[Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

Dan S danstowell+osm at gmail.com
Thu Sep 19 10:32:15 UTC 2013


2013/9/19 Janko Mihelić <janjko at gmail.com>:
> 2013/9/18 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
>>
>> I think it is a bad idea to connect the meaning of osm tags to definitions
>> in wikipedia, because the content of wikipedia articles is not something we
>> control. When the wikipedia article changes (e.g. it gets extended or
>> restrained by splitting it up) it doesn't imply that the objects with a
>> certain tag in osm change nature.
>
>  I agree that can sometimes be a problem, but wikipedia articles about terms
> like school, power plant, lake can hardly be changed in meaning.
>
> Anyway, connection to wikipedia articles is only a small, secondary part of
> my proposal. Links between tags themselves is something we have to document
> somewhere. We have to have a place where a data consumer sees that
> amenity=fastfood is a specific kind of a amenity=restaurant.

...but it isn't! It's a closely-related concept, but to me the concept
"fast food place" is not a subcategory of "restaurant".

This illustrates, to me, that an attempt to add an ontology on top of
the tagging is likely to be vulnerable to the problems it aims to
solve.

However, it's possible we could start to have a fairly low-key move
towards ontology by simply using mediawiki categories. For example if
you add [[Category:placestogetameal]] to the wiki pages for fast_food,
restaurant, cafe, then it's rather likely that data consumers can use
some of the pre-existing mediawiki tools (as used in
http://dbpedia.org/ for example) to extract structured data that
expresses tags' relations. So if you start with wiki categories you
could get fairly far without having to impose a strong ontology.

Best
Dan



More information about the Tagging mailing list