Some time ago it was proposed (see also this) to show Wikidata field for lakes, also if not filled already. And if it gets added to lakes presumably next requests would arrive to do the same for other object types.
Do you think it is a good idea? I am leaning toward rejecting this idea but wanted to get feedback from OSM Community. Should iD always display these field for lakes (and some other objects)? Or only if filled already or mapper added them?
Lakes belong to the kind of data that is highly likely that a country’s hydrology department is providing as open data and that would make it highly likely it has already been imported into Wikidata. (High Value Datasets in the EU if not already mandated with the Bathing Water Directive) and as I have previously noted: build bridges between Wikidata and OSM, leverage our strengths - for example the Swedish Wikipedia instance, we have a template that automatically pulls the OSM geometry through kartographer if the OSM entity have the Wikidata tag, just one of many reasons to include it.
The region you used was matched in March. AFAIK you can’t match/update new regions, so either you can’t use it or you can use outdated data only. You can see how little activity there’s in recent months here: Changes OWL Places (e.g. not even one edit between June 17 and July 14)
The tool in the OSM wiki has status=broken since November: link
By the way, @Edwardupdated OWL today so it optionally adds OSM statements to Wikidata items, in addition to adding Wikidata tags to OSM elements like before.
