I second - those keys should be cleaned up to be more consistent. My only concern is that we overload the meaning of wikimedia_commons to mean both a single image and a category, using namespace prefix as part of the value.
IMO it should be just the name of the file, without the namespace prefix. Categories would then go into a separate key, e.g. `wikimedia_commons_category` (or could shorten it to `commons_category` and `commons_image` for simplicity?). With the way it is done now, someone could use a different namespace or no namespace at all -- `wikimedia_commons=List of famous grave images on this cemetery` or even `=Template:famous pictures of Notre Dame`, and the data consumer wouldn't know if this is an accidental omission of the `File:` prefix needs to be handled in a special way, etc. Regardless - as long as the usage is consistent, I'm all for it. On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:01 PM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 20:45, pangoSE <pang...@riseup.net> wrote: > >> I recently stumbled upon the tag wikimedia_commons see >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons >> >> Its definition is: "links to related Wikimedia Commons' media of the >> feature " >> > Yep. That's correct, apart from the word "links." They're not really > links. Not in > the HTML meaning of the word. > >> But, the only 2 examples contain no links (as in URL-links but instead >> file- and category names): >> >> wikimedia_commons=File:Bicycle crossing, Poland, Kraków, Josepha >> Conrada.JPG >> wikimedia_commons=Category:St Paul, Birmingham >> >> Yep. That's correct. > >> >> >> I see in the database that a lot of image= tags contains direct urls to >> Wikimedia Commons. >> > You CAN do that, if you want. But the image tag is a bit of a mess, > because > more than one format has been used for the value (URLs and wikimedia > references, as well as others). So best to use wikimedia_commons=* for > wikimedia commons images. > >> I suggest we discuss changing the definition to: "File- or category name >> to related Wikimedia Commons' media of the feature " >> > Sounds sensible. Actually, I hadn't considered using the category name > and didn't > know it worked with any carto that handles File (such as > gk.historic.place). > >> Furthermore I would like to hear if anyone have any problems with mass >> re-tagging of all commons URLs in image and wikimedia_commons tags to the >> above format. I will keep the changesets per country or smaller. >> > See guidelines on bulk/automated edits. There are likely to be many > objections, even > if your proposal is sensible and there aren't many to change. > >> PPS: I also suggested that we start rendering images on feature pages on >> openstreetmap.org, >> > Also seems sensible. Sorta like what gk.historic.place does on > historic/heritage > POIs with images if you click on them for details. Or, if ever we move to > vector > maps, maybe details would appear in a pop-up if you hover over a POI. I > think > this is a good idea, but others may have different opinions. > > -- > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
