Wikidata:Property proposal/number of platform faces

number of platform faces edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Transportation

Done: number of platform faces (P5595) (Talk and documentation)

Description	in a station, the number of continuous platform edges facing a track or vehicle guideway (often the same as P1103 and the number of platform numbers)
Data type	Number (not available yet)
Template parameter	"platforms" in w:en:Template:Infobox station; "站台面" in w:zh:Template:Infobox China railway station (and possibly others)
Domain	station (Q719456)
Allowed values	0–67
Allowed units	no unit
Example 1	Central Station (Q15166) → 4
Example 2	Holborn tube station (Q1433544) → 6
Example 3	Times Square–42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal (Q11265) → 17
Example 4	Flinders Street (Q260986) → 11
Source	various (usually operator websites)
See also	number of platform tracks (P1103)

Motivation

This property is for the numbers in blue. For this particular island platform, the blue numbers also represent number of platform tracks (P1103). Red represents the number of platform numbers, magenta represents the number of independently signallable platforms, and green represents the number of physically continuous surfaces with platform edges.

I proposed this before at Wikidata:Property proposal/number of island platforms (and this was not created), but since number of platform tracks (P1103)'s deletion discussion has finally been closed as "no consensus" after 14 months, I think it is preferable to solve that property's data pollution issue with property constraints (i.e. requiring a statement with this property as well). While has part(s) (P527) could theoretically be used, if series ordinal (P1545) or some other property is used to enumerate individual platforms then it also helps to have a property which just counts them (sort of like number of children (P1971)). Furthermore, number of platform tracks (P1103) is one way of counting platforms (out of the five or so that have come up in the prior discussions), and it would be very strange to have one property for one counting method but require the use of a more complicated statement–qualifier combination for the others.

Formally, this property counts the number of continuous platform edges facing a track or vehicle guideway. For example, a single platform edge with two different stopping positions would still count as one platform edge, but a half of an island platform with a bay inset would count as two because the platform faces two different tracks. This is going to be difficult to translate; "

binario

" in Italian means both "platform" and "track" (according to Wiktionary). The older property still has numerous labels which say "platforms" or "number of platforms" instead of "number of platform tracks"; I just translated the French and Catalan labels (even though I don't actually speak Catalan).

I deliberately did not specify whether the platform or the track should be in use, since those should be dealt with using qualifiers. After all, the current property is apparently doing just fine with it. (It's also because if it weren't done through qualifiers there would need to be more properties for publicly inaccessible platforms and secret platforms and so on.) Jc86035 (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Example 1

Legend

2 island platforms

platform tracks (P1103): 3

1

2

3

4

platform faces: 4

1

2

physically continuous platforms: 2

map depicts Fo Tan (Hong Kong MTR)

Example 2

Legend

2 island platforms (4 bay platforms)

1

physically continuous platforms: 1

platform tracks: 4

1

2

3

4

platform faces: 4

Example 3

Legend

built with 2 side platforms

1 track removed; 1 track in use

1

1 unused platform; P1103 = 1 (same for others)

2

1 unusable platform (cannot serve trains)

statements should be added with time qualifiers

based on Quainton Road (near London)

Example 4

Legend

1 island platform and 1 side platform

1

2

1 track out of use but still exists

1

2

3

fence between middle track and platform

2 physically continuous platforms

3 platform tracks; 3 platform faces

based on Bowling Green (New York City Subway)

Example 5

Legend

physically continuous platforms (green): 5

"differently numbered" platforms (red): 26

independently signallable platforms (magenta): ???

number of platform faces (blue): 16~~/17?~~

~~[is platform 8S separate from the rest?]~~

entire platform 8 is one face (even if fenced along edge between 8A and 8S)

16B

15B

8B

7B

5B

4B

3B

2B

1

number of platform tracks: 17

6B

16A

15A

14

13

12

11

10

9

8A

7A

6A

5A

4A

3A

2A

8S

[work in progress] based on Southern Cross (Melbourne, Australia)

