2009/3/19 Peter Miller <[email protected]>: > > On 19 Mar 2009, at 06:11, Sam Vekemans wrote: > >> Hi all, >> i am wondering what you all think about me adding wikipedia links to >> the different map features? >> Ie. esker, snowshed... >> Or i could add a link to EVERY map feature, including the ones that >> are obvious? >> >> Another alternative is to add a "description:*" or "definition=*" >> (spelled correctly)
I would prefer that such links are not added to every object that falls under the definition and rather be kept in the Map_Features page for example, and looked-up by the programs. And then only add wikipedia tag to things that can be mapped 1-1 to the given wikipedia page. >> >> what about having a pop-up bubble on features, where the default shows >> the osm wiki page discribing the feature. >> (ie, if your hovering over an unnamed school, the osm article for >> 'school' would be shown. If it was labled, the official school website >> would be shown? >> On the OSM article, there IS (or should be) a wikipedia link. >> >> Then if it is a place or attraction, the default could be wikitravel? >> >> Or perhaps i dont need to add tags as the (to be created software) >> would be able to spot the basic tags & use them? > > Sounds good and possibly something like the place template template > should be used where the routing of the different features and tags to > different sources can be adjusted over time. I am keen for us to refer > to a definition for each feature type rather than trying to do it > ourselves - defining things in detail is hard and if Wikipedia as a > good definition of a 'road' or a 'building' that is suitable then we > should use it. > > I suggest we include a Sketchup link for structures that are in the > Google Sketchup 3D Warehouse. There is not yet even a tag for sketchup > that I am aware of but it would be a 'bridge' between OSM and a > project where structures are described in great detail. There's building:model= in the wiki and I've been trying to add the model tag to a couple of buildings in my city but never found models with suitable licenses for those particular buildings. > Note that > Google's terms of service make it clear that they don't own the > resulting models but do prohibit end-users from distributing the > content of the 3D Warehouse content within 'mapping or geographic > applications'. To my mind distributing a link to a model is ok, > distributing the model is not. It's sure ok, but probably not very useful and may be misleading (people loading the link somewhere might assume the model is distributed under the same terms as the map data and not read the sketchup license). On the other hand there's probably no need to create a separate service with free models as Google Sketchup allows models with free licenses, it would just be good to collect those models and add a single tag or something to them (in a way similar to the OSM PD effort). Cheers _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
