Wikidata talk:WikiProject Protected areas

Protection réglementaire

Un cahier de l'Atelier technique des espaces naturels sur la protection réglementaire qui synthétise bien ce qui nous intéresse ici.

--EdouardHue (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Identifiant WDPA

EdouardHue
VIGNERON
Thierry Caro
Paul Mackay
Pigsonthewing
Fralambert
Holger1959
Dhx1
Derzno
GPSLeo
Tris T7 ^{TT me}
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk)
Pmau
Olea

Notified participants of WikiProject France/Protected areas

Pour info, il n'y a plus que 34 éléments Wikidata sur des zones protégées « WLE » (parcs et réserves) sans WDPA ID (P809). J'ai l'impression qu'il n'y a pas d'id WDPA pour ces éléments ; parmi ces éléments, on trouve des zones récemment protégées (donc assez compréhensible de ne pas encore avoir d'id WDPA) mais aussi des zones plus anciennes (plus bizarre).

Il y a aussi des « pièges » comme Réserve naturelle géologique de Haute-Provence (Q3457474) où je viens finalement de trouver l'id mais qui porte un nom qui n'a rien à voir dans la WDPA…

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comme dirait l'autre, pas de palais, pas de palais ! C'est assez étonnant que des zones classifiées par l'IUCN soient absentes de leurs bases, mais bon, on ne va pas les inventer et une base de cette ampleur est susceptible de contenir des erreurs. @Pmau: aura peut-être des éclaircissements ?

Je suis aussi tombé sur des cas comme Réserve naturelle régionale du plan d'eau de Reichshoffen (Q2370187) : des RNV, passées RNR en 2002, mais dont le classement n'a pas été renouvelé et qui ont, semble-t-il perdu leur identifiant WDPA. Comme French Wikipedia (Q8447) mentionne cet identifiant, je l'ai fait apparaître sur l'item mais avec le rang obsolète.

--EdouardHue (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre oui mais pas si surprenant. Surtout que le lien WDPA/Parc-Réserve est bien plus tenu qu'entre la base Mérimée/MH et pourtant la base Mérimée a jusqu'à deux ans de retard sur les protections MHs. Idem pour tout un tas d'autres données, eg. les données INSEE qui ont 3 ans de décalage.

Du coup, on a plusieurs possibilités : ne pas mettre du tout WDPA ID (P809) ou bien mettre WDPA ID (P809) avec « valeur inconnue ».

Oui, bonne idée l'identifiant obsolète (à condition qu'il n'y ai pas eu d'erreur sur la Wikipédia à l'époque évidemment). Par contre, je ne suis pas sur pour le instance of (P31) = regional nature reserve (Q15089606) de Réserve naturelle régionale du plan d'eau de Reichshoffen (Q2370187) (c'est vraiment le bordel les RNV, particulièrement en Alsace j'ai l'impression…).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Pour WDPA, on a plein d'options :

1. Il devrait y avoir un identifiant mais
   1. il n'a pas été affecté par Protected Planet → snak pas de valeur.
   2. on ne le connaît pas → snak valeur inconnue.
2. L'existence d'un identifiant n'est pas obligatoire :
   1. on sait malgré tout qu'il existe → snak valeur inconnue.
   2. on est sûrs qu'il n'existe pas → snak pas de valeur à la rigueur, mais plutôt pas de WDPA ID (P809) du tout.
3. Et comme on l'a vu, si la réserve est déclassé, on a le rang obsolète pour garder une trace de l'identifiant, même s'il n'est plus valable.

Alors, cas 1 ou cas 2 ? Je ne connais pas assez les process de l'IUCN pour répondre. Dans le cas 1, on pourrait aller jusqu'à ajouter une contrainte sur les aires protégées de France pour imposer sa déclaration.

