >> use a separate datebase to identify the brand of an item ? >> > > Simply because some people had suggested that "brand:wikidata" was > unnecessary because you could always work out what brand a name was by > location, and some people had suggested that it was necessary because you > couldn't - it was just an attempt to find a concrete example; not an > attempt to prove a point either way. > > Of course this is unrelated to whether or not wikidata/wikipedia/any other > foreign key belongs in OSM (as discussed at length elsewhere). > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
