Wikidata:Property proposal/Transportation


Property proposal: Generic Authority control Person Organization
Creative work Place Sports Sister projects
Transportation Natural science Lexeme

See alsoEdit

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (research on manual list) and Special:ListProperties.
  2. Check if the property was previously proposed or is on the pending list.
  3. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section.
Caveat
Do not use the Visual editor, because it will mess up the content of your request (the order of the template parameters will be shuffled and paragraphs are concatenated as one long string of text).

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See property creation policy.

  On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2022/05.

InfrastructureEdit

GeneralEdit

in operation on serviceEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionservice that a vehicle is operating on
Representstransport route (Q1067164)
Data typeItem
Domaintransportation
Example 1Utne (Q25427801)Kinsarvik–Utne–Kvanndal ferry (Q11980707)
Example 2MS Oslofjord (1993) (Q819550)Sandefjord–Strömstad ferry route (Q65235588)
Example 3DB Class 403 (Q458933)Lufthansa Airport Express (Q680360)
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsooperator (P137)
Type constraint – instance oftransport route (Q1067164)

Motivering/begrunnelseEdit

Original proposal: route operated (route operated by any type of transport modality, person or company)


We need a property to assign which route a vessel, vehicle, company etc. is operating. Cavernia (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Oppose See item operated (P121).--GZWDer (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I've considered this property, but then the use of it must be extended, and we might get some challenges. I.e. Fjord1 (Q697074) is operating the ship MF Bergensfjord (Q11204017), and then MF Bergensfjord (Q11204017) operate Mortavika–Arsvågen ferry (Q19381877). --Cavernia (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Use item operated (P121): equipment, installation or service operated by the subject Pmt (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question @Cavernia: I agree that item operated (P121) comes close, but a vehicle doesn't really operate a route, nor does the route operate the vehicle. Instead, the company operates both the route and vehicle. This is not sufficient though to link the route to the vehicle, as a company usually operated several routes and vehicles. However, would using used by (P1535) on the route item fill the role? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I see your point. Maybe a better description would be "in operation at route" or "in traffic at route"? I've considered it, but I don't think used by (P1535) will fit, as the vehicle don't "use" the route. It might make some sense in English, but hardly in other languages. --Cavernia (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  Support specific property for use on vehicle QIDs to link the route they are operated on, as this certainly can't be satisfied by either item operated (P121) or used by (P1535). Josh Baumgartner (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  Support I have been looking for a property like this. Cavernia's last amendment seems reasonable to me, so if you voted no to the original proposal will you please consider changing your vote or at the very least come up with a better suggestion? --Infrastruktur (T | C) 19:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  Comment used by (P1535) would mean "vehicle is used by service" or "service uses vehicle", not "vehicle uses service". --PhiH (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think there are different statements that need to be distinguished: For a company operating a railway line (or infrastructure in general) or a company operating a service I would use item operated (P121). A vehicle that is used for operating a service needs a different property in my opinion. used by (P1535) comes close but I think a new property like "used on/for service" might be better. --PhiH (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  Support -Vasmar1 (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  Comment @Cavernia, GZWDer, Pmt, Infrastruktur: @Joshbaumgartner, PhiH, Vasmar1: this was marked "ready" however it looks like the support votes are for a different label (at least) than what is currently in the proposal. If one or more of you are interested in having this happen please edit the proposal to a point that it really is ready to serve the proposed purpose of the supporters ("in operation at route" perhaps) and remove examples that don't meet that new proposed purpose. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I have commented out the two examples that wouldn't fit anymore and added a new example instead. --PhiH (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Please consider operating area (P2541). We can adjust the label. I don't think a new property is required here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 00:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
      Comment Shouldn't the property be closer in usage if it's considered to be adapted for this usage too? P2541 is organization-level, while the proposed property is infrastructure-level. The other suggestion of P121 suffered from similar problems in that it was meant to be used to connect an operator to an item, not a route to an item. Is this going to create an ontology mess, or do you think that won't be a problem? Infrastruktur (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    I have been using P2541 to record lightvessels operating on certain stations - I wasn't aware that it was for organisations. Sometimes properties are proposed without considering the wider possible applications. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Not saying it's wrong, I just question whether it's a good fit. Ontology is one of those things that look simple but is really hard, and many people including myself struggle with it. There are generic properties that can be used regardless of item classification, but it looks like P2541 wasn't one of those. Infrastruktur (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
      Comment Another potential issue with collapsing routes and areas together is that routes are not solely defined by shape/geography. Routes have temporal components, and two different routes might have the same path but stop in different places or on a different timetable. Then there's also routes that have the same path where the distinction is the vehicle used, service provider, type of passenger, etc. --Middle river exports (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   SupportMasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Has clear utility and addresses a specific piece of information which isn't quite addressed by existing properties --Middle river exports (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

AviationEdit

see also: WikiProject Aviation

Maritime transportEdit

see also: WikiProject Ships


RailwayEdit

see also: WikiProject Railways

preceding halt on serviceEdit

   Ready Create
Description(qualifier) halt prior to this one at which the service stops
Data typeItem
Domainrailway stop (Q55678) and subclasses
Example 1(Barddhaman Junction railway station (Q15196704) connecting service (P1192) Q12413177) → Howrah Junction railway station (Q986105)
Example 2(Barddhaman Junction railway station (Q15196704) connecting service (P1192) Q12413178) → Panagarh railway station (Q59912754)
Example 3(Bandel Junction railway station (Q4854508) connecting service (P1192) Q12415389) → Howrah Junction railway station (Q986105)
Example 4(Bandel Junction railway station (Q4854508) connecting service (P1192) Q12415391) → Barddhaman Junction railway station (Q15196704)
Planned useadd to items for rail stations as part of an overall augmentation of information about Indian train services
Number of IDs in source???
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See alsoadjacent station (P197) (for physical trackage), follows (P155)/followed by (P156) (for other orderings)

succeeding halt on serviceEdit

   Ready Create
Description(qualifier) halt immediately following this one at which the service stops
Data typeItem
Domainrailway stop (Q55678) and subclasses
Example 1(Barddhaman Junction railway station (Q15196704) connecting service (P1192) Q12413177) → Panagarh railway station (Q59912754)
Example 2(Barddhaman Junction railway station (Q15196704) connecting service (P1192) Q12413178) → Howrah Junction railway station (Q986105)
Example 3(Bandel Junction railway station (Q4854508) connecting service (P1192) Q12415389) → Barddhaman Junction railway station (Q15196704)
Example 4(Bandel Junction railway station (Q4854508) connecting service (P1192) Q12415391) → Howrah Junction railway station (Q986105)
Planned useadd to items for rail stations as part of an overall augmentation of information about Indian train services
Number of IDs in source???
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See alsoadjacent station (P197) (for physical trackage), follows (P155)/followed by (P156) (for other orderings)

MotivationEdit

There has been a lot of discussion, to no end conclusion, on the WikiProject Railways talk page regarding what to do to represent stations through which services pass that only operate in one direction, or what to do to reliably distinguish connections between stations that are physical or that are service-based. This proposal is an attempt to address both of these (at least in part):

Since this overall problem has been approached numerous times before without a resolution, I humbly request that this proposal not be closed/withdrawn without coming to a consensus on how to reliably distinguishably represent this information. I am happy to make significant changes to this proposal if it helps meet this goal. Mahir256 (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Mmmh. What's the use for this modeling? What happens with branches like Brétigny (Paris RER) (Q2209526) >> Marolles-en-Hurepoix (Paris RER) (Q1863955) and Brétigny (Paris RER) (Q2209526) >> Gare de La Norville - Saint-Germain-lès-Arpajon (Q1854741) ? What happens when there might be services stopping and services not stopping? Eg Gare de Juvisy (Q628695) having trains either Bibliothèque François Mitterrand Station (Q2856214) or gare d'Athis-Mons (Q2199402) or gare de Vigneux-sur-Seine (Q2703407) or Gare de Grigny-Centre (Q3096584) depending on what the train does and which line it is. I would rather prefer using a new item ligne du RER C with a property stating
  • stop (rank 1st ): that station
  • stop (rank 2nd) : that other station
  • etc.
Plus I didn't get why adjacent station (P197) is not useful for you Bouzinac (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bouzinac: I can't speak to the validity of your RER example as it appears that each of the lines in the RER has, for the most part, its own set of dedicated tracks, for which highlighting the distinction between 'lines' and 'services' may be less important (similarly to how such a distinction is less relevant for, say, many metro systems—New York City and Chicago being among a number of exceptions). As for your question on P197, please re-read my second bullet point above. Mahir256 (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question - On the London Underground, there is no distinction between services and lines. Many lines split in two, but are considered the same service. Could the above still be successfully applied here? --IWI (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • This can probably fixed by removing the "on service" part from the label. NMaia (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • On the London Underground there actually isn't any classification of railway lines at all or at least I haven't found one. The lines of the London Underground are services (or a group of services if you consider every branch a single service). These services are called "... line" but they aren't railway lines. --PhiH (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Multichill (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC) -revi (talkcontribslogs)-- 01:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC) (was Hym411) User:JarrahTree (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC) A.Bernhard (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Micru (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Steenth (talk) YLSS (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Konggaru (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Elmarbu (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Nitrolinken (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC) George23820 Talk‎ 17:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Daniele.Brundu (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Dannebrog Spy (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Knoxhale 18:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC) happy5214 22:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Jklamo (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits DarTar (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 01:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Sascha GPD (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC) A1AA1A (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Sam Wilson 10:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Danielt998 (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Maxim75 (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC) NCFriend (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Fabio Bettani (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Geogast (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Jinoytommanjaly (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC) OktaRama2010 (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC) PhiH (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Jcornelius (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Michgrig (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Trockennasenaffe (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)  Notified participants of WikiProject Railways, in the hope to stir up further discussion on this (or clearer consensus that this is the wrong direction). JesseW (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure about the underlying proposition, that station items should be linked by connecting services (as opposed to or in addition to connecting lines) in the first place. I do agree that adjacent station (P197) should be restricted to physical lines. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Mahir256: -- got a response/clarification on this? JesseW (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I definitely agree that adjacent station (P197) should be restricted to physical lines. That means that, if it is desirable to also link station items by service pattern (I don't have a strong opinion about that) that there needs to be some property to use instead. Instead of separate properties for next and preceding station, perhaps a single one "adjacent call on service" with a qualifier towards (P5051) could be used instead (i.e. model it in the same way as for adjacent station (P197)? Other irregularities could be modelled with qualifiers like day of week (P2894), valid in period (P1264), etc. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Road transportEdit

