Open main menu

Wikidata talk:WikiProject Railways

instance of (P31)/P168 (P168)Edit

What's the best way to use these properties? instance of (P31) and railway station (Q55488) (or subclasses) or P168 (P168)? Multichill (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it too bad if we repeat railway station (Q55488) on both statements? Pikolas (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind, but I'm not sure what others think. Multichill (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I think using both is not big problem. --by ReviDCMG at 04:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I added missing instance of to clear some of these from the Netherlands. Multichill (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I would also say use both as long as the two properties exist (though I would clearly prefer merging P168 (P168) into p31).
I am wondering if we shouldn't split railway station into two: point in the line and station building. The reason for it is that if things like "construction date" can be ambiguous, especially if the building gets rebuilt. Also, I have seen that a bot adds "part of: X line" to items about stations and that does not seem correct if the item is about a building.
By the way, should we only use railway station (Q55488) or should we also use some of its subclasses ? --Zolo (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have started a related topic at Wikidata:Project chat#Structure type conundrum. Any input will be appreciated. YLSS (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

'Adjacent station' or 'Next station' and 'Service' or 'Served by'Edit

Most large railway stations are served by more than one service so that they act as an interchange between those services.

Often two services will use the same physical track but each will stop at different stations so the adjacent station will vary depending on the service being considered.

Alternativel 1:

  • Reading station
    • Served by:Paddington to West of England
      • Next Station:Paddington
      • Direction:East
      • Next Station:Swindon
      • Direction:West
    • Served by:Paddington to Reading
      • Next station:Slough
      • Instance of:terminus

This doesn't work because the 'Served by:Paddington to West of England' claim has two 'Direction' qualifiers - 'East' and 'West' and it isn't obvious which qualifier applies to which 'Next station'.

Alternative 2:

  • Reading station
    • Next station:London Paddington
      • Service:Paddington to West of England
      • Direction:East
    • Next station:Slough
      • Service:Paddington to Reading
      • Direction:East
    • Instance of:terminus
      • Service:Paddington to Reading

Does that make sense? Filceolaire (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I mentioned on adjacent station (P197), the best way would probably adding adjacent station (P197) and using connecting line (P81) as a qualifier (multiple values possible). Example: Ostkreuz (Q660045). The line can have a name or number. If a station lies north or west is given by the coordinates. --JonnyJD (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
How about setting 'Direction' to Termination station? I have example on Byeongjeom Station (Q54309) and Seodongtan Station (Q54310). --by ReviDCMG at 04:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that the problem comes from the ambiguity of the word "line".
  1. the phyisical infrastructure. That seems to be the proper sense of the ohrase "rail line", at least in French. Things seems pretty simple here. Lines have a direction (a kilometer 1, a kilometer 2, etc., see the route map diagram in en:HS1). That means that each station will usually have just one next (and one previous) station per line. Whether trains stop at each station or not is irrelevant, as things are not about the trains, they are bout the tracks. Actually I am not perfectly clear how we relate this with real trains. I am not sure how to connect Paris to London: there are at least two lines (HS1, en:LGV Nord and perhaps a third one for the tunnel), and their direction are confliction (HS1 starts in London, LGV Nord starts in Paris)
That is a weird concept when translated to stations and lines. What is that "rail line" is that all tracks next to each other going in the same direction? Is that only a certain track (as in "two iron rails")? "Express Lines" often have different tracks that pass close to a station, but don't actually have any way to get out even if the train would stop. Additionally, such a "physical line" needs more coordinates to be properly represented rather than just the stations (stopping or not). Train lines don't really go straight everywhere. --JonnyJD (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. line in the sense of "usual service". This is the sense used in "metro line", and it is quite different from the other. Some "lines" of the Metro underground share the same rail tracks. Using this sense of the word "line" seems like the most natural solution for metro lines, but if we are going to adopt it for longer distance services, we are going to get into something extremely complicated, with potentially many next stations per station per line. --Zolo (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
So I would propose to:
use connecting line (P81)only for next station on the rail tracks (like it is on route schemas in Wikipedia)
create a new property: commercial routes served that would be like the central column in the services table of en:Folkestone Central railway station, but would need to be more precise to avoid ambiguity.
It makes things more complicated for sure, but I think it is the only way to keep things consistent, and to have the same level of details as Wikipedia. --Zolo (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Pitching in here too. I like adding adjacent station (P197) as the next station on the physical track. That seems to work well for the Netherlands. As a qualifier I sometimes use the connecting line. I was clicking around and ended up at en:Railway_line#Railway_line. I think that sums up our problem. Multichill (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
When describing the stations on a 'service' or 'line' we could use 'preceded by' and 'succeeded by' and keep 'adjacent station' for the next station on the physical track. Filceolaire (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Strong support for adding P197 only to next station on the physical track. In Switzerland, some lines have more stops during peak hours or a station is only served every second time. This makes it ambiguous if we would describe stations on a line.--Pasleim (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Against using only the "next station on the physical track", because what "the track" is, is not really well defined for now. However, which stops are served by a line and which are not is well defined. At least in Germany express lines that don't stop often are different lines altogether and mostly use different tracks (tracks that pass a station, differently "powered"). So having different adjacent stations with different connecting line qualifiers makes a lot of sense. I would not be opposed to adding an adjacent station without a qualifier when it is the "next" on the tracks, but nothing stops there, though. --JonnyJD (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Connected the NetherlandsEdit