Pour RNV / RNR, j'avais détaillé ce que j'en comprenais sur Commons mais mon message est passé inaperçu. En bref, en 2002, les RNV ont été magiquement transformées en RNR et cette nature a subsisté jusqu'à l'expiration du classement initial (quoique, dans le cas des renouvellements tacites, j'ai un doute sur l'interprétation à faire du décret du 18 mai 2005). L'utilisation des deux natures, avec des dates de début et de fin, décrit cette transformation.

--EdouardHue (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

properties for protected area IDs

EdouardHue
VIGNERON
Thierry Caro
Paul Mackay
Pigsonthewing
Fralambert
Holger1959
Dhx1
Derzno
GPSLeo
Tris T7 ^{TT me}
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk)
Pmau
Olea

Notified participants of WikiProject France/Protected areas

maybe this current discussion is interesting for you too: Wikidata:Project_chat#looking_for_best_ID_properties_(protected_areas). Holger1959 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Identifiant TAXREF

EdouardHue
VIGNERON
Thierry Caro
Paul Mackay
Pigsonthewing
Fralambert
Holger1959
Dhx1
Derzno
GPSLeo
Tris T7 ^{TT me}
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk)
Pmau
Olea

Notified participants of WikiProject France/Protected areas

J'ai demandé la création de la propriété « identifiant TAXREF ». C'est l'identifiant de toutes les espèces connues sur l'ensemble du territoire français (y compris marin). L'identifiant renvoie sur le même site que le protected areas INPN Code (P1848) : le site de l'Inventaire national du patrimoine naturel, géré par le Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle.

Exemple : Alpine newt (Q282715) → 444430

Le site fourni des informations très intéressantes, notamment la répartition de l'espèce sur le territoire français.

Tubezlob (🙋) 12:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Élargir

Je me demande si ce projet ne gagnerait pas à s'élargir à l'ensemble du monde. Autrement, pour info, j'ai importé des WDPA ID (P809) aujourd'hui. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

J'ai aussi créé Wikidata property related to protected areas (Q27642681), ce qui permet d'avoir cette liste. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sans aucune réponse à mes dernières questions, j'ai pris le parti de le faire, ce manque de réponse témoignant lui-même, peut-être, de la taille trop restreinte du projet jusqu'ici. J'espère que l'on comprendra. Thierry Caro (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Fédération des parcs naturels régionaux de France (Q19754184)

EdouardHue
VIGNERON
Thierry Caro
Paul Mackay
Pigsonthewing
Fralambert
Holger1959
Dhx1
Derzno
GPSLeo
Tris T7 ^{TT me}
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk)
Pmau
Olea

Notified participants of WikiProject France/Protected areas. Bonjour. Suite à la création d'Réserves naturelles de France ID (P3327) pour les réserves naturelles, je me demande si on devrait demander la création d'une nouvelle propriété pour lier les différents parcs naturels régionaux, cette fois, à la page que la Fédération des parcs naturels régionaux de France (Q19754184) consacre à chacun. Ou bien devrais-je me contenter de faire comme ici ? C'est la méthode que je viens de suivre pour lier les 10 parcs nationaux aux fiches de Parcs nationaux de France (Q27827024), mais il y a cinq fois plus de PNR. Si on est trois ou quatre à voter pour, la propriété serait créée malgré la faible population concernée : 51 éléments. Mais le faut-il ? Thierry Caro (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Disparition of protected areas

Hi, I have some question about the disparition of 4 protedted areas of Alberta. Syncline Provincial Recreation Area (Q2828318), Beaver Mines Lake Provincial Recreation Area (Q2373600), Castle River Bridge Provincial Recreation Area (Q2828317) and Castle Falls Provincial Recreation Area (Q2828320) have all disapered since they are disolved ad incorpored in the newly created Castle Provincial Park (Q28479055). I want that someboby check if I done the right procedure by adding dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) ans replaced by (P1366). --Fralambert (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

About reversion

This discussion comes from a Talk:Q185602 created after a reversion from user:Fralambert of my edition of heritage designation (P1435) in that item. --Amadalvarez (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

