[Tagging] part_of:wikidata key

Jo winfixit at gmail.com
Tue Nov 28 14:25:15 UTC 2017

I should have known I was opening a gigantic can of worms here...

Anyway, I like relations as much as the next guy, probably more so. I've
been editing and correcting thousands upon thousands of them. One hing I
can tell you: they are fragile.

It wouldn't hurt to have some redundancy and wikidata can be that.

Anyway, for all the streets in Brussels that have wikipedia pages, I'm
adding wikidata tags. Quite a few still have associatedStreet relations,
but for the ones that don't I'm 'breaking' the rule that the wikidata tag
should be on a single OSM object. And even if the street is now  only
composed of a single way, it might still be split later on.

A good week ago, I edited River Maas/La Meuse. It's a navigable river,
which means that it's a canal at the same time. On the common parts, I set
2 wikidata tags separated by ;  Of course JOSM's validator complained. If
the sluices had had wikipedia pages/wikidata entries they would have had
their own wikidata tag, while at the same time being part of the canal part
of "Canal de la Meuse/Canal de l'Est" as it's called in France.

Smaller rivers don't have river relations, but they are still usually
composed of several ways. (They are often split for tunnel=culvert).

I don't know what the big deal is with external identifiers. I agree too
many of them are cruft in the DB.

But wikidata tags are the way to link to Wikipedia. It's not possible to
link from Wikidata to OSM, due to the unstable nature of our ids and the 3
"namespaces" for nodes/ways/relations.

Anyway, I thnk there is value in adding these tags and will continue doing
so, but I hit a snag. So I thought I'd let you know about it.


2017-11-28 15:01 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de>:

> On Tuesday 28 November 2017, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> > > the established rule not to have external IDs in the
> > > OSM database
> >
> > What "established rule" would that be? Established by whom; when and
> > how?
> I am sorry for the ambiguous wording - as Fred said i meant essentially
> a custom - calling it "established" was meant to indicate that.
> You could however argue that this stems from the evidently existing rule
> of on-the-ground verifiability.
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20171128/5cf0dfa9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list