I added adjacent station (P197) to every open station in the Netherlands. Not only train stations, but also the subway stations. Was quite a lot of work, but it's quite nice to be able to plot all of them on a map. Multichill (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am doing that by hand. --by ReviTCMG at 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
That's nice but I think we should first be clear on how we want to structure things (that is how do we relate P197 and and connecting line (P81), as discussed above). Also, it may be worth considering first what bots can do. For French stations, it seems that they could do almost everything. If we want to give adjactent stations on the infrastructure we can use pages like fr:Schéma de la ligne de Mantes-la-Jolie à Cherbourg and if we want to give next station served by the commercial service, we can use templates like those at the bottom of fr:Gare de Lisieux. --Zolo (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I looked at some border towns and doing that with a bot will be a challenge because next station is often not the adjacent station, but the next stop on a train running on the line. So be careful with importing that. Multichill (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Overview of connected stationsEdit

I made a kml dump of all the stations that are connected. You can view it in Google maps. Multichill (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Today I hacked up a Dynamic kml version. Multichill (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Railway servicesEdit

I'm missing some property like "train service serving station" or another wording for properly identifying on which stations stop high-speed trains, regional trains, conmuter trains, etc. Is there any property like that or should I start a property request?--Micru (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Some definitions:

  • 'Route/track': A physical track built as one project - though it can have various phases and extensions. Has properties: start date, length, guage, electrification system, loading guage, owner, maintained by.
  • 'Service': a commercial serving particular stations. Has properties: terminuses, frequency, punctuality, operator, ridership. Filceolaire (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
In the case of new build metro services the 'service' and the 'route' are often one and the same - but if it uses legacy route then they need separate items. Also a service will often use more than one route - The Eurostar for instance uses the HS1, the channel tunnel and the TGV Nord routes. For these reasons I think the item for the service needs to be separate from the item for the physical route.
Once each route and each service has it's own item then we need a property to link a station to the route it is on and to the services it is served by. We could use 'part of' for both of these or we could have two specific properties. I think that in this case it will be easier for queries and infoboxes if we have separate properties. 'Connecting line' is a bad name for this as 'line' could mean 'route' or could mean 'service'. Filceolaire (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We also need properties for the adjacent stations on each route and each service. Again these could be the same property or we could have two different properties. Filceolaire (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your definitions to differentiate service from route. I am not so sure that we need additional information for the adjacent stations (after all they are adjacent geographically, even if not served), but having the stations related to track and service it should be enough to filter which stations are served.--Micru (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
For 'Services' the 'adjacent station' would be the next station that is served. Filceolaire (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting to have "track adjacent train station + connecting line" and "service adjacent train station + connecting service"? I think that might work.--Micru (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. That is my suggestion. I'm not sure if 'adjacent station' should be used for both these cases or if we should have different properties - say use 'preceded by' / 'succeeded by' for service adjacent stations.
For new metro lines (not using legacy routes) the 'service' and the 'route' might be described in the same item but that item would, in those cases, be both an 'instance of:railway service' and an 'instance of:railway route'. Filceolaire (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to do a train station on paper using "adjacent train station by service" and it results in a humongous amount of statements/qualifiers (even more if you count the ones with different terminus station, or if you use 'preceded by' / 'succeeded by'). OTOH, using "served by transport service" is more compact but requires a bit of processing.--Micru (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

So I would say we need:

  1. a "station" property to be used in items about tracks and items about services that would list all relevant stations. I think we should have something like point kilométrique as a qualifier but I do not know what the technically correct generic term should be.
  2. adjacent station (P197) for the adjactent stations on the physical tracts on items about stations (should it include all stations, even freight stations, abandoned stations etc. ?) Thinking about it, I do not think it should use line qualifiers, because it would sometimes cause structural difficulties (Ashford and Calais are adjactent stations but they are not on the same line).
  3. next / previous station in service for items about stations, probably with the item for the service as a qualifier. This property may not by absoltely necessary, as it could be inferred from the list contained in the item about the service. But I think it could be useful, especially if the "point kilométrique" is missing, because it would then be difficult to know the order of the stations of the track. --Zolo (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
1. This 'station' property would be the inverse of the 'connecting line' property for stations except the 'station' property cannot show the sequence of stations. Pointe kilometrique could be used as a qulaifier but is, I think, better used as a property for stations.
2. Yes. I think we should show abandoned stations. See Deptford railway station (Q2170868) where I have listed the adjacent stations with time qualifiers for when they closed. In some cases it may be appropriate to list junctions as well, rather than treating them as part of a nearby station. Ashford and Calais are service adjacent stations on the Eurostar service but Folkestone is between them on the route. Folkestone and Ashford are adjacent stations on the HS1 route. Folkestone and Calais are adjacent stations on the Channel Tunnel route and on the Channel Tunnel Shuttle service. Filceolaire (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Include "railway station" in title or notEdit

On Wikipedia in most languages we include "railway station" in the title of the article. This is partly because it's called like that and it's for disambiguation. What should be the default here? I'm leaning toward not including it in the label. Multichill (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless it is really a part of the station's name, I don't think it should be included into the label. YLSS (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Q13588249 (Dead end station)Edit

I ran into Q13588249. Should we use this or not? Maybe dead-end station (Q55485) is better in some cases. Multichill (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe these two should be merged? Unless the creator of dead-end station (Q55485) intended it to be a terminus for a particular line in contrast to a terminus where all tracks are dead-end. If so, do we need such a distinction? I support referring somehow to one of these, but maybe it would be better to use instance of (P31) with an optional qualifier "Line X"? Because there is really no next station. YLSS (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Merged. Filceolaire (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Add station layout?Edit

How about adding station layout in wikidata? I don't know if it is possible but I think it is useful.

