[Tagging] Part/whole confusion with Wikidata tag, and the need for enveloping parts into a whole

[peterkrauss]

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 
under-discussion" status...
something like 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata/Critical_topics

> 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 
not.
We have good definition for 90% of "type=boundary" and 90% of 
"type=route"...
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 
future debate,
after resolved the pragmatical cases, where no ambiguity exist.

PS: about "object vs field" debate, see the this 1992's article
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~good/papers/172.pdf


-- 
Peter Krauss