From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikipedia article describes two or more different objects

The Wikipedia article about Heligoland describes the island and the municipality "Heligoland". Wikidata items should only cover one object. If an Wikidata item falsely describes two or more different objects then there should be created an own item for each missing object. Example for Heligoland: municipality Heligoland island Heligoland

[outdent] Wikidata items do not describe two objects. has property instance_of=island while has instance_of=municipality_of_Germany

OSM relation 3787052 has tag place=island and is, correctly, already tagged wikidata=Q17043877

There is clearly an equivalence between instance_of=island and place=island

There is no equivalence between place=island and instance_of=municipality_of_Germany

-- Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at the history, I've fixed the object in Wikidata of course already: I try to figure out more problematic examples.--4rch (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
before I've fixed it it said has instance_of=municipality_of_Germany AND instance_of=island --4rch (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Another problematic example I've found: The mappers have to be made aware of that Wikidata needs much consolidation at the moment and that there are many faults (instance of, duplicates, ...) in Wikidata. And that one object in Wikidata should be one object in OpenStreetMap. Not like Wikipedia where different objects are treated in one article and you can add the same link to different OSM objects. --4rch (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The two most frequently occurring Wikidata keys are Q146924 (Roman Limes, 66 times) and Q16200592 (List of Stolpersteine in Witten, 18 times). The latter is a list article, but should that really have a Wikidata key? --LA2 (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Lists are an interesting edge-case. Perhaps we should tag wikidata_list:? The Roman Limes cases would be better tagged wikidata_type: or some such. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Example link to Taj Mahal was deleted on OSM

The infobox for this article has a link to the Taj Mahal on OSM as an example of how Wikidata is used in OSM. This reference has been deleted however. --ElliottPlack (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this new way is the one? I don't know enough about 3D buildings or the Taj Mahal to edit here. --ElliottPlack (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
If I look at, I don't see the reference deleted, it is still the Taj Mahal...
Same thing for the second example OSM data for Balwin Street: the indicated wikidata value is still valid in Wikidata. — Verdy_p (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The issue I brought up was regarding this page, not the wikidata entry, which was fine. I see that you have updated the infobox. The deleted item was the OSM object that represents the Taj, the deletion of which ironically demonstrates the very fragility of OSM IDs. --ElliottPlack (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes it was not clear in the first message, that's why I not just used the OSM ID in the link, but also used the coordinates. It's very unfortunate that this wellknown monument can be defined first as a relation then deleted and replacd by a single way (when in fact it has not disappeared), the single way is oversimplified anyway, there was no value in editing it this way: there was a relation because it was better defined before (the 3D model supposed to replace it in not in the OSM database. I think that some details should have been kept, even if there was an additional external 3D model... — Verdy_p (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree fully that it is unfortunate! It is too bad that the schema for OSM was not set up for persistence of linkability (or something). Ideally, one could somehow *link* an object to be deleted to a new object. Thanks for fixing the link on the site. I also left a changeset comment for the OSM editor to come check out this page. --ElliottPlack (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata objects of a sculpture that is located at more places

Example Q10590627 has one article on Wikidata today

Its located borth in Stockholm at Millesgården and another version in Gävle. Is it ok to add the same Wikidata object ID for both? - Salgo60 (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to create 2 new wikidata entries, one for each location and point to those from that wikidata entry. That way each of those wikidata entries can have its own coordinates tag on wikidata.
--Polyglot (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I also think that modeling the situation like that would be better. The wikidata=* tag is for the Wikidata item about a particular feature, not about a group of features that this one is part of. --Tordanik 19:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
For brands (e.g. a fast-food chain), there is a brand:wikidata tag in addiiton to the wikidata tag. The former is about the brand generally, and the latter is about the specific store (if present). Wikidata is unique for every POI, and brand:wikidata is shared. Perhaps something similar needs to be done here. -- SafwatHalaby (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


I tried adding wikidata tags to streets and rivers. The streets are often cut in several OSM ways.

The rivers too, but there we also represent them both in a linear way and when they get wider as riverbanks. Some rivers are canalized to allow boat traffic. When there is a sluice, the canal part forks off, but in general the river is both canal and river, so I added a ; in the wikidata tag.

The way to solve this, is to use part_of:wikidata instead.

You could say we are supposed to use relations and add the wikidata tag to them, but not every river or street has a relation grouping them and in the case of rivers, only the linear parts seem to be added to the river relation.

What are your thoughts on this?

--Polyglot (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I add wikidata to waterway relation and ignore individual ways. I create relation if that is necessary. For streets I add wikidata to each way Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Controlling Wikidata-tag input quality

Suggestion to use some kind of automation in the input ok Wikidata-ID values... See syntax error at where a the Wikidata-ID is "Q10366821)" instead "Q10366821"...