For example, en:higashi-Aomori Station

  1. Aoimori line | For hachinohe
  2. Aoimori line | For Aomori

Is it possible to add station layout at wikidata?--Konggaru (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think yes, with qulifier. But not sure if it works with Wikipedia. --by Revi레비 at 13:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


I've just finished the markup of all operational train-, metro- and tram-stations in Stockholm County (Q104231). If anyone has a moment to look at a few of them to make sure I have not missed or missused any important property, it would be appreciated. /Esquilo (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


I did some edits in Singapore to connect stations using adjacent station (P197). Some things that need to be done if people feel like helping:

See Punggol MRT/LRT station (Q3232625) for an item that looks quite well. You can see most of them on the map at . Multichill (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Using "connecting line" or "part of" in statementsEdit

The two properties, connecting line (P81) and part of (P361) seem to both work when used in statements; e.g. Tamachi Station as "part of" Yamanote Line, and Tamachi Station's "connecting line" being Yamanote Line. Recently the two have clashed (For example, in Gotanda Station (Q736018), both part of (P361) and connecting line (P81) are used). Is there any standard we need to set/that has already been set with regard to this? --Wanderer28 (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

How about using connecting line (P81) for service system and using part of (P361) for real line? For example, Ochanomizu station (Line) => Chuo line (rapid), Chuo-sobubline line // (part of) => Chuo main line, Sobu main line. --Konggaru (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
So connecting line (P81) will be used in statements/qualifiers regarding the stations themselves, while part of (P361) will be used in statements qualifiers regarding a section (which may have a different name/nickname) of a longer line? Or should both connecting line (P81) and part of (P361) both be used for statements in stations, each referring to the service being provided, and the track name itself, respectively?
The good thing is part of (P361) can be used more generally, so both are fine, but it is good to set standards. --Wanderer28 (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
To chime in a little bit, I think one way to do it is to use part of (P361) for the actual service line available. For instance, on the Wikipedia:Oslo Metro we have six different lines. They're all referenced to by their numbers, and can and have been changed for several stations at the same time. I think this is where part of (P361) should be used, while connecting line (P81) could be used for the item of which the physical line itself is.
For instance, the western part of line two in Oslo is all part of Kolsås Line, but was previously part of the service line six. Regardless of the connecting service line (e.g. 2), the physical line itself will usually never change (e.g. Kolsås Line). What do you think? Nitrolinken (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I think Nitrolinken's opinion is better than mine. Because connecting line (P81) is used for qualifiers and it was used for actural line at Tokyo Station. --Konggaru (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear I'm not completely off track; I've been trying to think how it would be most natural to do it, while taking querying into consideration. It quickly becomes hard to juggle the various options. So far, I've used connecting line (P81) for the service line numbered two, and part of (P361) to make the station a part of the physical railway item. So far this seems natural enough. I just really, really wish that the property adjacent station (P197) and its qualifiers would symmetrically duplicate itself! Nitrolinken (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I think both ways seem to be natural (which is why this problem cropped up in the first place). That aside, it's good to set standards so we don't have a mix up between how stations in different countries are done. So we shall follow Nitrolinken's option; use part of (P361) for the service and connecting line (P81) for actual physical line.
It would be nice if we could throw in a property called "connecting service"; and default the connecting service to the connecting line instead of using part of (P361).
Now if you'll excuse me, it's time to replace everything that I've done so far...--Wanderer28 (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, hold off Wanderer28! I meant it in the opposite way! I use part of (P361) for the physical line, while connecting line (P81) for the service line! I then use connecting line (P81) as a qualifier on adjacent stations too. I'm really sorry, I mustn't have been clear enough. :( Would you prefer to do it the other way? Nitrolinken (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh! I didn't read clearly enough. Sorry about that. Your example clearly shows that the service lines were using connecting line (P81). Okay, then, false alarm, and business as usual ;)--Wanderer28 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I've submitted a request to add the property "connecting service". Although this means a total redo of current progress, I think it will make things clearer than using part of (P361), since part of (P361) is a property that was designed to be used for more general uses; specifically I get the feel that part of (P361) is used in situations of subsets/supersets, where the type of the subset/superset remains the same. An example would be to put a connecting service as part of a connecting line (i.e. part of (P361) will be used as a qualifier in a statement for "connecting service"). However, part of (P361) shall not be used in statements for adjacent station (P197); both connecting line (P81) and "connecting service" will be used, since adjacent station (P197) can mean the "next point on any line, physical or not" (i.e. the next station that belongs to the physical track in the specified direction, and the next station in a service). What do you guys think? --Wanderer28 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not a bad idea! Though, it does—as you say—put a bit more effort into redoing any qualifiers used along with connecting line (P81), but I absolutely agree. A couple of weeks ago I read your reply, and I couldn't quite wrap my head around it – thinking that part of (P361) was enough. I definitely agree it was a good idea, and it seems it's already created! The only downside being its high property ID, heh. Perhaps some more rules should be added to the respective talk pages for the properties? Nitrolinken (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Good map for EuropeEdit