Point in line / through pointEdit

   Under discussion
Representsthrough station (Q55490)
Data typeItem
Domainline construction (Q1826691)
Example 1I/19 road (Q3499087) through point Žďákov Bridge (Q770940) in linear reference (P6710) 62.113 kilometre (Q828224)
Example 2D1 motorway (Q530229) through point 1Q900753 in linear reference (P6710) 194.033 kilometre (Q828224)
Example 3U.S. Route 66 in New Mexico (Q981907) through point New Mexico State Road 47 (Q2250416) in linear reference (P6710) 249 kilometre (Q828224)
Sourcemaps of road networks
Planned useDetailed description of road network
See also
  • located on linear feature (P795): linear feature along which distance is specified from a specified datum point
  • shares border with (P47): countries or administrative subdivisions, of equal level, that this item borders, either by land or water. A single common point is enough.
  • via (P2825): intermediate point on a journey - stopover location, waystation or routing point

MotivationEdit

Every route can be decribed e.g.

This property is for describing through points, inverse for located on linear feature (P795). JAn Dudík (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexis900 (talkcontribslogs) Asqueladd (talkcontribslogs) BeneBot* (talkcontribslogs) Detcin (talkcontribslogs) Dough4872 (talkcontribslogs) Gz260 (talkcontribslogs) Happy5214 (talkcontribslogs) Imzadi1979 (talkcontribslogs) Jakec (talkcontribslogs) Labant (talkcontribslogs) Liuxinyu970226 (talkcontribslogs) Ljthefro (talkcontribslogs) mxn (talkcontribslogs) naveenpf (talkcontribslogs) Puclik1 (talkcontribslogs) Rschen7754 (talkcontribslogs) Scott5114 (talkcontribslogs) SounderBruce (talkcontribslogs) TCN7JM (talkcontribslogs) TimChen (talkcontribslogs) Bodhisattwa (talkcontribslogs) Daniel Mietchen (talkcontribslogs) Tris T7 TT me Izolight (talkcontribslogs)  Notified participants of WikiProject Roads

DiscussionEdit

  • Hi, do you mean that any road would have every crossed town? Wouldn't it mean that for a lenghty road, it would perhaps mean thousands of statements inside the road ? Bouzinac💬✒️💛 08:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    I want to use it mainly for Czech roads, is possible to describe every crossing with other roads, see eg. cs:Silnice II/114.
    It depends on road, main use is for junctions, big bridges or other main features. JAn Dudík (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Isn't this what via (P2825) is for? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
As far as I understand it, via (P2825) is for trips or journeys that happened once, not for a regular transport route (Q1067164).--Geogast (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Streets in Paris use shares border with (P47) for this. See (e.g.) Q550#P47. Somehow this seems suboptimal. --- Jura 06:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This looks like a 1-to-many relationship. Not sure it would be suitable to add statements to a road or railway for every place it passes through. Better to add this to the items on the places and use a query? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Alexis900 (talkcontribslogs) Asqueladd (talkcontribslogs) BeneBot* (talkcontribslogs) Detcin (talkcontribslogs) Dough4872 (talkcontribslogs) Gz260 (talkcontribslogs) Happy5214 (talkcontribslogs) Imzadi1979 (talkcontribslogs) Jakec (talkcontribslogs) Labant (talkcontribslogs) Liuxinyu970226 (talkcontribslogs) Ljthefro (talkcontribslogs) mxn (talkcontribslogs) naveenpf (talkcontribslogs) Puclik1 (talkcontribslogs) Rschen7754 (talkcontribslogs) Scott5114 (talkcontribslogs) SounderBruce (talkcontribslogs) TCN7JM (talkcontribslogs) TimChen (talkcontribslogs) Bodhisattwa (talkcontribslogs) Daniel Mietchen (talkcontribslogs) Tris T7 TT me Izolight (talkcontribslogs)  Notified participants of WikiProject Roads in case the ping above didn't work. --- Jura 17:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Wheeled vehicleEdit

IntersectionEdit

SpaceflightEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Space for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Space}}