On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> A Wikidata ID is part of a URL and can be rendered as such; for > example, Q173882 equates to <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q173882> It was said at the beginning that wikidata or wikipedia tags will never replace OSM tags but now I see counter examples or duplicates of what is already there (like on this scary proposal for the operator, architect, brand, artist, subject, name etymology [1]) . This is what I call "seeing the OSM project through wikipedia eyes". Since I'm not a wikipedian, I don't care about such tags if it remains below the noise level but I hope we will be able to avoid their proliferation in OSM (e.g. this growing list of "wikidata:" prefixed tags). I guess the next step could be to rely on wikipedia for the translations but OSM has to stay independant, even if it makes wikipedians unhappy. > It's not "unusable"; see URL, above. Consider the contributors that never heart the word 'wikidata' and how they can understand the tag "wikidata=Q173882". It's not a tag I could describe as self-explanatory. > An example I've given previsouly is that the Wikidata entry for > Q173882 (which is St Paul's Cathedral in London) links to the > MusicBrainz entry for the cathedral, and that tells us which musical > works have been premiered there. We wouldn't want to use OSM to store > lists of works premiered in the buildings we map. OSM is open for all new tags. Once we admit wikidata references, what would prevent someone to add the MusicBrainz or freebase.com reference directly in OSM ? Why should we accept one and not the others. Where is the breaking point ? Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Wikidata _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
