Hoi, It is in the planning that Wikidata will use its engine for Wikimedia Commons. We are talking about the media files that is currently "only" 20,503,455 freely usable media files. The model that is considered is one where two Wikidata databases will be used. One for the meta data of the imagery and one for the more globally relevant information. A similar thing can be considered for streets and stuff as well. Obviously it needs a lot of thought but from an abstract point of view, a street or an image, it is just another category of data. When it works for one type of data it could / should work for another type of data as well. Thanks, Gerard On 20 March 2014 08:37, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I think wikidata has the potential to tie it all together. There is no need to split the information over 2 databases. What would be nice, is a way to say: this object is now split/merged. Save the current version in OSM and save the historic version of those objects in OHM. And all the metadata and in wikidata. Then point from OSM and OHM to wikidata. Use Overpass to retrieve the relevant objects based on their ids in wikidata. Polyglot 2014-03-20 11:51 GMT+01:00 David Cuenca <dacuetu(a)gmail.com>om>:

Given that we want to collaborate with openstreetmap we could host it for them Thanks GerardM Op 20 mrt. 2014 11:53 schreef "David Cuenca" <dacuetu(a)gmail.com>om>:

I sense a bit of consensus even across the projects. I think both options have their pros and cons: An independent project will require a lot of MediaWiki related knowledge that is not necessarily found in an initial group of interested individuals. Or combined OSM, MediaWiki & Wikidata knowledge, which may be even more sparse. It would be more relaxed in regard to rules and guidelines. Could it be re-integrated to Wikidata later, or would it run to in-evident oblivion? An integrated path would require complying to all guidelines eg. re: notability. It would cause a lot of waiting time for reaching consensus while defining properties - which is also needed in an independent project. Once consensus would be achieved, the development could be fast. There would be continuous maintenance and development in relation to the main Wikidata project. This option would require a lot of negotiating between the Wikimedia project/community, the OSM/OHM project/community and also those who have done research on the topics outside these projects. It might prove impossible. In the end, the data would be more easily integrated to other kinds of data, and adopted outside the project for reuse. Are you going to be in the Zürich hackathon to discuss this? Susanna 2014-03-20 17:28 GMT+02:00 David Cuenca <dacuetu(a)gmail.com>om>:

Using property P402 is not a very good idea since object ids in OSM aren't guaranteed to be stable. nodes, ways and relations each have their own 'namespace' and sometimes information is refined by moving it from a node to a way or from a node or a way to a relation (multipolygon), usually this means he original object vanishes and property P402 isn't pointing anywhere anymore. The only way that makes sense is to add wikidata tags to OSM objects. Polyglot 2014-03-20 18:21 GMT+01:00 David Cuenca <dacuetu(a)gmail.com>om>: