On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
currently there is no clear indication within Wikipedia articles and as far as I can tell within Wikidata as to both what *datum* and what *version* any particular coordinate relates to, there is no guarantee that any particular coordinate would be any more correct than it was before.
This definitely should be fixed on the wikidata side. Whether article editors are savvy enough to know and enter this data is another question; but at least the geotemplates should have fields for it and you can assume that if those are empty some {person/bot hybrid} that understands that nuance should fill them in.
~S
Just wondering: would tighter integration between Wikidata and OSM help with this situation, for example, if a set of coordinates is adjusted in Wikidata then it is automatically adjusted in OSM and vice versa? Would that be a good idea?
Pine
On Oct 4, 2016 22:17, "Sam Klein" sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
currently there is no clear indication within Wikipedia articles and as far as I can tell within Wikidata as to both what *datum* and what *version* any particular coordinate relates to, there is no guarantee
that
any particular coordinate would be any more correct than it was before.
This definitely should be fixed on the wikidata side. Whether article editors are savvy enough to know and enter this data is another question; but at least the geotemplates should have fields for it and you can assume that if those are empty some {person/bot hybrid} that understands that nuance should fill them in.
~S _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Just wondering: would tighter integration between Wikidata and OSM help with this situation, for example, if a set of coordinates is adjusted in Wikidata then it is automatically adjusted in OSM and vice versa? Would that be a good idea?
The licenses are incompatible. Wikidata is CC-0, OSM uses the Open Database License (ODbL). If you copy coordinates from OSM into Wikidata then you're violating the database rights of OSM.
OSM is concerned that Wikidata is polluted with coordinates from Google Maps. You can't copy coordinates from Wikidata to OSM either, because it would mean violating the database rights of Google Maps.
would tighter integration between Wikidata and OSM help with this situation
Yes of course!
The licenses are incompatible.
May be - but in OSM it is common sense, that coordinates are *facts* which are not involved/infected by copyrights :-)
OSM is the most accurate and biggest free DB about coordinates. So it is the best source for the WM-space. Cooperation and data sharing between OSM and WM is a "must"...
If there is a difficulty concerning definitions, the WMF and the OSMF have to solve together it in a better way :-)
Bests, Markus
Markus Bärlocher markus.baerlocher@lau-net.de wrote:
would tighter integration between Wikidata and OSM help with this situation
Yes of course!
The licenses are incompatible.
May be - but in OSM it is common sense, that coordinates are *facts* which are not involved/infected by copyrights :-)
In Europe collections of facts are protected by database rights. The OSM community is keen to protect the project's database rights.
OSM is the most accurate and biggest free DB about coordinates. So it is the best source for the WM-space. Cooperation and data sharing between OSM and WM is a "must"...
I have a long running project to add Wikidata identifiers to OSM. I'm making progress but I'm not ready to release anything yet. I will not be copying coordinates in either direction.
Any work derived from OSM must include attribution and use an appropriate license, CC-0 isn't acceptable. To change this would mean a relicensing of OSM, which would be complex.
Hi Markus,
Saying that OSM is the most accurate free DB about coordinates is very courageus.
Jan
Dne pátek 7. října 2016 Markus Bärlocher markus.baerlocher@lau-net.de napsal(a):
would tighter integration between Wikidata and OSM help with this situation
Yes of course!
The licenses are incompatible.
May be - but in OSM it is common sense, that coordinates are *facts* which are not involved/infected by copyrights :-)
OSM is the most accurate and biggest free DB about coordinates. So it is the best source for the WM-space. Cooperation and data sharing between OSM and WM is a "must"...
If there is a difficulty concerning definitions, the WMF and the OSMF have to solve together it in a better way :-)
Bests, Markus
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata allows to set a coordinate system - it is called a globe or coordinate system - on every coordinate. This would be the natural place to specify whether it is WGS84 or GDA94 or another system. Most of them are Q2, which, as per data model, is indeed WGS84.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/DataModel#Geographic_locations
Unfortunately this is currently not being displayed or edited in the UI, but the backend has the data. In theory.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:17 PM Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
currently there is no clear indication within Wikipedia articles and as far as I can tell within Wikidata as to both what *datum* and what *version* any particular coordinate relates to, there is no guarantee
that
any particular coordinate would be any more correct than it was before.
This definitely should be fixed on the wikidata side. Whether article editors are savvy enough to know and enter this data is another question; but at least the geotemplates should have fields for it and you can assume that if those are empty some {person/bot hybrid} that understands that nuance should fill them in.
~S _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
2016-10-07 20:34 GMT+02:00 Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com:
Wikidata allows to set a coordinate system - it is called a globe or coordinate system - on every coordinate. This would be the natural place to specify whether it is WGS84 or GDA94 or another system. Most of them are Q2, which, as per data model, is indeed WGS84
Hi Denny,
can you be more specific about this? So when there is no explicit value in the *globe* parametre of GlobeCoordinate, then it is treated as Q2 (this corelates with the dumps and every RDF serialization)? It would imply geographic coordinates (not the same as WGS84!!). Or is it considered to be specifically WGS84, which is Q11902211? And how you tell the coordinate system for other celestial bodies like Q111 (Mars) or Q2565 (Titan)?
Thanks a lot Jan
Uh, I leave the details to someone who knows better :) - it is a while since I checked, and it might indeed be underspecified right now.
To the best of my knowledge, there is only one widely used coordinate system for each Mars and Titan. I might be wrong. But in the worst case we would need to specify the default system for either.
I am not saying that the whole thing is not a problem - I am just saying that the data model, as spec'ed and implemented, has a space for solving it. It is obvious that without support in the UI the whole thing is slightly moot anyway.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:23 PM Jan Macura macurajan@gmail.com wrote:
2016-10-07 20:34 GMT+02:00 Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com:
Wikidata allows to set a coordinate system - it is called a globe or coordinate system - on every coordinate. This would be the natural place to specify whether it is WGS84 or GDA94 or another system. Most of them are Q2, which, as per data model, is indeed WGS84
Hi Denny,
can you be more specific about this? So when there is no explicit value in the *globe* parametre of GlobeCoordinate, then it is treated as Q2 (this corelates with the dumps and every RDF serialization)? It would imply geographic coordinates (not the same as WGS84!!). Or is it considered to be specifically WGS84, which is Q11902211? And how you tell the coordinate system for other celestial bodies like Q111 (Mars) or Q2565 (Titan)?
Thanks a lot Jan _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata