Talk:Key:ref:at:bda

HERIS (Heritage Information System)

Hi, this is my first edit here. Nevertheless it is important. I don't want to change the front side with my first edit.

I'm working hard on the Denkmalgeschützte Objekte in Austria in the germanspeaking Wikipedia (under the same nickname). It happened that BDA changed their database this year and reassigned a completely new set of ids to the protected objects. Alas, both types of ids do overlap (are simple numbers), so it is important not to mix them. I have already imported all the new Ids, now called HERIS-ID, to wikidata. Of course, objects withdrawn from protection will not get a new HERIS-ID and new objects protected from 2021+ onward, will not get the old ID. All other objects will have both IDs for better traceability. The new property in wikidata is: P9154. The front side has to be changed:

• SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P9154 '32561'. }
  32561 is the new id corresponding to the old 29677
  • it would be fine, if OSM could retrieve the new ID automatically to avoid manual and tedious work.
• Our Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in ... now show for the duration of transition both ids, but I will remove the visualization of old IDs as soon as transition is completed. See [1] for an example for the above ids (BDA: 32561; Objekt-ID: 29677).
• You can now use the wikidata id of an object to directly address an entry in our Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in ... with
  

{{#invoke:Wikidata |sitelinkOf|Q{{#invoke:Wikidata|claim|P2817|id={{{1|}}}|parameter=numeric-id }}}}#{{{1|}}}

with {{{1}}} replaced with the wikidata id and whatever the equivalent here is on OSM.

better to email me, I'm not here every day. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Skunk and Simon04: as the editors of front side. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Herzi Pinki, welcome. We know each other, in Wikimedia projects, I'm user 'plepe'. Thanks for pointing this out. I think, we shouldn't change the ref:at:bda tag to the new IDs, because this will lead to confusion. What alternative tag could we use? Maybe ref:at:heris? With "if OSM could retrieve the new ID automatically" - do you mean we should write a script which will add the new ID to all objects? Anyway, I will integrate the new IDs to the ogd-wikimedia-osm-checker. -- Skunk (talk)

Hi Skunk, I'm suprised, thought you to be https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Skunk

@Skunk: I use BDA on the UI of WP instead of the too general ObjektID. I would do the migration here on OSM (but I have no idea on how things do work here) by removing all ref:at:bda values and replacing it by a read-only value for Heris-ID retrieved from Wikidata (if at all). There is no need to allow changing that value here in OSM or leaving the tedious work to the crowd. Alternatively you might use ref:at:heris, or ref:at:bda-new. In general, what is the purpose of that property? The best solution would be to link OSM objects to either wikidata objects (this is already done) or to the entry line for a monument in the german WP (which is German only and there is no translation, but this is the main representation publically available for heritage monuments in Austria. Also think about the updates of the BDA DB (usually once a year, with new objects and objects removed). --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I'm using 'Skunk' in Wiki* too (I also have the account 'plepe' from olden times when accounts between Wikipedias were not connected). I guess you are right to say, that we don't really need the tag, as we can link it via Wikidata. -- Skunk (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to integrate the new HERIS List into the ogd-wikimedia-osm-checker. Where can I download the list? I can't find it on the Bundesdenkmalamt Website, also googling didn't help. -- Skunk (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Skunk: the list is not published yet, you will not find it on BDA website. the data is available in Wikidata: Query (the current mapping table). We will maintain the data in Wikidata. It is unclear when the next publishing will be done by BDA, also unclear, whether the mapping will be part of it. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As the list is not published yet, I would suggest leaving the ref:at:bda tags as is. I would use a new ref:at:heris tag for the new database, even though - as you said - it is not really necessary as we can use the wikidata reference. Things change in databases, if objects get removed, we have dangling references. So what? I hope that when objects are removed/added to HERIS database, they do not re-use old IDs. -- Skunk (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

What is a read-only value? OSM does not have read-only values (and neither does Wikidata?). -- Skunk (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

read-only as a concept, might be enforced by software. I have no idea of OSM software, so consider it to be a concept. Like number of inhabitants on WP, which we import once a year from external sources, but do not change manually. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I see. This could be something for our openstreetmap.at server - a script which reports any changes to ref:at:bda resp. ref:at:heris tags (new object with a tag like this, objects which had such a tag but it got removed, ...). -- Skunk (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I wonder a bit why this is all English and would suggest switching to German as it is probably more inclusive in this context.

I am not too interested in the whole topic but was led here by the respective forum post and want to post my 2 ct here anyway :)

Since HERIS IDs apparently(?) are also given out by the BDA I think we should either use ref:at:bda-heris=* or ref:at:bda:heris=* if we decide to tag this and not just ref:at:heris=*. While a bit uglier it makes it easier to recognize where it comes from. I have no strong feelings regarding just referring to the wikidata project either, although I think in general that storing such references withing OSM has some advantages and additional inter-dependencies between such databases have some disadvantages.

Ideally, we would deprecate ref:at:bda=* before other values get in and move the current values to a new ref:at:bda:objectid=* or whatever IMHO. Else we might end up in a situation where we cannot distinguish them because in practice both types are used and mapped without recognizing the problem. Clear documentation/warning could of course help mitigating/preventing this problem. Most mappers are certainly not familiar with these nuances and that's always a direct way to chaos in my experience :) KISS or make it complicated enough that noobs don't touch it ;)

--Stefanct (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)