Em 2018-08-07 05:00, Christoph Hormann escreveu:
On Monday 06 August 2018, peterkrauss wrote:
Seems a commom quality problem of part/whole confusion in the
Wikidata attribution or OSM's POI reference... And where there are a
need for "enveloping parts into a whole".
[...]
The fact that there is no agreement on the nature of the relationship
between Wikidata objects and OSM objects
hum... Is time to do some agreement (!), use of Wikidata is growing, and
will be difficult
in the future to review the caos.
has been an important point of
critique of the whole 'adding wikidata IDs to OSM' movement. You can
read this up in the previous discussion here and in talk.
Can you send the main links?
PS: ideal is to summarize a list of topics and its "agreement vs
under-discussion" status...
something like
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata/Critical_topics
OSM aims to map based on local verifiability. Therefore many things we
map in OSM have no equivalent in Wikidata (because they do not satisfy
the criteria for inclusion there) and many things in Wikidata cannot be
mapped verifiably in OSM.
The point is to separate things that are delimited and things that are
not.
We have good definition for 90% of "type=boundary" and 90% of
"type=route"...
The best is perhaps to begin with a pragmatical view, and only later
discuss the problematic ones.
And inventing some kind of collector
relation that collects all objects that by some wikidata
interpretation 'belong to' a certain Wikidata ID and thereby implements
a 1:n relationship would not change that (it would just be pointless
non-maintainable, non-verifiable dead weight in the database).
My favourite example for this is the Amazon rainforest (but you can use
other large eco-regions like the Sahara desert as well). You won't be
able to verifiably map the Amazon rain forest in OSM as an entity.
What we aim to do in OSM is to accurately map the woodlands of South
America - which is still a very long way to go. But if this should
happen it will happen locally because natural=wood/landuse=forest is
locally verifiable while the abstract concept of naming some of this
woodland the Amazon rainforest is not.
... All make sense, but my suggestion is only to annotate it for a
future debate,
after resolved the pragmatical cases, where no ambiguity exist.
PS: about "object vs field" debate, see the this 1992's article
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~good/papers/172.pdf
--
Peter Krauss
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