Odder pointed out this map to me. It's in Polish, but seems to work in a lot of other European countries (including the Netherlands and Germany). Just zoom in a click the three boxes top right of the map. Multichill (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Properties to use about a stationEdit

Hello everybody! I'm starting with transport data on the website and I have a lot a questions.

My first one is : what property should we use for the opening and closing dates of a station ? inception (P571) is for an organisation or an object (and a station could be related to an object) but its opposite dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576) only talks about organisations. There is also service entry (P729) but it's only for subclass of (P279) device (Q1183543) and there is no opposite...

Thank you for your answers ! Kvardek du (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

opposite (Q1498321) is service retirement (P730) --Pustekuchen2014 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


Is someone aible to suggest a property for the German de:Bahnhofskategorie? --Pustekuchen2014 (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Pustekuchen2014: Make items for each category station and make these items subclass of railway station (Q55488) and just use instance of (P31).
We also seem to have Fernbahnhof (Q1406904), Regionalbahnhof (Q2138274) and S-Bahn station (Q1793804). Multichill (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, this is also an option, thank you! :-) Hope category 1 railway station (Q18681579) works and will be useful for others too. --Pustekuchen2014 (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Fucked-up article scopesEdit

What should we do with a case like the following:

  • dewiki has articles 4010, 4011 and 3570
  • enwiki has one article about all three
  • dawiki isn't quite clear because it's a tiny stub
  • itwiki has an article about the most part of 4010 and the rest 4011, and no article about 3570

Any suggestions? --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe one item matching to each entity precisely definable, and organized using adequate properties. But it depends of the case. Kvardek du (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
So, a specific case: Mannheim–Frankfurt railway (Q519477), Western Entrance to the Riedbahn (Q1307253) and w:de:Bahnstrecke Darmstadt–Worms. I altered the example above acordingly. / Ok, I think I just understood it for that case: Put everything in the item for 4010, and the remaining articles in their own items. I'll ask again in case I stumble upon something more complicated (hopefully not). --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

type of route number (P1671)Edit

Currently route number (P1671) is used for all kinds of numbering systems. Wouldn't it be more useful to have one Property for each numbering system? How else would a user know what type of number it is? --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

route number (P1671) only for a sectionEdit

How can I enter a number for only part of an article? Like when numbering system A says "route 4 goes from westcity via centerfort to eastvalley" and system B says "route 22 goes from southtown via centerfort to eastvalley". Even if the wikipedia articles would align to one of the systems, this would still be neccessary for another one. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

E7/W7 ShinkansenEdit

E7 Series Shinkansen (Q1574848) seems to be about a single train series, but most articles happen to deal with two similar ones, for which enwiki has separate articles. --Ricordisamoa 10:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Codes vs. codes vs. codes...Edit

jig (Q15331) / loading gauge (Q904003) and rolling stock (Q1414135)Edit

jig (Q15331) or loading gauge (Q904003) and rolling stock (Q1414135) are missing a similar property...

And also, what should be the property for non rail rolling stock (for transport lines) such as buses lines?

Gonioul (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


Hello, i'm documenting italian railways, starting with this one : Q1158780. I have a little question. While i found an item (type of electrification) to document the electrification technology (overhead line for exemple), i didn't find how to document the voltage and frequency , ie 3000 V DC for an italian line. Raminagrobis (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Raminagrobis: you can't yet, see Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic#voltage. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 11:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: What about Property:P930? 18:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

neutral section (Q8016555)Edit

This thing is more or less about overhead line (Q110701), how to find a proper English name? Neutral (Dead) Seation or Neutral (Dead) Zone? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And, is this WikiProject disappeared forever? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I've only just seen this page, so I don't know if it is dead. To answer your question, I'd say "neutral section" with "neutral zone", "dead seaction" and "dead zone" as aliases. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 11:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016Edit

Only this week left for comments: Wikidata:Wikimania 2016 (Thank you for translating this message). --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Railways Archive event IDEdit

I have proposed a property to link items to the Railways Archive event ID, but it has so far not attracted any attention. Please take a look at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control#Railways Archive event ID and leave comments (positive or negative). Thanks, Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 18:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Some interlanguage Babylon issuesEdit

In slovian languages and exUSSR camp:

  1. term Railway means railway that used only by railway trains, Railway transport not the same as Rail transport. Rail transport = (Railway transport (train transport) + Metro transport + Tram transport... etc.
  2. Railway halts are not subclass of railway stations. so on...--Avatar6 (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Same for germany and very likely also the other german-speaking countries. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


Jklamo informed me that I should've directed these questions here. I'm specifically working with the Pearl River Delta at the moment, but I'm certain these can apply generally.

