Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/coordinate location GCJ02

coordinate location GCJ02Edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

   Not done
DescriptionCoordinate location in GCJ02 (Q29043602)
Representsgeographic coordinate system (Q22664)GCJ02 (Q29043602)
Data type⧼calculated property⧽ (not available yet)
Domaingeographic coordinate system (Q22664)
Allowed valuesDirectly computed from existing values of other property
Allowed unitsdegree
Example 1Tiananmen (Q83973) → 116.397499E,39.908722N
Example 2Oriental Pearl Tower (Q223207) → 121.49945027E,31.24000146N
Example 3Potala Palace (Q71229) → 91.11850479E,29.65507281N
Example 4Shenzhen Railway Station (Q837327) → 114.1262E,22.5317N
SourceGCJ02 (Q29043602)
Number of IDs in sourceUnlimited
Expected completenessApply automatically to all wikidata entry with coordinate within mainland China area
Robot and gadget jobsYes
See alsocoordinate location (P625), Wikidata:Property proposal/Coordinate reference system


Make it easier for users to use Chinese online map C933103 (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Background: en:Restrictions on geographic data in China#GCJ-02. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Phab similar: phab:T162331 --Artoria2e5 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


  •   Oppose This can be calculated from existing coordinates values. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Andy. Mahir256 (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Answer @Mahir256, Pigsonthewing: That is why I proposed using the calculated property data type. The data type is "calculated by Wikibase and added directly to items".C933103 (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @C933103: As long as that data type is "[n]ot in [the] development plan", this proposal will remain on hold, irrespective of potential outcome, until you withdraw it or it dies at the hands of a property creator. (In contrast, back in May when people were proposing properties with lexeme datatype despite the lack of lexemes at the time, those proposals could remain and go forward since at least the lexeme datatype was being worked on and prepared for deployment within the lifetime of those proposals.) Mahir256 (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Even if I hope at some point we will have that datatype, I think the above calculation might be too complex for an initial implementation. I think I saw a feature request specifically for this, but I'm not sure where it's at. As suggested by one of the other participants, one could imagine a separate property like P625 that would allow input of such coordinates. These wouldn't be converted for now.
    --- Jura 07:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jura: The problem with P625 is that people are dumping GCJ02 into it without knowing. A quick way to find such a bunch is with this OSM/Wikidata Link Tool, which does name matches and reports location differences. --Artoria2e5 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment I think we could use a separate property for these. A coordinate type one, not a calculated one like this one. --- Jura 15:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nepalicoi (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral If we just veto foreign because it's not WGS84, then the Grid system of UK should also not be introduced to Wikidata. Meanwhile, maybe there should have function to mark some coordinates as non-WGS84. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral There is not much point in storing GCJ02 even as a generated/calculated type. The more important thing is to guide users into calculating a correct WGS84 from it. If we can do that with a new property, say by generating a calculated P625, it might be worth it. --Artoria2e5 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Artoria2e5: And how do you think about the UK Grid (i.e. OS grid reference (P613))? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
      • The UK Grid is a much less… fictitious system compared to GCJ-02. GCJ02 is defined for the sake of drifting electronic maps, while OSGB has a legit purpose, wide acception in older print sources, and a notation different from lat/lon that is hard to mistake for WGS84. I mean, I subjectively dislike GCJ02 (and BD09) and do not want a maliciously defined thing considered as part of some solid database. --Artoria2e5 (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cwf97 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Manu1400 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Not done Not enough support.--Micru (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)