[OSM-talk] Wikipedia Integration

David Earl david at frankieandshadow.com
Mon Jul 9 16:28:17 BST 2007

On 09/07/2007 12:02, Christoph Eckert wrote:
> Hi,
>> Maybe I missed some examples ;) Concerning spam and links to URLs,
>> that's not exactly what I had in mind. Let's take my Eiffel Tower
>> example again. I think it is a valuable data for openstreetmap, so I
>> want to add it.
> another approach was reverse geocoding. A map server that displays POIs 
> can offer a link for the POI. Instead of hardcoding the URL into our 
> data, it can send the geocoords to another server and ask it for 
> resources.
> Advantages:
> * The map server can ask the geocoordinate server for i18n'ed resources, 
> according to the browser's lang settings
> * We do not need to enter all the URLs
> * We do not need to maintain the URLs
> * Maybe the map server can decide which domains are trustworthy
> * We avoid spamming

Without denying the problems of maintainability and data entry, there 
are also disadvantages:

* The lat/lon can't marry up perfectly with a node, so it is hard to be 
sure you are talking about the same thing. Ways and areas are even 
harder. Places will have to be done by flexible proximity likemy name 
finder, because there's no chance our node for Cambridge will be in the 
sameplace as the lat/lon listed in Geonames (or Wikipedia), possibly by 
a considerable margin.

* Looking up externally relies on the names being the same or 
sufficiently similar to do a fuzzy match (consider 'Fulbourn County 
Primary School' vs 'Fulbourn Community Primary School')

* You might want to tag with non-geographic information. For example, BP 
service stations might have a link to www.bp.com rather than the 
individual service station.

* Geonames is much less rich in names than OSM. Places are OK, but 
schools, churches, pubs, colleges, surgeries etc are just the kind of 
thing that local information would be useful for, to take you to the 
most relevant web site.

IMO the natural way to present links would be to have the name 
clickable, like any other link. If the map is simply sprinkled with 
items from another source, they'll simply duplicate the names. If 
they're icons they'd conflict with our icons.

Also, the problem of maintainability is a general problem, not just for 
urls but for the map itself. In some ways urls are easier, because at 
least they can be tested for validity to some extent.

Of course, those who want to could do urls anyway. But as one who 
doesn't like the anarchistic approach to tagging, it would be nice to 
agree on a tag for those who do want to do it.


More information about the talk mailing list