  1. What would be the appropriate connections to make between Shenzhen Railway Station (Q837327), Luohu Station (Q843947), Luohu Port (Q877115), Lo Wu Control Point (Q23498332), and Lo Wu station (Q15169)?
  2. Is it necessary to have connecting line (P81) as a property of a railway station and as a qualifier to an adjacent station (P197)? (This question also applies to connecting service (P1192).)
  3. In a similar vein, does having one of the aforementioned connection properties require the inclusion of the other?
  4. Should two metro 'lines' be considered 'services' if they share the same trackage at any point? (Here I'm thinking of The Loop (Q2225459) and much of the Washington Metro (Q171221), but also of the concurrency of Line 3 (Q1326495) and Line 4 (Q1326504).) Would any two for which the prior condition applies require every other 'line' in the system to be referred to as a 'service' for consistency?
  5. What's the hierarchy between metro/rail systems, their component lines/services, and their stations? Are stations part of (P361) lines part of (P361) systems? (Or are stations and lines both part of (P361) systems? These questions apply in reverse using has part (P527).)
  6. How would direction (P560) work for rail lines that are in loops? (Should we just pick two or three stations and use them for orientation?)

Mahir256 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The simple questions to answer are 4 and 6. For 4, yes, they should be considered separate services if they are presented as separate services in reliable sources (e.g. system maps clearly treat the District line (Q211265) and Circle line (Q210321) as separate services at e.g. Cannon Street station (Q800615) even though they share the same tracks).
For 6, at a station I'd use clockwise direction (Q16726164)/anticlockwise direction (Q6692036) or whichever cardinal direction is travelled in to reach the next station (e.g. the Circle line (Q210321) from Cannon Street station (Q800615) to Mansion House tube station (Q1477336) is west (Q679)), depending what reliable sources describe it as. For the line as a whole, use clockwise direction (Q16726164)/anticlockwise direction (Q6692036) unless the convention in reliable sources is to use different descriptions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Thanks again for reminding me of the chat. Several thoughts cropped up later, listed per question:
  1. Would interchange station (P833) be appropriate for all five of those entities? (Or should the ports have a different relationship like adjacent building (P3032)?)
  2. If an adjacent station (P197) must be the next station on the same physical line, does that mean Hung Hom station (Q996591)'s adjacent station (P197) can't be Guangzhou East railway station (Q1185849) with connecting service (P1192) Shanghai–Kowloon Through Train (Q7488393) given that the Guangzhou–Kowloon Through Train (Q4178732) has an intervening stop at Changping railway station (Q5952651) yet visits both aforementioned stations?
  3. For the New York City Subway (Q7733), should a stop's adjacent station (P197)s have both connecting line (P81) and connecting service (P1192) as qualifiers?
  4. If at the moment there are no concurrencies in a metro system (so that calling the component lines 'lines' is appropriate), but later one is established, should all lines in the system be reclassified as 'services', or just the ones subject to the concurrency?
  5. no further thoughts on this
  6. If a station's adjacent station (P197) must have both connecting line (P81) and connecting service (P1192) as qualifiers, should the direction (P560) used be for the service?
My apologies if I should've combed through talk pages a little more for this information. Mahir256 (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I think for "line" vs "service" we should use whatever the reliable sources use. London Underground is the system I'm most familiar with and concurrencies are common with different lines (Circle + Hammersmith & City, Circle + Hammersmith & City + Metropolitan, Circle + Metropolitan, Circle + District, District + Piccadilly, District+Hammersmith & City, District+London Overground, Metropolitan+Piccadilly, Metropolitan+Jubilee, Bakerloo+London Overground+National Rail, London Overground+National Rail - see [1]). All your other questions are more complicated and/or I don't know the answer without discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: and how about Tochōmae Station (Q246186) in Toei Ōedo Line (Q384862), where train can stop twice? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Passenger numbersEdit

How should passenger numbers be entered?

The numbers for UK stations seem to be yearly figures and en:Template:Infobox GB station includes a number of fields for them. For example, in the the infobox on en:Ansdell and Fairhaven railway station. On the other hand, the numbers for Japanese stations seem to be given as daily averages, e.g. en:Mejiro Station.

The only thing I can think of is visitors per year (P1174) but I'm not sure if that's appropriate (does a passenger count as a visitor?), there doesn't seem to be any existing usage of it and I can't find anything that would work for daily numbers.

- Nikki (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nikki: Might be resolved by Wikidata:Property proposal/patronage? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Consider splitting maglev train (Q160047) View with Reasonator View with SQID?Edit

This item is now confusing to me because of the de facto usage of instance of (P31) maglev train (Q160047) (check here), looks like (by titles) some of links are describing the maglev railways (lines?), and some are maglev trains. So why not splitting? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Disused/former railway stations?Edit

How should disused, former, or demolished stations be recorded? Sam Wilson 10:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Samwilson: qualifiers are you friends. Wikipedia records what is correct now, Wikidata also includes what used to be the case. So we don't remove the instance of (P31) , but just add end time (P582). Also mind adjacent station (P197). You should qualify what would be previously the next and previous station and make what is currently the case rank preferred. Multichill (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Multichill: ah, that makes sense! Of course. :-) Thanks. I've been sorting out some Western Australian stations, and adding adjacent station (P197) as I go. Sam Wilson 11:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Why not instance of (P31) former railway station (Q4663385)? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Tool to visualise adjacent stationsEdit

While adding details for railway stations in Ukraine I found that there is no any good tool to visualise adjacent stations, stations without Latin name, etc. Here is a quick export I did using existing data. Working on tool which will display up to data details. Does any one knows/uses similar tool while entering data? Are there any tools to allow bulk data entry/updates?

