Somehow wikitech-l got dropped form the recipient list of this thread; I know some of the OSM folks are subscribed. Anyway, re-added wikitech-l to this thread. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Jon Robson <jdlrobson(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Arthur Richards Software Engineer, Mobile [[User:Awjrichards]] IRC: awjr +1-415-839-6885 x6687

On 8 mrt. 2014, at 00:47, Russell Nelson <russnelson(a)gmail.com> wrote: I agree, somewhat, but I think this is not 'Wikipedia' per se. It's as much a need for OSM, as it is a need for Wikipedia. And articles do get moved (as much as OSM nodes with tags on them get deleted). Well first of all, we should get away from the concept of 'article'. It's really clear now that most of this data will soon live in WikiData. Coordinate values have already been added, and it's only time until most of those existing values have been moved into WikiData and there is the OSM relation ID property to link from WikiData to OSM. For entities/concepts WikiData is the only thing that will be relevant real soon. And a bot can easily detect when those break. So what you want in this regard is already in process. This is thinking way too simple. Would it be nice to be able to do this ? Sure, but we already have dynamic maps. WikiMiniAtlas, the german OSM map. Those even have area highlights these days. Can they be better ? sure, is that something difficult, is it really needed ? No not really x2. Wikipedians are much more focused on making static maps usually. Or rather, they often want very specific types of maps, resulting in them using custom designed static maps. These custom maps have different base layer types for different types of articles (and sometimes for different cultures cross wiki), and very simple highlights in them (less is more). Or they want to mark the spot of an event (planecrash/hurricane path etc). If we do not recognize the target group, then the integration of the feature will fail. Also, there are many problems with dynamic maps in articles (print, mobile, loadtime, fallback for users without JS). Can we do many cool things with maps ? sure. but where is the most valuable place to start ? That is a much better question I think. Personally, I think the power is in annotation. The success of FA, Commons, WikiData and OSM have shown that our users love to not just 'collect' data, but to do the curation, annotation and restoration of this data. Doing annotation using a simple OSM renderer as our starting point could be step 1. We need support for 'static' image maps to generate the buy in of people to start using this feature (step 2). With enough buy in, we can start going for the long haul, which is to build a very complex map renderer with a lot of different baselayer configurations, that might help us at some time achieve to phase out the static maps. But saying we need 'dynamic maps' is way too narrow and technical view. The other thing we could build, would be the 'foursquare' microcontributions to our mapping data (can you pinpoint this location on this OSM map, there are five locations in this area, which one best represents this article) and then with enough confirmed information set/add/correct/suggest the OSM value in wikidata again. Things like that (gamification). I think that is where we have a lot of potential. DJ

On 8 mrt. 2014, at 21:48, Russell Nelson <russnelson(a)gmail.com> wrote: I see I failed to make my point. Its indeed NOT simple. We keep thinking that it's simple: 'build some technology and people will come' but models like that have proven to fail quite often (especially on en.wp). You need to find the user stories, find the building blocks and see where you get the most return for your money/effort. If you want something to succeed, you need a very concerted effort that leads to integration and acceptance. Not just one thing: Let's build the map. You need a line of careful steps with goals and metrics, reflection and evaluation. One of those steps might be to "build the map", but it's definitely not the only one. DJ