The most simple is to validate by regular expression ^Q\d+$. --Krauss (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

PS: See also

@Krauss:: JOSM has a validator check for the format. If the wikipedia plugin is used, JOSM even checks if the item exists and is no redirect to another item. But a validator check won't prevent everyone from entering incorrectly formatted data. And I consider this a good thing, OSM editors should alert users of bad tagging, but if the user desires to put in, he/she should be allowed to do so. Tagging schemes can evolve and something considered bad tagging in the past can become accepted later.
The current measures of preventing incorrect wikidata=* tags already work pretty well: At the moment there are only 3 OSM objects with wrong format for the Q-ID, compared to over a million correct ones: --Floscher (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit: The Overpass query was not completely correct: . There are 14 "incorrect" objects. --Floscher (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata -> OSM relation

We have

  1. WD:Q30158648 = Rottnebyskogen nature reserve in Dalarna, Sweden

these are the same but my understanding is that WD -> OSM is just for relations what is the correct way of handle this? - Salgo60 (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Salgo60: Hi, you posted a good example, it is a classic problem that will be only solved by a Persistent Place Identifier (an ID that is eternal and independent of the element type).
For now the workaround is edit to envelope by a relation, them use the relation-ID at Wikidata. --Krauss (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Salgo60: @Krauss: I disagree. You should not create a relation for the sole purpose of being able to link from Wikidata to OSM, that's a unnecessary complication of the data model for very little benefit. As you said, OSM-IDs are not stable and thus a link from Wikidata to OSM might point to a different object after a while. P402 is sort of a compromise to allow this sort of link, since relation IDs are less often subject to change.
If there is no OSM relation for a Wikidata item, add the wikidata=* tag and if you want to do more, try adding third party IDs to both the OSM object and the Wikidata item (e.g. WDPA_ID:ref=*/P809 in case of Rottnebyskogen). --Floscher (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

burried:wikidata or subject:wikidata ?

Could it be used also for persons buried in a grave ?
OSM website and Overpass turbo already display links for subject:wikidata=*

See also:

--Pyrog (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Right, no need to reinvent the wheel, and already in use (105 occurences as of today). --Nospam2005 (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

How to Add Property from Wikidata

Still wrapping my head around this topic, but I think I get the gist of using wikidata to reference a citation from the wikidata project for specific values (ie I know that tagging an object with "species:wikidata=Qnnnnn" will point to a specific species in the Wikidata database). However I'm confused as how to implement the property kind of Wikidata tag, eg P1703, P1704. I'm trying to list pollinator friendly areas/gardens in my area but I am having trouble finding something that does this function effectively. I was recommended to use the aforementioned property tags to do so. But I have no idea how. Should I type "species:wikidata=P1703;Qnnnn1;Qnnnn2" to show that Qnnnn1 is pollinated by Qnnnn2 (as P1703 is the "is pollinated by" property tag)? Any help on this would be appreciated, also I think this would be helpful to add to the main page for wikidata the property tag could be used with this key.--IanVG (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you want to edit P1704 on Wikidata? Then you should edit Wikidata, not OpenStreetMap. There is no tag for "species A is pollinated by species B" and it seems to not be a good fit for OSM. Tagging presence of speicific pollinators seems a bit dubious, but would avoid at least some problems. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
"list pollinator friendly areas/gardens" - is there some system for marking them (plaques/info boards)? If yes, then tagging this would be likely a good idea, and it would move "is it pollinator friendly" from OSM (and it is a tricky question, seemingly beautiful garden may be a deadly trap due to use of insecticides). Maybe tagging species planted there would be a good idea (if such species are not changing year from year)? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed: the most reasonable thing to map would be the identity of perineal flowering plants, such as shrubs, bushes and small trees, which provide flowers that will attract bees every year. Annual plants are temporary and not really appropriate to map. And signs or plaques which clearly identify the space as "a certified pollinator-friendly garden", determined by some outside authority, would also be mappable. See the principle of verifiability. --Jeisenbe (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
"Annual plants are temporary and not really appropriate to map" - unless they are in the same place in each year Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, yes there is some level of designation by the University that labels certain areas on campus as pollinator friendly. The University is striving for receiving an "official" status from Bee Campus USA, so that includes specifically marking gardens and areas friendly for local/traveling pollinators that will be checked by the organization (Bee Campus USA). In this case, is there a tag/ wikidata property combination that I should add to the garden/area? I know this is not necessarily a direct question for this thread, but any help is appreciated. Thanks for the input and feedback!--IanVG (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Renaming name:etymology:wikidata to name:wikidata ?

This key is too long, not easy to remember.
It's description could specify that the element is the etymology of the name (seem obvious for me).


Key Count
name:etymology:wikidata 125 206
name:etymology:wikipedia 15 178
name:wikipedia 3 497
name:etymology:wikidata:missing 486
name:wikidata 311
name:etymology:wikipedia:missing 19

--Pyrog (talk) 09:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There is also etymology:wikidata (293 uses). "seem obvious for me", not to me. I prefer name:etymology:wikidata or shorter etymology:wikidata Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

But what mean name:wikipedia=* ? Is it the wikipedia page of the name ? No, this is the page of the etymology.

So if name:wikipedia=* obvious for all contributors, name:wikidata=* should too.
If not, we should rename name:wikipedia=* to name:etymology:wikipedia=*, should we ?
--Pyrog (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
"if name:wikipedia=* obvious for all contributors" it is not obvious to me Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I quite agree with Mateusz that the etymology part is meaningful, and that "name:wikidata" is not so obvious. Let's take an example : « Rue du 14-juillet » (osm:relation/2151934), "wikidata=Q20680377", maybe people would think ("name:wikidata=Q16024283" / "name:wikipedia=fr:Rue du 14-Juillet" ) is quite fitting? but according to the situation (as could be elicited by the streetname sign) the "name:etymology:wikidata" could link to either of the two events related to this date Q6539, Q143866 or even both. imho, saying we are talking about etymology is clearer in the intent, it allows to link to the precise meaning behind the name that was chosen for the item rather than the name itself, rather useful in cases of ambiguities, or homonyms. (also "not easy to remember", the majority still remembers it, it's high on the list). Would it be possible to make the "id" editor to suggest "name:etymology:wikidata" when typing "ety" instead? --FoeNyx (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)