"We" are a travel startup. We use quite a few open source sources to build our Knowledge Base which is used for trip planning. During building our KB we analyze consolidate and verify all the data. Sometimes we find errors or anomalies in data. We contribute back all those findings and fix/update OSM/WP/WD and other projects.

Yes, I definitely do not know administrative division in Ukraine as good as you do.
I'm sure it was a mess 10 years ago but you guys are doing a great job here.
You do what works best for your community regarding updating administrative division. It was never questioned and there was no "point of view".
I just asked why you started to remove "wikidata=*" tag as it jumped out at us as anomaly. It does not look to be common practice in other communities and, to be honest, does not make a lot of sense as having "wikidata=*" tag enriches OSM.
Any way, as your community discussed and decided to drop wikidata tag we are not going to add it anymore here in Ukraine.

Thanks for clarification,
Have a great day

Your suggestion to use geospatial query to determine the boundaries for the place is correct but it does not always work.
Each place (node) can be within many polygons. It's important to know which of polygons is the corresponding boundary for the place.

Having some extra tags is not a mistake, it's just a mechanism to make sure all relations are in place and data is consistent.
All around the word wikidata tag is kept along places and boundaries. If your community in Ukraine decided to drop it's ok, but what benefit does it provide?

I know you have some administrative changes there in Ukraine going no right now but it seems you decided to implement it in pretty unusual to OSM way. I'd suggest your community to look at other countries how they implement such changes.

We use OSM for many years and see how the word is changing.
We analyze OSM data using sophisticated algorithms looking to mistakes and coverage. Ukraine always had very low coverage on OSM and your latest changes just reduce it even more.

Ще один аргумент, ви видалили точки (адмін центри) з полігонів. Таким чином ви видалили звязок між точкою ("яка містить всю інформацю про територіальну одиницю") і полігоном.
Наявність тої інформації на точці вже не має значення, оскільки вона вже не доступна через relation.
Wikidata тег наразі це едине, як можна їх пов"язати і витягнути наприклад полігон для певної територіальної одиниці.
Цілістність даних порушена.

Написана вами стаття не суперечить наявності wikidata тегів а навіть навпаки, є в списку "Додакових".

Також, наявність wikidata тегу не суперечить рекомендації OSM: wikidata=*

Також це не суперечить АТУ України, оскільки населені пункти (місця де живуть люди) завжди будуть. Для прикладу в США в таких випадках використовують boundary=census, щоб позначити не адміністративні одиниці.

В будь-якому випадку, видаляти вірну інформацію не є покращенням.

Навіщо ви видаляєте wikidata тег у своїх правках населених пунктів?

Yes, I did fix that already.

Hi Gr!ff!n,

Why did you remove administartive boundary property from New York relation?

Thanks,
Mario

Hi Colin,

I'm not trying to change that fact.
The only thing I was trying to do is to enrich OSM entity so such beautiful place as Windermereit could point to richer and more complete data than it does now.

Wikipedia community decided that "Windermere" is "is a town and civil parish" at the same time so de-facto that is the same thing on Wikipedia.
There are two records in OSM: one for city and one for community and that does not mean OSM is wrong or Wikipedia is right.
It just means that both OSM entities point to the same Wikipedia (Wikidata) record.

Thanks,
Mario

Colin,

I'm not trying to change that fact. Wikipedia community decided that "St Davids" is "a city and a community" at the same time so that is the same thing on Wikipedia.
There are two records in OSM: one for city and one for community and that does not mean OSM is wrong or Wikipedia is right.
It just means that both OSM entities point to the same Wikipedia (Wikidata) record.

The only thing I was trying to do is to enrich OSM entity so it could point to more rich and beautiful data than it does now.

Thanks,
Mario

Hi Phil and Colin,

Thank you for reviewing this.

There is single Wikipedia article for both city and comunity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Davids

Corresponding Wikidata record is Q648732.

The Q24341876 record is just a stub and has only two non-EN articles links.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Mario

Hi lakedistrict and Colin,

Sorry for the late response.

Actually I don't really agree on that.
As you can see there is single Wikipedia article about both town and civil parish:
"Windermere (/ˈwɪndərmɪər/) is a town and civil parish in the South Lakeland District of Cumbria, England." Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windermere,_Cumbria_(town)

There could be two different Wikipedia articles some time ago but they seem to be merged now.

Two different Wikidata records can not point to the same Wikipedia article so it's time to select what is the right one. If you check Wikipedia article, then you would see corresponding Wikidata record is Q119936.

The Q33880739 record was created in correspondence to WP articles in two other (non-EN) languages and looks like a stub.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Mario

Hi Phil,

Thanks for reviewing this.
According to Wikidata "Forest of Bowland AONB" and "Forest of Bowland" are the same thing:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1406920

Please let me know if I got it wrong so I'll revert this back.

Thanks,
Mario