---

@fralambert: Regarding your reversion. It's not clear the criteria about how to use the diferent "included in a list" properties in articles of "natural heritage (Q386426)". For instance, in Yosemite National Park (Q180402): while the heritage designation (P1435) includes World Heritage Site (Q9259) (a natural heritage category), the IUCN category II: National Park (Q14545628) appears as a data for IUCN protected areas category (P814). In the cultural heritage (Q210272) articles all the "list protection" items are under a unique property (heritage designation (P1435)) and the different ID's of each one are in a specific property. So, in my opinion, the structure to gather all the classification systems that recognize the item, is follow the data structure that already it's running very well for cultural heritage (Q210272) items, as the heritage designation (P1435) is a valid property either for cultural heritage (Q210272) and natural heritage (Q386426). Awaiting your reply, thanks.--Amadalvarez (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

For the categories under IUCN protected areas category (P814), it's not a status, but only a classification between a protected area of a country and a another. Contrary of a natural heritage status, like site naturel classé (Q3485446) in France, it could change without notice. Like i just changed the IUCN protected areas category (P814) on White Goat Wilderness Area (Q2828324), even if the province of Alberta don't change the law or by-law about this wilderness area. Also, I not sure the redundancy of a data between heritage designation (P1435) and IUCN protected areas category (P814) is a good idea. Note if you have futher question, I think the best wil be to continue the discussion on Wikidata talk:WikiProject Protected areas. --Fralambert (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

---

IUCN protected areas category (P814) is specifically designed for things such as IUCN category II: National Park (Q14545628), so I agree that this is the place for them and nowhere else. But maybe, I don't know, IUCN protected areas category (P814) should be declared a subproperty of (P1647) of heritage designation (P1435) so that nobody will be tempted to repeat the declaration with the latter. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thierry Caro: I do not disagree with the use of IUCN protected areas category (P814) you explain. What I want is to use heritage designation (P1435) to gather all the concepts of protection, as it is planned. The heritage designation (P1435) incorporates an inventory of Q's of the protections, categories or list in which some authority has included the item. In that case: IUCN category II: National Park (Q14545628). In addition, each of this value of heritage designation (P1435) may incorporates qualifier as point in time (P585) or start time (P580) / end time (P582) which allows to manage the belonging to the category starting/extincion, as @Fralambert: mentioned. My pourpose is not only a data structure opinion but a compliment of the reason because the P1435 was created: reduce the number of properties that define specific list. Their existence allows to create infoboxes that show automatically WD data, as you can see a ca:Parc Nacional de Yosemite. Thanks to understand my reasons. --Amadalvarez (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There can't be such an obvious repetition in the database, on every single element that has IUCN protected areas category (P814). So I believe it is the Wikipedia template that will have to adapt. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thierry Caro: Or accept that IUCN protected areas category (P814), perhaps, only perhaps, should not exist as a property. Observe that no other heritage category exists as a property (ex.: why UNESCO World Heritage Sites is not a property ?). As you very well know, the dozens of properties related with heritage (cultural or natural. Both templates are you & Fralambert maintained.) hold the ID or level protection. Any way, if you don't like I repeat the item's level protection of UICN, I can manage the IUCN protected areas category (P814) as I do with IDs properties without problem. However, I need to include in the P1435 values the reference that the item is included in UICN, for instance, with the generic item IUCN management category (Q3679744). The reason is due the template take the P1435 list as a "index" of protections granted to the element and, then, it goes to get the correspondent ID property. Get directly the ID property without consider the content of P1435 as a index it's not so easy, because "a priori" the template doesn't know which property has the element (with the considerable resource consume trying all possible), and even doesn't know when a new property has been created. I proceed to make the correspondent changes. Thank again for your understanding.--Amadalvarez (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. I hope this was helpful enough. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Heterogeneous criteria in the management of protected area IDs

Hi, I'm working in handle the Wikidata property for authority control for protected areas (Q55978235) in order to show them in the geographical infoboxes, but there are no homegeneous definition among them.

