| Note | # | Tmstmp UTC | Event | Contributor | Comment | Auto-translation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5017670 Category: Unknown | 1 | 2025-10-22 09:12 | opened | --- | The Wikidata link in the relation is being used illegally to create notability. Therefore, the link should be deleted from the relation. | |
| 2 | 2025-10-22 21:45 | commented | limes11 ♦8,681 | Der Link scheint korrekt. Die Frage ist, ob ein solches Objekt ein Wikidata link benötigt. Aber die Wikidata-Seite enthält auch nicht wirklich mehr Informationen als hier zu finden sind, von daher verstehe ich den Vorwurf nicht | ||
| 3 | 2025-10-22 21:46 | commented | limes11 ♦8,681 | also Wikidata-Eintrag meine ich | ||
| 4 | 2025-11-05 20:43 | commented | Xxlfussel ♦3 | The point is not to delete the relation itself, but only the link to Wikidata that is stored within that relation. Because in the deletion discussion within Wikidata – I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link to it here – it's noted that the link must first be removed. Apart from the linking through the relation, there is no reason to retain the Wikidata object. | ||
| 5 | 2025-11-05 20:45 | commented | Xxlfussel ♦3 | At least that's what I understood after a brief search. But I'm hesitant to submit this request, because I'll only get banned again. | ||
| 6 | 2025-11-06 06:26 | commented | limes11 ♦8,681 | No, that's independent. If you delete the wikidata-entry, the link here won't work anymore but besides that, nothing will be broken. | ||
| 7 | 2025-11-06 14:06 | commented | Xxlfussel ♦3 | Well, that's certainly a matter of interpretation, I'd say. Because something would be broken, since a non-functional link is a broken link. | ||
| 8 | 2025-11-06 18:41 | commented | limes11 ♦8,681 | I am just saying: It is not technically required to first remove the link before deleting the page. No harm will be done except for a dead link attached to the POI. osm is full of dead links. Of course the dead link should then also be removed here. | ||
| 9 | 2025-11-13 20:20 | closed | gausserrorfunction ♦134 | Das ist ja mal ein Quatsch. Hier ist die Löschdiskussion: <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q125884670> Nur weil irgendjemand den wikidata entry löschen möchte, ist das ja erst mal keinen Grund, die Referenz in OSM zu entfernen. Ich schließ das mal. | ||
| 10 | 2025-11-20 19:31 | reopened | Xxlfussel ♦3 | |||
| 11 | 2025-11-20 19:48 | commented | Xxlfussel ♦3 | I personally see things a little differently. In the deletion discussion, the use of the data object here on OpenStreetMap is explicitly cited as a reason for its notability, see the comment "Keep [-] use on OSM". I don't know why that is and if it's even the general consensus there. Nevertheless, it's a valid question to ask: Do we need this Wikidata link, or not? Furthermore, we can leave this error open, because it tells us that there's a potential deletion of the data object and therefore a possible need to edit it (delete the link) here in OpenStreetMap. | ||
| 12 | 2025-11-20 19:58 | commented | gausserrorfunction ♦134 | Leaving this open until the deletion discussion is resolved is fine with me. However, I am strictly against removing the Wikidata reference from the OSM object. As long as the Wikidata entry exists, it is completely reasonable and valid to make use of its existence wherever appropriate. A deletion discussion does not change that. | ||
| 13 | 2025-11-20 21:10 | commented | Xxlfussel ♦3 | I understand your point. But this creates a stalemate, at least it seems that way to me, and that can't be the goal for either project. Perhaps users who are active on both OpenStreetMap and Wikidata should consider how such cases can be resolved more easily in the future. | ||
| 14 | 2025-11-20 22:08 | commented | gausserrorfunction ♦134 | I also do see your point. But then I think it's not actually a problem, because a deletion discussion of which the outcome depends on whether the object is linked once (!) on OSM isn't making a strong case anyway. Either there are substantial reasons for deletion, then one OSM usage doesn't matter. Or there are no substantial reasons (which, I reckon, seems to be the case here)---then, the object shouldn't be deleted, regardless of whether it is used in OSM. | ||
| 15 | 2025-11-20 23:28 | commented | limes11 ♦8,681 | There is no problem or stalemate here. The link should stay as long as the Wikidata-page exists. If the page gets deleted, one can and should delete the link here. Whether or not the link should be kept or deleted is a decision *outside* of osm. Unless somebody starts a serious discussion about this, it is pointless to keep this note. | ||
| 4659930 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-03-10 22:34 | opened | --- | Neubau Gymnasium Linkselbisch-Ost Dresden (Gymnasium LEO) | New building of the Linkselbisch-Ost Dresden High School (LEO High School) |
| 2 | 2025-11-06 20:47 | closed | Xxlfussel ♦3 | Inzwischen wurde die Baustelle ergänzt. Deswegen ist dieser Hinweis für mich erledigt. | ||
| 4829658 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | 2025-06-28 15:32 | opened | user_1890314 ♦144 | "Geschlossen " The place has gone or never existed. A user of Organic Maps application has reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-06-08T00:18:23Z POI name: Rossschlächterei Jahr POI types: building wheelchair-no #organicmaps android | Closed |
| 2 | 2025-08-14 07:55 | commented | gr4yweb ♦14 | Also ich sehe hier dass dieses Geschäft als Leerstehendes Geschäft eingetragen ist. Die Tags shop=vacant und opening_hours=off. Es scheint mir ein Problem von Organic Maps zu sein, wenn die vorhanden Daten nicht entsprechend ausgewertet und geschlossene Geschäfte ausgeblendet werden, oder? | ||
| 3 | 2025-08-14 16:42 | commented | user_1890314 ♦144 | Ja... Was genau meinst Du damit..? | ||
| 4 | 2025-08-14 19:14 | commented | gr4yweb ♦14 | Du hast ja einen Hinweis erstellt dass das Geschäft geschlossen ist und ich würde deinen Hinweis gerne lösen. Soll ich den Namen raus nehmen? Denn das Geschäft an sich ist ja schon als leerstehendes Geschäft ohne Öffnungszeiten eingetragen. | ||
| 5 | 2025-08-14 19:23 | commented | gr4yweb ♦14 | Ich habe mich mal im Wiki schlau gemacht (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:shop%3Dvacant) und das dort geschriebene entsprechend umgesetzt! https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170452491 | ||
| 6 | 2025-08-14 21:43 | commented | user_1890314 ♦144 | Wow, was es nicht alles gibt... Vielen Dank! | ||
| 7 | 2025-10-22 09:20 | closed | Xxlfussel ♦3 |