On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:45, Janko Mihelić <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
One problem with the current system is that if you click one of those > dwarfs in OSM, and see it's linked to an object in wikidata, you have no > way of seeing if that is the whole wikidata object, or just a part of that > object, unless you download the whole OSM database. Or if you are a human, > and you look at > the wikipedia article, and see there should be a whole bunch of dwarfs. > But that example doesn't seem as important. > You're trying to solve the data problem (to the extent that it even is a problem) in a defective way. It's defective because wikidata is not an integrated part of OSM designed to group objects. It's outside of our control; even if we can abuse it that way, a random edit to wikidata will lose the object grouping. The correct way to group them is with a relation. If we don't have a suitable type of relation then propose one. Don't use wikidata as a workaround for not having a suitable relation type or not having a part_of_a_group=yes tag. And even without any of that, an overpass query in the general area for artwork_type=statue + other tags they have in common will find them. It's not a problem for humans either. If they're not interested in looking at the data item then it doesn't matter if it's tagged wikidata=* or part:wikidata=* because they won't follow it. If they are interested in looking at the data item then it doesn't matter if it's tagged wikidata=* or part:wikidata=* because they'll reach the same data item either way and realize there are seven dwarfs. And won't be able to find the other six easily from there. So a relation is still the best way to do it, then apply wikidata=* to the relation. Currently, the second most numerous wikidata tag in OSM is > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2961670, an item that describes all the > roman roads in historic Gaul in France. All those ways, close to 500 of > them, have wikidata=Q296167. That is obviously not good tagging. But how do > you differentiate good wikidata tagging from bad tagging? I think this rule > and part:wikidata are the way to clean this up. I would give all these > roads part:wikidata=Q29616, and than that looks much closer to reality. > I think the only sensible solution is to delete the wikidata tags from *all* of them. That item is for a category, not a unique object. OSM relations are not categories because we don't tag categories (it would result in a gigantic taxonomic hierarchy of tagging). Those road should never have been given that wikidata tag; individual roads get a wikidata tag only if that data item applies solely to that particular road. It seems to me that you're trying to find a way of mapping anything that has a wikidata tag. If so, that seems like a bad idea. Use a wikidata tag to add extra information about a unique OSM object, don't invent OSM objects and/or ways of mapping things in order to put every wikidata item into OSM. We could put wikidata=Q2 on every object, following your line of reasoning. Oh, sorry, part:wikidata=Q2. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
