[Tagging] Subsequent wikipedia links

[Tobias Knerr]

On 01.07.2014 17:40, Pieren wrote:
> It was said at the beginning that wikidata or wikipedia tags will
> never replace OSM tags but now I see counter examples or duplicates of
> what is already there (like on this scary proposal for the operator,
> architect, brand, artist, subject, name etymology [1]) .

These are not designed to replace the operator/subject/... tags, though,
but are meant to be used in situations where no wikidata/wikipedia link
for the object itself exists.

For example: When there is no wikipedia page about the grave of some
famous person, but there is one about the person themselves, it should
still be possible to link it in a semantically correct way.

The building being discussed in this thread is not really a shining
example. It's mostly just a hack because someone wanted to have two
links on the same object.

> I guess the
> next step could be to rely on wikipedia for the translations but OSM
> has to stay independant, even if it makes wikipedians unhappy.

You don't have to be a Wikipedian to see the advantages of cooperating
with other free projects. Why do everything ourselves when there is a
friendly project that is much better suited for certain task? I don't
think that's the case with translations, but data about persons, about
historical events, details about companies – that kind of data works
much better in Wikidata imo.

> OSM is open for all new tags. Once we admit wikidata references, what
> would prevent someone to add the MusicBrainz or freebase.com reference
> directly in OSM ? Why should we accept one and not the others. Where
> is the breaking point ?

Technically, we entered the slippery slope when we included wikipedia
links. But consider this: If you don't want tons of links to other
databases, then you should be happy about Wikidata. After all, they are
managing a collection of links to these databases already, so we don't
have to do it again. It could be the one external reference to rule them
all.