Discussion

Notifying those who participated in the last discussion: Liuxinyu970226, Pasleim, Pigsonthewing, Thryduulf, ArthurPSmith, Danrok. Jc86035 (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Railways Support since it's really confusing to say "platform tracks", as there's really no "platform tracks" in Asian countries, rather we the Asian people do say either platforms or tracks. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: I don't think anyone says "platform tracks", really; I just put it in the label after the previous property proposal because "number of tracks" would mean all the tracks including sidings. Jc86035 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many platform faces do these stations have? Grey boxes are platforms, solid black lines are tracks, dashed black lines are former tracks, red lines are fences.

comment. I support the creation of a property with clear and appropriate constraints, and this is the best I've seen so far, but there are a couple of things I'm not certain about (the numbers relate to the diagrams):
1. Would a single track with a platform on both sides would count as 1 or 2?
2. Would a platform face not adjacent to a track (e.g. the track was removed) count as 0 or 1?
3. Would a platform face adjacent to a track, but which is fenced off from that track, count as 0 or 1? Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Two, usually zero, and zero (for the current point in time). (Based on the item description for railway platform (Q325358), if a person couldn't physically board a vehicle while walking without ~~stepping~~ dropping off the platform or climbing over a wall/fence, it's not really a railway/guideway platform. Obviously this excludes things like platform screen doors.) More specific statements about platforms should probably be done using other qualifiers unrelated to time or statements with has part(s) (P527). Jc86035 (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the comment to reflect that there are some streetcar stops where the platform (the pavement) is separated from the tracks by a lane of traffic. For streetcar stops with low-floor vehicles I'm not totally sure how many platform edges there would be if either one track or one "platform" closed permanently, but I assume that the logic is that for things like street-side tram stops, which rely on the existence of other infrastructure and don't really differ from the surroundings other than being signposted and possibly sheltered, if the pavement's no longer in use as a platform then it's not part of the stop area any more so it doesn't get counted. Jc86035 (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given the problems with the other property, it might help if we (also) had samples with a visual showing the number.
I tried to find them for the four above, but what I found seems hard to add here
1. "route map" in the infobox at w:Central_station_(MTR),
2. w:Template:Holborn station RDT,
3. w:Times_Square–42nd_Street/Port_Authority_Bus_Terminal_(New_York_City_Subway)#Station_layout,
4. not sure if there is anything on enwiki for w:Flinders_Street_railway_station#Platforms).

