On Tuesday 28 November 2017, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > However, once two or more other authoritative databases refer to the > same object, then it already passes the Wikidata threshold for > notability. In this case, it makes better sense to create the > Wikidata item for that object, link the Wikidata item to the other > databases by adding their identifiers, and then have OSM link to the > Wikidata item instead of OSM linking to the other databases directly. > Note that this database-linking is just one value-add that Wikidata > provides. Wikidata by itself can also provide other data about the > object itself and is not just a store for linking other data sets.
The problem is OSM is a map of the physical world, not a map of the world's databases. If Wikidata wants to create links between OSM and other databases that is great but so far i think no one has made a good case why this linking information should be stored in OSM rather than Wikidata. Unless some really new arguments turn up regarding the issues i mentioned i think extending the existing wikidata=* tag with a part_of:wikidata=* (and for symmetry you would also need a partly:wikidata=* for OSM features to parts of which a certain wikidata ID applies) is a bad idea. Again my suggestion: Working on better ways to address features in OSM in a stable way from the outside would be much more productive IMO that adding more and more external IDs which will never scale on a level of hundreds of millions of features in the end and which will create conflicts and ambiguities due to the different concepts of information behind OSM and wikidata (original research regarding the physically observable world vs. secondary sources). Side note: Is there consensus on wikidata that OSM constitutes a "serious and publicly available reference" as per the notability criteria? -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