Railway stations in Ukraine

--Maxim75 (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

For Wikiproject Delhi Metro I've been using WQS to visualize adjacent station (P197). While I have 'en' labels, I often use 'hi' labels too. The map and the graph visualizations have been fit for my purpose till now. Could you elaborate on what is missing in this? See the query (see both map and graph after running the query) —Prtksxna (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

New properties for locomotivesEdit


I'm documenting some locomotives on Wikidata to create Wikidata infoboxes on French Wikipedia. My guinea pig are for now SNCF 141.R (Q948166) and (a bit less) EMD GP9 (Q1275184).

I need some additional properties. Maybe I haven't found them, or maybe they just don't exist.

  • boiler's pressure (for steam locomotives)
  • valve gear (exists as Valve gear (Q1335143))
  • type of tender (which sometimes vary during the service)
  • preserved engines (that would also be useful for series of cars, planes...)
    • I don't know how common it is to have a different identification for the tender, but that's the case in France. I think I'll create separated items for tenders and link them to the locomotive item.

For the first case, if they exist, please point them to me. For the second case, what do you think of creating them?

Thanks, Trizek (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of any usable existing properties. Feel free to propose new ones (+and ping the project). Also setting up "Properties for rolling stock" to main page is a good idea. --Jklamo (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jklamo! I'll propose some properties and maybe more: I'm struggling with locomotives classifications at the moment. How to designate a 2-4-0 (Q2036617), while it is:
Trizek (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've created the 3 first proposals:

Trizek (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Bay platformsEdit

Is bay platform (Q877472) a subclass of siding platform (Q444212)? (Note that I added the English label and description for "siding platform" myself, as well as both statements, and I'm not sure if they're accurate.) Jc86035 (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I'm sorry but I'd love to   Oppose this claim, because of a very special Japanese platform style "切欠きホーム" (don't know the shape of it?) --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
That looks like a de:Zungenbahnsteig. But the enwiki article defines „bay platform“ as requiering trains to change direction, which isn’t always neccessary for trains stopping at a Zungenbahnsteig as there may be a switch right before the buffer stop. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
In german (and I guess also netherlandish), siding platform (Q444212) is labled „de:Stumpfgleis“ (dead-end track / terminal track / stub track), which has nothing to do with a platform. I’m not quite sure what the german label of bay platform (Q877472) („Kopfbahnsteig“) exactly means (couldn’t find a non-colloquial mention of it), but it’s at least not that far from „bay platform“ („Bahnsteig“ means „platform“ and „Kopf“ („head“) in a meaning as in dead-end station (Q55485) („Kopfbahnhof“, literally „head railway station“)). The german description of that item („a platform which can be driven on on one side“) imho doesn’t make sense though and should be improved. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Property proposalEdit

I have started Wikidata:Property proposal/rail direction, even though no one asked for it. It could be useful for adjacent station (P197) and terminus (P559) qualifiers. Jc86035 (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Good idea. I've replied on the proposal page. Sam Wilson 08:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Previous name for stationsEdit

I find it necessary to add a property for something like "previously known as". This could apply to line names or station names. I came across this problem when trying to list the termini of Seibu Shinjuku Line (Q195685); it was called Kumegawa(temp) for the brief moment it was terminus, but is now called Higashi-Murayama Station (Q5753740). Another way to do it would be to create a whole new Query for the old station. --Wanderer28 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

We already have official name (P1448), that may have multiple values with qualifiers like start time (P580) and end time (P582).--Jklamo (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that one out. Do we use that one as a qualifier also? And when specifying the language, should I say English or the native language? --Wanderer28 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde on the London UndergroundEdit

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) Jc86035 (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Jinoytommanjaly (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)   Notified participants of WikiProject Railways

Euston, we have a problem...

I have just been doing a QuickStatements run to add adjacent station (P197) information for the London Underground using a network file I found here.

But I now realise there's an issue. On English Wiki there is a single page for Marylebone station (Q649419), covering both the tube and the main line station. However on French wiki the underground station has its own page, Marylebone tube station (Q3296287).

So, if a Bakerloo line train is leaving Baker Street tube station (Q616218), travelling west, where does it go?

  • If we choose the single station, then an infobox on English wiki won't be able to interpret it.
  • If we choose the combined station, then an infobox on French wiki won't be able to interpret it.
  • If we choose both, then Baker Street will appear to have gained an extra service, and a graph plot of the line will appear to gain an extra bubble at Marylebone.

What to do?

The alternative would be to choose one, and tell infobox writers they may need to follow respectively part of (P361) or has part (P527) to get data about the other.

  • This has the advantage that it avoids data duplication: there would be a definite single place the data would live.
  • It has the disadvantage that infobox writers and wikidata editors may not realise this, so may either re-add data to the other one anyway; or not realise that the query they are running is missing hits (IMO duplicates probably stand out more obviously than missing data).