Image files with a graphic like the one for Holborn might work best for non-specialists like me.
--- Jura 07:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: Wikimedia route diagram template (P3858) or route map (P15). But neither format is machine-readable (yet). Jc86035 (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is just to illustrate the main samples for the property.
--- Jura 07:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: Oh, sorry, I didn't realize what you meant. I've copied Template:Routemap over to Wikidata, so it should now be possible to copy the diagrams for the first two examples. Jc86035 (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: In the first example, are there three independently signallable platforms or four? Jc86035 (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: if by "first example" you are referring to the diagram with red, blue, green and magenta numbers, then 3 or 4 depending on the signalling. It could be that the right hand platform face has either 1 or 2 signalling berths. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Sorry, I meant the Routemap diagram labelled "Example 1". Jc86035 (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: again it will depend on the signalling but most likely there will be three independently signallable platforms, but more are possible. There will most likely be either 3 or 4 platform numbers, but depending on the length of the platform relative to the trains up to 8 (or more, but this is less likely). It is not possible to be certain just by looking at the physical layout. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035, Thryduulf, Okkn: If we would love to discuss near all special cases, now there have two Japanese cases: Kesennuma Line (Q872533) and Ōfunato Line (Q1057758), where part of both lines are, due to damage by 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami (Q36204) and huge huge difficults of railway-reconstruction, reconstructed as bus rapid transit (Q2878855), so are properties that for railways (clearly include this) still do apply to BRT parts of both lines or not? I guess that some (e.g. connecting line (P81) and adjacent station (P197)) are yes, but some (e.g. number of platform tracks (P1103)) are no. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Officially, BRT parts are only temporary, although I don't know whether railways will really be reconstructed... adjacent station (P197) of BRT parts is not always in accord with that of the original railways, because there are some new stations in BRT parts. --Okkn (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that if the platforms are not currently in use for railway purposes they should be counted as disused platforms (I wonder if a separate property paralleling this one but for disused platform faces is the way to go for that?). Parts of the railway currently in use as BRT should I guess be treated in the same way we treat other railways reused as busways (however that is, I have no experience and haven't looked) with appropriate next/previous properties for BRT properties. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Okkn, Thryduulf, Liuxinyu970226: I think they would be considered not to have tracks but to have platforms (in the OpenStreetMap sense of "a place to board or alight a [public transport] vehicle"), so if a BRT station has one marked boarding area on each side of the road it could probably be said to have two "platform faces". Qualifiers for time would be necessary, and probably the use of separate items for the BRT stations. Jc86035 (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1, Jc86035: I added a draft I had for w:en:Southern Cross railway station I had been working on (w:en:Flinders Street railway station has a track layout with similar features). I added what I think would be the values of each of the ways for counting platforms (except the number of independently signallable platforms: seems too complicated), but I'm not sure if platform 8S would be considered a separate platform face for this proposal ~~given that the entirety of platform 8 is continuous~~ [actually, I can't exactly remember if there is a fence on the edge between 8A and 8S, but the platform itself is continuous]. Ideas? – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 07:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pizza1016, Thryduulf: I'm not quite sure. A similar case is where one track has two platforms on it (e.g. w:zh:三聖站) and I'm not sure if that stop has one, two or three platform tracks. Jc86035 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pizza1016, Jc86035: The number of platform tracks (tracks with platforms adjacent) at Southern Cross is definitely 17. Platform faces is more complicated as arguments can be made for either 16 or 17. I'd be inclined to go with 17 though as a passenger could not board a train between the northern end of platform 8S and the southern end of platform 8A - but that is not consistent with how I would describe w:en:Ormskirk railway station which has a single long platform face with back-to-back buffer stops in the middle (I'm not fluent in the route map templates, sorry). w:en:Kirkby railway station has a similar layout but there File:All Change^ - geograph.org.uk - 747865.jpg shows that the platform has been extended out over the former trackbed in the middle so I would say that station has 2 platform faces.
As for 三聖站, if I'm reading the diagram correctly then it has 4 platform faces: one each for lines 2 and 3 and one on each side of a train on line 1. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Thanks; would 三聖站/Sam Shing stop therefore have three "platform tracks"? (Each platform has a fence along its unused edge – Light Rail vehicles only have doors on their left side – so I'd say it has three platform faces.) Jc86035 (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: Yeah, I believe there are three platform tracks, as there are three unique tracks paired to at least one platform (that's how I would read it). – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 11:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Those are really interesting scenarios. We might need a precise definition of where a platform face starts and ends that works with all the different layouts. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 11:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035, Pizza1016: ah if Sam Shing has fences along one side of each platform then I'd say that it only has 3 platform faces, as there are only three faces from which passengers could board. The more I think about it though, the more I'm thinking that Southern Cross has 16 platform faces even if there isn't a track along all of it. This would simplify the definition to being: A continuous straight or smooth curved platform edge with one or more tracks adjacent to it such that able-bodied passengers could board a train on that track from that platform without special equipment. So if there is a fence along the whole platform edge it doesn't count, but if there is a fence or other obstruction along only part of it then it does. It ignores the type of rolling stock typically used. This means that w:en:Greenford station has 4 platform faces even though only 3 are used - if a train in the bay platform opened its doors on the right instead of (or as well as) the customary left then there is nothing stopping passengers boarding or alighting from that face. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support David (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the samples provided should avoid the problems with the other property.
--- Jura 09:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Thryduulf, Liuxinyu970226, Jc86035, Okkn, Jura1: @Pizza1016: Done: number of platform faces (P5595). − Pintoch (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]