Wikidata:Property proposal/route operated

in operation on service edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Transportation

Done: in operation on service (P10788) (Talk and documentation)

Description	service that a vehicle is operating on
Represents	transport service itinerary (Q1067164)
Data type	Item
Domain	transportation
Example 1	Loch Frisa (Q25427801) → Kinsarvik–Utne–Kvanndal ferry (Q11980707)
Example 2	MS Dalmacija (Q819550) → Sandefjord–Strömstad ferry route (Q65235588)
Example 3	DB Class 403 (1973) (Q458933) → Lufthansa Airport Express (Q680360)
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
See also	operator (P137)
Type constraint – instance of	transport service itinerary (Q1067164)

Motivering/begrunnelse edit

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)[reply]

Discussion edit

Oppose See item operated (P121).--GZWDer (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose Use item operated (P121): equipment, installation or service operated by the subject Pmt (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support -Vasmar1 (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support —MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Cavernia, GZWDer, Pmt, Joshbaumgartner, Infrastruktur, PhiH: @Vasmar1, ArthurPSmith, MSGJ, Middle river exports, MasterRus21thCentury: Done as in operation on service (P10788). UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]