The management of heritage protections has the P1435 that concentrates its protections and indicates which ID properties must be informed.
However, the management of protected natural areas and its ID property does not follow a homogeneous treatment.

I built a comparative table to show which are the main features of the 36 ID properties (P31 = Q55978235).
In the "Related with protection ID" column we can observe that:

• 5 properties use the P1435 with the same logic as in heritage
• 2 properties use P31 to indicate unequivocally what protection they have
• 29 properties have no other indications. In these cases, to know if the item has any kind of protection, we need to check the existence of any of the (until now) 29 ID properties. This procedure is inefficient and requires maintenance every time a new protection is created.

So,

• Is there any criteria to define the properties of ID with homogeneous characteristics?
• Do you consider that they should exist?
• There would be some problem using the P1435 in all cases using its corresponding Wikidata item of this property (P1629) ?

Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is not all of your «protected areas» are protected areas. The reason of Ramsar site (Q20905436) to be in heritage designation (P1435) is more that not all the Ramsar site are protected areas. Like Lake Saint Pierre (Q842881) is just a lake and don't have particular status at whole. The lake juste append to be designated as a Ramsar site. For Lac-Saint-Pierre Biosphere Reserve (Q3457176), who include de lake and surronding areas, there is a organisation who manage the biosphere reserve (Q158454). --Fralambert (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Fralambert:. Excuse me, probably I do not explain correctly. My concern is not about what is and what not a "protected area", but with ontology of this topic. We do not have homogeneous treatment on "how to handle the protection ID properties of the item", because 7 of them are "pointed" by any another statement (may be P31 or P1435, in function of its protection), but the others 29 authority control for protected areas IDs are equated to the rest of common identifiers as GeoNames ID (P1566), VIAF ID (P214) or SummitPost ID (P3309). Do not detect easily (to filling a infobox from WD) this IDs complicates the code and its maintenance when new IDs are created. Probably, some of this 29 are just an inventory and not really an "official protection with an organisation to protect it", but some other could be a local authorities IDs as NL CR AUT ID (P691) that should have same consideration as Ramsar site (Q20905436), for instance.

That's why my pourpose is, in fact, a change in the ontology that:

• likely it happens in heritage, to include in P1435 the list of ID properties that have a protection authority organisation behind. Even if this authority is who manage the area (ex.:biosphere reserve (Q158454)) or who protect it (ex.:Natura 2000 protected area (Q15069452)). It includes to incorporate too the IUCN protected areas category (P814), now defined as Wikidata property related to protected areas (Q27642681) instead of Wikidata property for authority control for protected areas (Q55978235).
  • obviously it can hold the qualifiers defined in P1435, for instance, the data start/end of protection that now we do not have in most of the situations.
  • it would be interesting, but not urgent nor mandatory, to extend this homogenization to the IDs that are controlled by P31. For instance, Lac-Saint-Pierre Biosphere Reserve (Q3457176) is biosphere reserve (Q158454) and Gulf of Porto: Calanche of Piana, Gulf of Girolata, Scandola Reserve (Q15728421) is a natural World Heritage Site (Q9259). Both of them are not a specific point, but a set, an assembly of places. Both are protected by UNESCO in differents categories. Why do not we manage the protection IDs in the same way ontologically?
• do not include in P1435 those that are just an inventory of places. Probably, most of the 29 IDs belong to this group.

Please, consider this pourpose as an open discussion to improve data structure to make easier the access from software tools.

Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

EdouardHue
VIGNERON
Thierry Caro
Paul Mackay
Pigsonthewing
Fralambert
Holger1959
Dhx1
Derzno
GPSLeo
Tris T7 ^{TT me}
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk)
Pmau
Olea

Notified participants of WikiProject Protected areas Some comments about the previous pourpose ?. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There is some work to be done,for sure, but to be perfectly honest, I am not sure I understand what is at stake here. So if you are certain you are doing good, go for it. Otherwise you'll need to come with a newer explanation for me. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

From what I understand, you want every item using an identifier listed as a property for the control of protected areas to also have a P1435 statement. Well, as Fralambert said, it is complicated. When the item is clearly named as a protected area (XXX national park for indtance), P31 should be used instead. Only when the item is a geographical feature (a lake, a mountain) that happens to be protected should P1435 be used. But it is for sure an uncertain ground we are moving on and yes, you're right, eventually things are a bit messy. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Thierry Caro: You understood correcctly my pourpose. Is true that in some cases P31 is enough. However, the heterogenous way to know that the item is protected and what is the protected ID to get, add difficulty to handle this bloc of information. My experience using P1435 for heritage tells that the easy way to handle IDs is when all of them have a homogeneous ontology.

If you don't mind, I'll prepare a roadmap to implement the changes in order to document it. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

EdouardHue
VIGNERON
Thierry Caro
Paul Mackay
Pigsonthewing
Fralambert
Holger1959
Dhx1
Derzno
GPSLeo
Tris T7 ^{TT me}
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk)
Pmau
Olea

Notified participants of WikiProject Protected areas @Ahoerstemeier: As I told in my last message to @Thierry Caro:, I draw my proposal of change with an analysis of each property to determine which ones correspond to an official protection and which are identifiers of a list or a database. There is also a list of the changes that should be made. I invite all of you to move to Wikidata:WikiProject Protected areas/Properties/Ontology to debate and agree on the proposed changes. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

How to link Natura2000 protected areas with nationally protected areas

Over at the Wikidata:WikiProject Protected areas in Germany we have already created all the Natura 2000 protected area (Q15069452) in Germany, and are now busy in working through the nationally protected areas. Those of one Natura2000 sub-class, Special Area of Conservation (Q1191622), requires nationally protected areas covering the majority of the European protected area. Yet we are unsure how to best link the two:

• has part(s) (P527), part of (P361) would indicate the hierarchy, that the European protection requires the national one.
• territory overlaps (P3179) gives the link as well, but without any hierarchy (located in protected area (P3018) could be used as well, but that seems more to link with items which are not protected areas)

However, IMHO "part of" would be the wrong choice as it means too much, as the two kinds of protected areas are legally independent, they usually don't cover the same area (sometimes one national protected area covers more than one European, though usually one or more national make up one European; often parts of the area is only on the national, and other parts only in the European protected area), and this all only applies for this one sub-class, the other two Natura2000 classes don't have this requirement. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ahoerstemeier: Left me check if I understood you. Are you talking about cases like Mittlerer Thüringer Wald westlich Oberhof (Q60603100) and Mittlerer Thüringer Wald westlich Oberhof (Q60882182), both related with the same Natura 2000 site ID (P3425) (DE5229301) ?. If "yes", you're in the same labyrinth I was a month ago. For instance in the " Mittlerer Thüringer Wald" case, you have just one ID for all Natura 2000 protection that may exist (in this case, 3: SPA, SCI, SAC. So, you have created 2 items for one area, and as they have the same P3425, it marks constrain.

I'm working in a proposal to full review the management of natural protections, and their IDs. In a few days I'll finish it and I'll share with the project participants to get suggestion and, if it's ok, approved and deploy the changes. In a few words I propose to align the management of "natural protections" as it is done with "heritage/cultural protection". It means, to hold the "protections code (no the IDs) of the item" in heritage designation (P1435) and gather all the "protection IDs properties" as identificators. The proposal avoid to use P31, P814 and some others special things as indicator of "what protection item has". If you want to see an example item to understand my short explanation, see Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici National Park (Q1470066). Don't worry by constrains it shows, because I'm working with new method and old controls (only in this item). Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Amadalvarez: No, the issue you mention is another open one, whether to avoid the Natura2000-ID constraint violations, or those of the WDPA-Id. The issue I was asking is how to best link e.g. Felsenmeer (Q47003806) with Felsenmeer mit Höhlen (Q47003821), as those are almost covering the same area and the nationally protected area is mandatory for the Natura2000 area to become SAC, and not just SCI. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ahoerstemeier: OK. So, my choice should be territory overlaps (P3179). If you don't mind, I'll invite to the discussion of ontology changes, when I finish. Thank, Amadalvarez (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

protected region scheme

Please see Wikidata:Property proposal/protected region scheme. --- Jura 17:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Nature preserve/reserve and annotating "free public access/no cost" and "things to do"

