[OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata

[Kolossos]

Hello,
as co-creator of WIWOSM I was also against this Wikidata-property, but I 
came too late.
WIWOSM links are not only more stable and human-readable, the are also 
much more flexible. So in WIWOSM we can suport relations but also 
multirelations, ways, multiways nodes, multinodes. I'm waiting for the 
day where the people starts to create relations for each building only 
to be able to link on it from Wikidata.

We have now Wikipedia-Tags for over 300.000 objects and I would prefer 
to concentrate the power of the community to one system instead to split 
it.

In my eyes, what Wikidata perhaps need is one bit (created by a bot) 
with the information yes there is an matching OSM object to create a 
link to a map, the rest can come from WIWOSM.

Later if Wikidata starts to have entries without an own 
Wikipedia-article we should support a Wikidata-Tag, but thats on way[2]. 
This will happen at part 3 of Wikidata-project were they want to support 
list creation. With projects like WikiLovesMonuments I'm sure that we 
will have on some places a link for each building, so the problem above 
is not only theory.

Greetings Tim alias Kolossos

[1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/wikipedia
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Wikidata

Am 04.05.2013 01:49, schrieb Claus Stadler:
> Hi,
>
> Shouldn't OSM use Wikipedia URLs as UUIDs where applicable rather than
> Wikipedia referring to database identifiers? (The answer is a clear
> 'yes' from my side.)
> In fact there are the (wikipedia, *) tags - but not sure how good the
> quality is - what can be seen on a first glance is, that people mix URLs
> and article names, and also encoding.
>
> Cheers,
> Claus
>
> On 05/04/2013 01:34 AM, Jason Remillard wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In general is seems like it might be useful to have some kind of
>> somewhat permanent URL to an element inside of OSM. However, given
>> what exists today shouldn't Wikipedia be using the overpass API for
>> referencing OSM?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jason.
>>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
>>>> From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balrogg at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 2:08 PM
>>>> To: Frederik Ramm
>>>> Cc: OpenStreetMap
>>>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM relation ID property in Wikidata
>>>>
>>>>> I am less concerned about the Wikidata side - if they make a bad
>>>>> judgement then it is their mess to clean up. I am however concerned
>>>>> that if more people simply assume that the status quo is there to stay
>>>>> ("IDs are stable enough"), this will put pressure on *us* and limit
>>>>> our flexibility in the future.
>>>> The OSMF has sent a pretty strong message saying that object IDs are
>>>> stable enough to base impactful legal decisions on them.  It will look
>>>> silly for them to go back to the stance that IDs aren't stable after
>>>> all.
>>> There's two sides to ID stability. One is stability during software
>>> or data
>>> model changes and the other is stability during normal mapping.
>>> Frederik's
>>> post was concerned more with the former.
>>>
>>> The latter is more complicated. Because the original message linked to
>>> London, it's worth pointing out that a few admin relations did get
>>> new IDs
>>> in the redaction process for technical reasons and that periodically
>>> relations get given new IDs because old large complex relations don't
>>> interact well with the /history call.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>