Property talk:P3032
Documentation
building adjacent to the item
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3032#Symmetric, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3032#Type Q811979, Q63959448, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3032#Item P625, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3032#Item P17, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3032#Item P131, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3032#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3032#Entity types
|
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other adjacent things[edit]
Does this property need to be restricted to buildings? There are other, non-building entities out there that could benefit from adjacency information: parks, landforms, etc. My current interest is two shipwrecks, SMS Cormoran (Q326616) and Tokai Maru (Q16901792), which are in direct contact with each other in their common resting place. The adjacency is actually part of their interest: one from WW1 and the other from WW2. Could adjacent building (P3032) be expanded to cover such a situation? — Ipoellet (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I agree it could be broader - Salgo60 (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am inclined to change the en label to "adjacent to" (and correspondingly in a few other languages that I have confidence in). Objections? — Ipoellet (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think we had a proposal for something like that, but it didn't go through. Probably because somehow anything is near everything else.
--- Jura 04:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)- Can you link me to that discussion? — Ipoellet (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. I was working on Parque Calderón (Q23886742) (a square park/plaza in the middle of the city) and it struck me as very odd that listing the buildings on each side of it gives me an error. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- In the last week I've seem three cases where a park, or a place is adjacent to a building, and I agree that formulating "building adjacent to the item" seems strange to require that "item" is a building too. How broad should it be ? At the moment, it seems to be a "Building.AdjacentTo(Building)" relation, but the English description is formulated as "GeoItem.AdjacentTo(Building)". If we want a "GeoItem.AdjacentTo(Building)" we need remove the symmetric constraint Q21510862, and require a symmetric property "Building.AdjacentTo(GeoItem)" on the other element. The broader version "GeoItem.AdjacentTo(GeoItem)" would be simpler and in this case we could keep the symmetric constraint. Or the current property "Building.AdjacentTo(Building)" could be a subclass of a new broader "GeoItem.AdjacentTo(GeoItem)" ? --FoeNyx (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ipoellet: Any news on this? -- Darwin Ahoy! 18:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Support the idea of broadening the scope. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm hoping to open this discussion again about widening the scope of this property. I'm working on WikiProject IDEA and we're trying to represent find spots from archaeological excavations carried out in the early 20th century. The information provided by the available documentation is not as precise as it would be in modern excavations (i.e. no co-ordinate data provided) and objects are often described as being found "next to block X" or "beside wall Y", as well as being within a certain block of the city. We'd like to be able to use this property as a qualifier with 'location of discovery' (P189) to represent the find location as accurately as our information allows us to, but the current requirement of "Building.AdjacentTo(Building)" would currently be violated if we did so. Something broader like "GeoItem.AdjacentTo(GeoItem)", as suggested above would be very helpful. I have found some examples where geo items that are not both buildings have been using this property: Bulgaria Turkey Border Crossing #2949, Rentschler Heliport, Krymsky Val, 9-45, Leopold Canal, among many others, especially Churches described with 'adjacent building: cemetery', e.g.Église Saint-Leu de Bellebrune. What do people think? Could the parameters be widened? Or does anyone have suggestions of other properties that would better work for our information? ---JASHough (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC) @Ahc84:
