[Tagging] wikimedia_commons= and image= cleanup

Yuri Astrakhan yuriastrakhan at gmail.com
Tue Jan 21 01:01:11 UTC 2020

I second - those keys should be cleaned up to be more consistent. My only
concern is that we overload the meaning of wikimedia_commons to mean both a
single image and a category, using namespace prefix as part of the value.

IMO it should be just the name of the file, without the namespace prefix.
Categories would then go into a separate key, e.g.
`wikimedia_commons_category` (or could shorten it to `commons_category` and
`commons_image` for simplicity?).

With the way it is done now, someone could use a different namespace or no
namespace at all -- `wikimedia_commons=List of famous grave images on this
cemetery` or even `=Template:famous pictures of Notre Dame`, and the data
consumer wouldn't know if this is an accidental omission of the `File:`
prefix needs to be handled in a special way, etc.

Regardless - as long as the usage is consistent, I'm all for it.

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:01 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 20:45, pangoSE <pangose at riseup.net> wrote:
>> I recently stumbled upon the tag wikimedia_commons see
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons
>> Its definition is: "links to related Wikimedia Commons' media of the
>> feature "
> Yep.  That's correct, apart from the word "links."  They're not really
> links.  Not in
> the HTML meaning of the word.
>> But, the only 2 examples contain no links (as in URL-links but instead
>> file- and category names):
>>    wikimedia_commons=File:Bicycle crossing, Poland, Kraków, Josepha
>>    Conrada.JPG
>>    wikimedia_commons=Category:St Paul, Birmingham
>> Yep. That's correct.
>> I see in the database that a lot of image= tags contains direct urls to
>> Wikimedia Commons.
> You CAN do that, if you want.  But the image tag is a bit of a mess,
> because
> more than one format has been used for the value (URLs and wikimedia
> references, as well as others).  So best to use wikimedia_commons=* for
> wikimedia commons images.
>> I suggest we discuss changing the definition to: "File- or category name
>> to related Wikimedia Commons' media of the feature "
> Sounds sensible.  Actually, I hadn't considered using the category name
> and didn't
> know it worked with any carto that handles File (such as
> gk.historic.place).
>> Furthermore I would like to hear if anyone have any problems with mass
>> re-tagging of all commons URLs in image and wikimedia_commons tags to the
>> above format. I will keep the changesets per country or smaller.
> See guidelines on bulk/automated edits.  There are likely to be many
> objections, even
> if your proposal is sensible and there aren't many to change.
>> PPS: I also suggested that we start rendering images on feature pages on
>> openstreetmap.org,
> Also seems sensible.  Sorta like what gk.historic.place does on
> historic/heritage
> POIs with images if you click on them for details.  Or, if ever we move to
> vector
> maps, maybe details would appear in a pop-up if you hover over a POI.  I
> think
> this is a good idea, but others may have different opinions.
> --
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200120/93f53e65/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list