[OSM-talk] Links from wiki* back into OSM
winfixit at gmail.com
Thu Sep 28 10:07:49 UTC 2017
My experience is that adding something we map (or refer to like the name of
a mayor) to Wikipedia is absurdly hard to accomplish. Adding it to Wikidata
is trivially easy in comparison. So the inclusion rules for Wikipedia and
Wikidata are very different too. This also means that not every entry
present in Wikidata will have a Wikipedia article. It might have an article
in one of the other Wikimedia projects, or it might only exist in other
projects like OpenStreetMap. I added thousands of schools in Uganda to
Wikidata, if you want an example.
I also found way to refer back to OpenStreetMap through the reference url
property of the coordinate location. License wise this shouldn't be a
problem, as I helped out with the import of those schools into OSM. It
might be trickier to do this for objects that only exist in OSM, due to the
difference in license between both projects.
2017-09-28 11:55 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com>:
> On 28/09/2017 10:36, Marc Gemis wrote:
>> Andy are you now saying that it is OK to have 1 wikidata tag on each
>> street, so someone can create an external list of streets with
>> Wikidata ids to represent some kind of collection (like "all streets
>> named after Leuven") ?
> Firstly I'm not saying "what is or is not OK" - that's essentially the
> point of this discussion, to find out what people do think.
> What I'm saying is that the expression of that sort of relationship
> possibly doesn't belong in OSM itself (because it's not really
> on-the-ground verifiable, or at least in many cases it won't be).
> If a street passed whatever tests wikipedia impose to have a wikipedia
> entry, and by inference a wikidata one (wikidata items essentially being
> all created from wikipedia, with links added later) then yes, by all means
> add a wikipedia/wikidata link to the OSM object, then add your "etymology"
> link within wikidata.
> Obviously wikipedia/wikidata's rules for inclusion are very different to
> ours (in some cases the opposite - wikipedia says "no original research -
> please copy from some other source"). There are plenty of examples of
> things that people think should be in wikipedia and aren't, and also things
> that shouldn't be in wikipedia/wikidata (because they don't exist) and are.
> Best Regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk