<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I don't think that's a good idea to try to solve the problems we're
faced with by our current OSM data model by setting up a second
database. We need an improved data model which fits our needs.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 29.05.2015 um 11:28 schrieb Jo:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ6DwMC0=j6WzBHEpCSsof=5QvyZ3Eq=bOTfO5=BKOc97fQ-7w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>We need our own OSMdata instance in between to describe
real world objects and concepts. And maybe we could even
solve the ridiculous amount of duplication we're
experiencing at the moment.<br>
<br>
</div>
True, the editor software will have to be adapted to cope
with merges and splits, so the human editor can decide what
OSM object(s) belong to what real world object(s).<br>
<br>
</div>
Either that or we should start using relations more
intelligently. But they are heavyweight and supposedly they
are also "complicated".<br>
<br>
</div>
Polyglot<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2015-05-29 10:58 GMT+02:00 Martin
Koppenhoefer <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" target="_blank">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">2015-05-28 23:00
GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk"
target="_blank">andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span>On 28 May
2015 at 09:50, Martin Koppenhoefer <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com"
target="_blank">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> e.g. the "en:Spanish Steps" / "de:Spanische
Treppe" are<br>
> called "Scalinata di Trinità dei Monti" in
the local language (it is located<br>
> at "piazza di Spagna", that's where the
foreign name comes from, while in<br>
> Italian it is called after to church it
leads to). Naturally, OSM has the<br>
> original name of this world famous
monument, but Wikidata hasn't.<br>
<br>
</span>It does now.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
</span>
<div>OK, this is one point for you, but it also proves
my point: wikidata at the moment is not sufficiently
mature (IMHO) to replace name tags in different
languages in OSM. Of course you can fix wikidata
issues (if you understand how it is done, I haven't
had enough time yet to understand how to make edits
like this, and the fact that not all tags are shown
to me (e.g. only 4 out of all language labels, after
I have explicitly clicked on "in more languages"))
doesn't help.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>// sidenote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Now I could link the wikidata object of the
spanish steps to the OSM object and get an Italian
name. But I will not have an Italian wikipedia
article about it, because it is covered in the
spanish square (piazza di spagna) article in
Italian. How would I ideally procede now?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>a) in wikidata link the article of the piazza di
spagna (in italian) to the wikidata object about the
spanish steps?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>a2) like a) but link to an anchor:
Piazza_di_Spagna#La_scalinata ?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>b) in wikipedia split the italian wikipedia
article in 2, one for the square and one for the
steps?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>c) in osm add an additional tag like
wikipedia:it=Piazza_di_Spagna#La_scalinata to the
steps object?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>d) something different...<br>
</div>
<div><br>
//sidenote off<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><span>
> If we were to massively use wikidata
_instead of duplicating some details<br>
> from there also in our db_ we would have to
improve wikidata as well,<br>
<br>
</span></span>You'd be welcome to do so. ...</blockquote>
<span class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span><br>
> and impose our entity structure on them,<br>
<br>
</span>Really? Good luck with that.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
</span>
<div>what I meant, and what you do confirm below: if
for instance there is an object in wikidata which is
an administrative entity and a geographic place at
the same time, but for OSM we'd need 2 distinct
objects, we will have to split the wikidata object.
This could be done only if there wasn't resistance
from other wikidata users who might want to keep the
current unmodified object because it links better to
wikipedia articles. We might introduce another
object that linked the split objects onto one, which
could serve for wikipedia articles, etc. but this is
a much more complicated procedure than changing tags
in OSM alone.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>We've always said that we wanted editing to be
simple, so that we can maximize the amount of
available editors, but with the tight integration of
another dynamic dataset (for one of the core
competences we are dealing with: toponyms)<br>
</div>
<span class="">
<div><br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span><br>
> or it won't work in some cases (and if it
doesn't work in some case, it doesn't work at
all).<br>
<br>
</span>That is, of course, nonsense.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
</span>
<div>OK, let's say it is nonesense, because you can
accept that a solution works for most of the cases
and try work around those that don't work. Currently
(all names in OSM) we don't have these problems
though.<br>
<br>
</div>
<span class="">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span><br>
> Another issue I see with wikidata is that
it contains information and<br>
> details about spatial objects, but it
doesn't contain the geometry it refers<br>
> to.<br>
<br>
</span>The geometry is in OSM, is it not? Why
would Wikidata want to replicate that?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
</span>
<div>IMHO you have to understand to which geometry you
are referring when you make edits, or you might
break stuff without noticing it. Wikidata editors
would have to look at OSM geometries to ensure that
their edit maintains consistency, and OSM users
would have to check wikidata to see if editing
something in a certain way (e.g. merges or splits,
adding tags, changing geometry) is OK or whether
they have to split the wikidata object and update
the wikidata link. It is not impossible, but it is
an enormous amount of complexity added, and it also
augments the risk of non-availability of the backend
by 100% (because now we depend on 2 services and not
on one).<br>
<br>
</div>
<span class="">
<div> <br>
I want<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span>
> to point out is that there seem to be
different criteria defined for<br>
> different languages:<br>
<br>
</span>These descriptions aid users; they are not
proscriptive. There are<br>
also local and cultural variations. Just like
"city" in OSM.</blockquote>
</span></div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Maybe these are descriptions to
aid in some regional wiki projects and proscriptive
rules in others like Germany, where rules rule? Just
like in OSM ;-)<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">It would rather confuse than aid
me if the descriptions in some language says something
is foo and in another language they tell me it is not
foo.<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">TL;DR; wikidata is a gorgeous
project, combining their knowledge with ours is very
promising. Still, in my opinion, for the current state
of where they are (and where the tools to combine both
are), I would _not remove tags_ from OSM just because
the same information might be available in wikidata. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Cheers,<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Martin<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk"
target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>