[OSM-talk] Overlay showing wikipedia links
balrogg at gmail.com
Thu Oct 1 18:08:16 BST 2009
2009/10/1 Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:28 PM, andrzej zaborowski
> Uh, that's a good argument. I'm sure the group of wikipedian's setting
> up their own osm maps server will be happy to hear that.
That effort has completely different goals and again it's to prettify
the pages, it has no direct value for OSM's data. But even there the
pair of coordinates is not enough -- how often do you click the
geohack link on a wikipedia page to be taken to a zoom level that's
A place on the map can be at the same time a POI, in the middle of a
street and inside 10 different polygons.
>> A page about a building or about a european route E30 has completely
>> nothing to do with with a pair of coordinates - this is just for
>> pretty display, has no semantical value. There's a 1:1 correspondence
>> between the subject of the page and the route relation or building way
>> in OSM though.
> I hope that wikipedia articles will not rely on elements id's from OSM
> as all objects can be droped and recreated with a new id. What is more
> reliable is the coordinates of the building (excepted when it is
> mounted on wheels on very rare cases). The problem of a route is
> different but I would hope that wikipedians will be able to generate
> their own rendering for such things (which they are starting to do).
(Hint: it's not for rendering).
I don't really care where that link is stored, but Linked Data ()
is definitely a good thing and wikipedia currently provides no common
way to add links to osm objects. Also wikipedia page titles are more
stable than our IDs and when pages get moved redirects are usually
added. Effectively a wikipedia page's title + language code is a kind
of Universal Resource Identifier. The other 10000000 data bases can
use the same kind of identifier, or a different one, but let's keep
the information somewhere that two objects in different data bases are
effectively the same real world object. There are endless
possibilities this brings to our data users.
Obviously things will be out of date at times, like all of our tags.
Nothing new here.
>> If you actually take the time to read my mail, you'll notice this is
>> what I'm arguing against.
>> That'll obviously be vandalism.
> You just think about wikipedia. But if you also read my email, I
> suggest that when you allow this for wikipedia, you cannot forbid for
> the 10000000 other web sites who would like to be pointed by OSM. And
> who will decide that what is good for wikipedia is not good for
> microsoft bing or google bong or whatever. Then if you say "remove
> microsoft url's", they will call you a vandal ?
Yep, if you're removing something, especially using a bot, and without
even attempting to contact the authors or the Data Working Group
you're a vandal.
More information about the talk