Firstly, I have been adding many of the recent Wildlands Conservancy acquisitions that are free public lands where all have "hiking", and some have "fishing", "birdwatching" etc. I am already using has facility (P912) to make the Amenities such as Information Kiosks and free public parking. But I do not know how to mark the "things to do" when appropriate. Which property to use for that? Example (scroll down): https://wildlandsconservancy.org/preserves/aspenglen which is Aspen Glen Reserve (Q110336383).

Finally, in Schema.org we added the boolean property https://schema.org/publicAccess and https://schema.org/isAccessibleForFree and I am wondering which property in Wikidata is equivalent to that to allow annotating that a nature preserve/reserve is "public access" however it might be free or not? --Thadguidry (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thadguidry You will probabbly to have to ask for a new property for the activities. As for the acces, the properties can't be boolean in Wikidata, but I imagine it could a property like Wi-Fi access (P2848) with as awnser no access, forbiden, pay access and free access. (notify @Thierry Caro so I know this is he's king of thing.) Fralambert (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thadguidry, Fralambert: I believe this is correct and we could use a new property. However, I must mention has use (P366) as something that would not be too far away from that new property. Is it close enough to prevent a creation though? I don't think so, as the new property could also be useful for events such as a fair (Q288514) that typically offers different kinds of activities we may want to list. And if it was already a stretch to use has use (P366) on items for places, it would be really weird to have it on items dedicated to events. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Fralambert, Thierry Caro: Thanks to both of you. In Schema.org, the closest property we have is in fact "offers" https://schema.org/offers where it can be an offer for product or service (free or not). Sometimes "use" or "usage" is only available if it is "offered". Other times, parks, fairs, etc. might afford public services as a given, whether listed or not. In the case of a nature park... it might simply be "nature" or nature viewing", but that's not something "offered" but "expected". I totally agree that a new property is likely needed. I've deep dived into our Schema.org and we don't have anything close to something like "activities" except "offers" and when it comes to accommodations concerning around a https://schema.org/TouristAttraction , we have https://schema.org/amenityFeature but that's for amenities as defined in the Accommodation Ontology we borrowed and worked with Martin Hepp on http://ontologies.sti-innsbruck.at/acco/ns.html --Thadguidry (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Can either of you propose that new property? Would it simply be called "activity" ? FYI, This would also align quite well to Google, Bing, Yandex having similar lookup services such as https://www.google.com/search?q=activities+near+me as well as https://www.recreation.gov like https://www.recreation.gov/search?q=boating and several other European and international lookup services. What do you think? --Thadguidry (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Thadguidry We can propose a new property, but like @Thierry Caro, this is probably to near of has use (P366) to be accepted. Also I tested P366 of Bonnechere Provincial Park (Q3364662) and it seam to work fine. The only activity I don't find is the "Discovery program". Fralambert (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Thierry Caro Although I completely understand has use (P366) and I am a very strong advocate of not inventing new properties when we can, I think that has use (P366) is overly broad and doesn't capture the nuanced needs of human activity (Q61788060)...I'd still like to see if we could connect the dots with a true new property... the dots therein being connected strongly somehow to human activity (Q61788060). Although, all it takes is a SPARQL query to show me proof that it's not needed. Can we easily query a few tourist location subtypes (without knowing or caring WHAT those subtypes are) and where the has use (P366) has a value of fishing (Q14373) for example? --Thadguidry (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)