According to Martijn (of MapRoulette fame), there is no way a challenge can
link to object IDs. MapRoulette can only highlight location. Nor can I
provide a proposed fix, which means someone would have to manually find the
broken object, navigate to Wikipedia, copy/paste the title, and save the
object.  I guesstimate 1 minute per object on average... that's nearly 700
hours of community time - a huge waste of human brain power that could be
spent on a much more challenging and less automatable tasks.

Osmose might be a good alternative, and might even lower the total number
of hours required, but still - would that significantly benefit the
project?  These tags are just a tiny arbitrary subset of one million
wikipedia-tagged objects.  Verifying just them by hand seems like a waste
of human intelligence. Instead, we can run queries to produce knowingly bad
objects and let community fix those. I hope we can let machines do mindless
tasks, and let humans do decision making.  This would improve contributors
morale, instead of making them feel like robots :)

Clarifying: the OSM objects already point to those pages via redirect. The
redirect information is only stored in Wikipedia.

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Marc Gemis <> wrote:

> or via Osmose ?
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Marc Gemis <> wrote:
> > what about a Maproulette task ?
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Yuri Astrakhan <>
> wrote:
> >> At the moment, there are nearly 40,000 OSM objects whose wikipedia tag
> does
> >> not match their wikidata tag. Most of them are Wikipedia redirects,
> whose
> >> target is the right wikipedia article. If we are not ready to abandon
> >> wikipedia tags just yet (I don't think we should ATM), I think we
> should fix
> >> them.  Fixing them by hand seems like a huge waste of the community
> time,
> >> when it can be semi-automated.
> >>
> >> I propose that a small program, possibly a plugin to JOSM, would change
> >> wikipedia tags to point to the target article instead of the redirect.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> talk mailing list
> >>
> >>
> >>
talk mailing list

Reply via email to