If we were to go for the latter choice, my vote would be that information ought be on the most specific item. Infobox editors would need to be sure to be on the look-out for has part (P527) statements, as would query-writers looking for information about journeys including potential heavy rail <-> tube connections.

What do people think?

(PS I'm aware of some glitches I have created with the QS run, eg . I will be moving on these tomorrow.

-- Jheald (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

As usual WD is more granular than wiki. So frwiki approach is better and linking to tube station item only. Less granular wiki should fetch data to its infoboxes from another item (yes, template at Marylebone station (Q649419) should fetch data from Marylebone tube station (Q3296287), note that at enwiki article there are two infoboxes, one for train station and one for tube station).--Jklamo (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I can go with that.
I have taken information about underground connections out of Marylebone station (Q649419) and London Paddington station (Q214788), but left them both still marked as instance of (P31) London Underground station (Q14562709) and part of (P361) London Underground (Q20075). There may be more to follow. Hope people think this is right. Jheald (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking at this further, however, for stations like fr:Kentish Town (métro de Londres), where the French article actually covers both the surface and the underground station, the Czech is only one line long but covers both stations, and there is only a single Commons category -- in cases like that, I see no value at all in splitting the item; it just breaks interwiki links for no good purpose. Yes, the article in Hungarian only covers the Underground, but it is little more than a stub, and it is not as if there is a separate article on the surface station. It appears that User:Kemenymate split a number of these items in August 2017. I don't think it is helpful, and (except when there is a wiki that has separate human-written articles) I intend to undo these splits and merge them back into a single item. Jheald (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: I have opened a thread on en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport to see whether there are views there on items which should not or should be split. The page also contains more information on where things currently are at the moment, i.e. which stations currently have split items on Wikidata, and which wikis have split articles. Jheald (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I think I had a similiar case. In the german national railway, operation of the passenger station aspect (platforms) and the railway operation aspect (tracks, switches) is handled by different companies: DB Station&Service (Q1152119) (SuS) for the former and DB Netz (Q896765) (Netz) for the latter. Sometimes, somthing that's one station for SuS is two stations for Netz. For example the tower station (Q55484) Q28806098, where I've used has part (P527). --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Also note that bus and tram stops named something like "train station", while technicly completely different, are sometimes (most articles on dewiki, IFOPT numbers) also described along with the actual train station. Should we create separate items for the abstract station and the infrastructure units? --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Rolling stockEdit

Is there any property for the rolling stock of a line yet? --Wanderer28 (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

What about item operated (P121) ? --Jklamo (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Station categories in ItalyEdit

I see we have a Property:Deutsche Bahn station category for German station categories. (In other words, all German stations are classified in one of seven ranks, 1 to 7). I would love to request a similar property for Italian railway stations: they are officially classified in one of four categories (platinum, gold, silver or bronze) by Rete Ferroviaria Italiana, the state-run owner of the Italian railway network.

Should I propose a new property called Rete Ferroviaria Italiana station category?

Or would it be better to propose a new property called station category, with a mandatory statement issued by, which could be either Deutsche Bahn or Rete Ferroviaria Italiana?

Thanks for your opinion! --Fabio Bettani (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

See here: Wikidata:Property proposal/station category --Fabio Bettani (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Fabio Bettani: I imported them --Sabas88 (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

chainage property?Edit

Hi there,
I'm adding a lot of basic information to Portuguese railway stations at the moment. I was wondering how to add the chainage (is that's the word in English for it?) to each item. I assume that, globally, every station has a specific chainage on the line. It could be added as a qualifier to connecting line (P81). Is there already a property for this? Any hints? Thanks, --Jcornelius (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jcornelius: I'm not sure what you mean by "chainage". Could you give us an example? – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 11:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pizza1016:: Every railway line has a chainage (something we call "Kilometrierung" in German), that means it has start (with the chainage 0,0 km) and an end (let's stay it's 123,5 km). On this railway line, there are several train station, and each of them has a certain point on this railway line, measured by the distance from the start (Train station A with 23,5 km; etc.). I would like to add this specific kilometer points to each train station and railway line item, but I think, we're missing the property for it. --Jcornelius (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jcornelius: Ahh, we don't really have a unique English word for that (we just call it "distance [from X]").
located on linear feature (P795)
  [railway line/service this station and the start station are located on]   edit
length (P2043) [distance from start station]±[error] kilometre
relative to (P2210) [start station]
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference
+ add value
I'll add this property to the project page and an example to located on linear feature (P795). – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 01:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
…and no, station distance isn't used in some regions. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 01:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

driving side (P1622) or similar for rail transport?Edit

driving side (P1622) is intended only for road transport. IMHO, it would be great having a similar property for rail transport, used on whole countries and on railroad line (Q728937). Further information: Right- and left-hand train traffic (Q14747203)) and en:Double-track railway#Handedness or de:Mehrgleisigkeit#Fahrordnung in den einzelnen Ländern; impressive how complex the situation is worldwide and inside countries.--Geogast (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Geogast: I think this could be useful; maybe you could create a property proposal for this (although justifying why both the new property and P1622 are needed). Jc86035 (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so far! I don't know much about property proposals. For me, it would be equally OK to broaden the permitted use of driving side (P1622), this is: allow its use for rail transport. But is it possible (or easy) to change the definition of an existing property?--Geogast (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Geogast: Since there are quite a few countries where trains run on the left but motor vehicles run on the right, I think a separate property could be warranted to avoid messing up the existing data. Creating a property proposal (see WD:Property proposal and linked subpages) basically just involves filling out some blanks in a template and writing some reasoning. Jc86035 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I did it: Wikidata:Property proposal/Railway traffic side. Discussion and support are very welcome ;-) --Geogast (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Et voilà: railway traffic side (P5658). Thanks, Jc86035, for encouraging me! Geogast (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking for good examples for railway stationsEdit

