[Tagging] Part/whole confusion with Wikidata tag, and the need for enveloping parts into a whole
peter at openstreetmap.com.br
Tue Aug 7 22:01:20 UTC 2018
Em 2018-08-07 05:00, Christoph Hormann escreveu:
> On Monday 06 August 2018, peterkrauss wrote:
>> Seems a commom quality problem of part/whole confusion in the
>> Wikidata attribution or OSM's POI reference... And where there are a
>> need for "enveloping parts into a whole".
> The fact that there is no agreement on the nature of the relationship
> between Wikidata objects and OSM objects
hum... Is time to do some agreement (!), use of Wikidata is growing, and
will be difficult
in the future to review the caos.
> has been an important point of
> critique of the whole 'adding wikidata IDs to OSM' movement. You can
> read this up in the previous discussion here and in talk.
Can you send the main links?
PS: ideal is to summarize a list of topics and its "agreement vs
> OSM aims to map based on local verifiability. Therefore many things we
> map in OSM have no equivalent in Wikidata (because they do not satisfy
> the criteria for inclusion there) and many things in Wikidata cannot be
> mapped verifiably in OSM.
The point is to separate things that are delimited and things that are
We have good definition for 90% of "type=boundary" and 90% of
The best is perhaps to begin with a pragmatical view, and only later
discuss the problematic ones.
> And inventing some kind of collector
> relation that collects all objects that by some wikidata
> interpretation 'belong to' a certain Wikidata ID and thereby implements
> a 1:n relationship would not change that (it would just be pointless
> non-maintainable, non-verifiable dead weight in the database).
> My favourite example for this is the Amazon rainforest (but you can use
> other large eco-regions like the Sahara desert as well). You won't be
> able to verifiably map the Amazon rain forest in OSM as an entity.
> What we aim to do in OSM is to accurately map the woodlands of South
> America - which is still a very long way to go. But if this should
> happen it will happen locally because natural=wood/landuse=forest is
> locally verifiable while the abstract concept of naming some of this
> woodland the Amazon rainforest is not.
... All make sense, but my suggestion is only to annotate it for a
after resolved the pragmatical cases, where no ambiguity exist.
PS: about "object vs field" debate, see the this 1992's article
More information about the Tagging