Hi Martin, I am sorry but I do not agree with you. I think that the wikipedia link is sometimes essential for non-native speakers and should be included. I do not believe that the defintion of let's say Kremlin will ever change to mean something completely different.
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 The problem was that the author has wrongly placed this definition to the page historic=castle. But that was not a problem of Wikipedia linking. It was just a bad edit. So I would not draw a conslusion that Wikipedia linking is bad just from this single case. Regards, Dalibor > -----Original Message----- > From: Tobias Knerr [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 7:11 PM > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[email protected]> > 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 the current state is fine, > we > don't control WP and don't know how they will structure their lemmas in the > future. > > Thanks for highlighting this issue, I fully agree with you. > > Some wiki editors seem to be under the false impression that a Wikipedia > link should somehow be a standard part of any tag page. Including such links > should be the exception, rather than the rule, and they need to be carefully > checked and maintained in the future to make sure that they are about the > same thing as the OSM tag. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