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) Jc86035 (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Jinoytommanjaly (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)   Notified participants of WikiProject Railways

I was updating stations of Bay Area Rapid Transit (Q610120) to create this map. A lot of information is still missing. I looked at Amsterdam Metro (Q260870) and it also quite a bit of missing data. Currently the project page just lists a bunch of properties, but doesn't give any guidance on how to use them. Do you have any examples of really well documented stations or maybe whole networks? These could be used as examples for completing other networks. Would be nice to have different types of examples (metro/train/high speed train) from different countries. We'll probably find inconsistencies, but at least we can start to document what we agree to disagree on for now. Multichill (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: I worked on Flinders Street (Q260986) for quite a bit and I don't think it turned out too bad. –Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: I guess I've done some work in this area; for the stations of the Tuen Ma line (Q5329661) (e.g. Yuen Long station (Q842071) I used QuickStatements mixed with manual fixes to add adjacent station (P197), sourced, and with start and end dates. (There wasn't much documentation on P197; I fleshed out the examples myself and I previously had to propose towards (P5051) for it as well.) I haven't really done much with other properties, though. Jc86035 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Modelling of one-way routesEdit

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) Jc86035 (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Jinoytommanjaly (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)   Notified participants of WikiProject Railways. I'm struggling a bit on how to model rail routes that are one-way only. Case in point:  

So let's take, for example, the blue line's Q28679548. It's logical that it should link to Q28679555 using adjacent station (P197) with the qualifier towards (P5051): Q61000623. But it also should link to its previous station, Q28679545. The problem is, a constraint in place makes it mandatory to also use towards (P5051). The problem here is that it can only get there by doing a complete loop around the line, so I don't know if tagging it with towards (P5051): Q26729254 would be correct.

A second, slightly more complicated problem related to this can be seen in the green line's Q28679554. Both Line 1 (Q30926891) and Line 2 (Q30926895) lines take the passenger to Q28679556, but they have different final stops. Should they have their own separate values, or can they be as they are right now? NMaia (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@NMaia: I'm surprised that it's taken until now to come up, considering the (relative) age of the property, but anyway, I think it could be done using has quality (P1552) qualifiers – "travel in opposite direction only" (i.e. passengers cannot travel from subject to object") and "travel in this direction only" (passengers cannot travel from object to subject). Alternatively, the property could be modified to only indicate travel from the subject station (so that travel in the opposite direction would be indicated by inverse statements), but this probably can't happen until it's possible to query inverse statements in MediaWiki; or a companion property to towards (P5051) could be proposed for the opposite direction of travel.
For your second question, I would use separate values for all stations, since this makes other qualifiers easier to add. What I've done on e.g. Tsuen Wan West station (Q841883) and Admiralty station (Q15167) is to have separate statements for each possible combination of terminus, line and adjacent station, in order to allow for valid start/end time statements, even when the actual adjacent station doesn't change. Jc86035 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
"travel in opposite direction only" may be misleading, for exmple if the line is bi-directional for freight, or for non-stopping passeger trains. Perhaps "passenger service in opposite direction only"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: In an ideal database physical lines would be separated completely from services (as they must be in OpenStreetMap), but I think explicitly stating "passenger services" would be appropriate. Jc86035 (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Constraints that stop us from modelling the real world are harmful, and should be changed or removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add an exception to the constraint instead of scrapping it altogether. Not sure what that could look like, though. NMaia (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@NMaia: Unfortunatelly and undisputely, this is the reason that why saying adjacent station (P197) as symmetric constraint (Q21510862) property is really unfair, at least for Asian countries, because trains in Asia are 45~55% not following the physical one-per-one route map, they can bypass some random stations in one direction, and bypass another set of stations in another direction. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Cancel symmetric constraint (Q21510862) of adjacent station (P197) againEdit

As pointed above, there are really examples in Asian countries, where the real-world "P197 values" are not one-per-one, trains can pass stations and even lines in many cases, thus we can't guarantee that they always follow the original railway networks. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I see two possible ways this can go: (1) an exception is added to the constraint, or (2) the constraint becomes non-mandatory, that is, an advice for editors. I think the team is working on these soft constraints AFAIK. NMaia (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC) -- Edit: Here it is what I meant. NMaia (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@NMaia, Liuxinyu970226: Perhaps a new property ("next station") could be created, so that data could be migrated once it's been verified to be accurate and complete (i.e. all statements and qualifiers correct)? Jc86035 (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jc86035: You mean, to treat this as follows (P155)+followed by (P156)-"burg"? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  Support per nom. -- 02:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Railways".