Wikidata talk:Roads task force

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

KML property proposal[edit]

There is currently a proposal to create a new property to store links to KML data. See Wikidata:Property proposal/Place#KML link to read the proposal and comment. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Parameter used in Template:Roaditem[edit]

What means the parameter maint, aux, sys in the Template:Roaditem. Please keep the user who do not speak English so well. --Labant (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This refers to the properties on the main page: the road maintenance parameter, and the highway system parameter. The aux parameter is not used for anything yet. --Rschen7754 20:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I have created a documentation page here. I hope i did it right --Labant (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for starting it - I've been busy over the last few months and haven't gotten to it. Looks good so far. --Rschen7754 08:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Error message[edit]

The page Wikidata:Roads task force/Deutschland displays the error message "504 Gateway Time-out" if I want to edit the page. --Labant (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like a server error; there's nothing we can do about it. For what it's worth, it works for me. Try it again. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
If I log out, then I can edit the page. It must be due to my user settings well. I will search. --Labant (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the german language: Ist ein alter Fehler, der Auftritt, wenn man mit dem "falschen" Server sich in Wikidata einloggt, ich sprech aus eigener Erfahrung. Es hilft ausloggen und dann unter www.wikidata.org sich wieder einzuloggen. Auf keinen Fall darf de.wikidata.org genommen werden, sonst tritt der Fehler wieder auf. -- feuerst – talk 11:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I found out if I switch off the preview, then you can edit the page. The error message "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes." comes after sending the edit. After few minutes, the page is accessible again and the changes are visible. Although flying blind, but a pragmatic solution. --Labant (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Shield property[edit]

Should we be adding historic shields to the shield property? i.e., for a US route shield, should we add the 1926, 1948, and 1961 versions of the shield, or reserve the shield property for the current shield, and create a new property for the old shields? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Since this will be called from the infobox, I don't think we should put them in the same property. --Rschen7754 21:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Proposed...Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Property "instance of" in Wikidata:Roads task force/Typical properties[edit]

Unfortunately, I must note that the description "Always 'road' (Q34442)" of the property "instance of" for the roads in Germany does not right. Reason on the example of Bundesstraße: By Bundesfernstraßengesetz (Mutatis mutandis in English "Federal Highway Act"), the property of the road is identified as a "Bundesstraße" through dedication (German term "Widmung"). The property "road" (German "Außerortsstraßen") is a term from the German law "Straßenverkehrsordnung" (Mutatis mutandis in English "Rules of the road"), which has nothing to do with the term "Fernstraße" in the "Bundesfernstraßengesetz". See also Straßensystem in Deutschland
The right property for this example is: Bundesstraße 1 is a instance of Bundesstraße.
--Labant (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like the item is mistagged in German, then. In English, Q34442 is linked to an article describing the generic concept of roads, without specifying whether it is a Bundesstraße or an Autobahn or a dirt farm access road. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Deutsch: In Deutschland haben wir ein anderes Straßensystem wie in den USA. Im US-amerikanischen System kenne ich mich nicht aus, da rede ich auch niemanden drein. Umgekehrt sollten andere nicht bestimmen, wie die Vorgaben für andere Staaten sein sollten, wenn sie diesbezüglich über kein oder nur ein unzureichendes Fachwissen verfügen. Um nicht falsch verstanden zu werden, ich habe nichts gegen Vorschläge. Aber Vorgaben nur weil es in den USA so ist, muss es auf der ganzen Welt so sein, damit bin ich nicht einverstanden.
Ich habe die Beschreibung auf Wikidata:Projektgruppe für hochrangige Straßen/Typische Eigenschaften entsprechend angepasst.
English: In Germany we have another road system as in the U.S.. I do not know the system in the United States. Since I do not speak into it. Conversely, others should not determine how the requirements for other states should be when they have no or insufficient expertise in this regard. Not to be misunderstood, I have nothing against proposals. But specifications only because it is in the U.S. so it must be so all over the world so I do not agree.
I have adjusted the description in Wikidata:Roads task force/Typical properties accordingly.
The English accessory is just an attempt of a translation. Only the German version is binding. >> Help --Labant (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I think I may not be communicating clearly here. The "instance of" property (P31) uses Q34442 because that statement merely says "This item is a road". It deliberately doesn't express what type of road it is. It is just a generic statement that item is an empty bit of land set aside for people to drive cars on. The type of road is expressed by P16, "highway system", which is used to state "This is a Bundesstraße" or "This is an Autobahn". This is not something that needs to be different in different countries. You appear to be trying to conflate these, and putting information that should be in P16 into P31. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Correct; P31 is supposed to be a very generic type (this is a road, as opposed to a city or a lake). The "highway system" property (Property:P16) is what should be used for that sort of thing that you are trying to use it for. --Rschen7754 06:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Deutsch: Es ist sinnlos mit euch zu diskutieren. Ihr arbeitet nicht an konstruktiven Lösungen! Macht doch, was ihr wollt!!! Ich werde jedenfalls diese falsche Zuordnung nicht einfügen!
English: It is pointless to discuss with you. You does not work on constructive solutions! Do whatever you want!!! I will not paste this misclassification!
The English accessory is just an attempt of a translation. Only the German version is binding. >> Help --Labant (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I have asked Feuerst to comment on this thread and help defuse the situation. I think the language barrier is interfering with the resolution of this discussion. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

While waiting for a translator to arrive, I did a little bit of digging. It looks like the problem we are having is that the most generic term in German for a road is "straße", which translates most closely to "street", and there is not a general term that equates to English "road". I am not sure how to resolve this. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer, but I've been on vacation a few days. In fact Scott5114 realized the problem: The English terms road and street are translated in German always the word "Straße", we distinguish between the two terms in the context. But that will not help us solving the problem. I'll try to explain it and I hope my English is good enough to understand it. The german Bundesstraße is a designation of a route, it is an immaterial term. So Bundesstraße 1 can only be an instance of the immaterial Bundesstraße, in this case we describe the legal context. If you say Bundesstraße 1 is an instance of road, you are mixing a spatial classification and an item classification. I understand what someone tries to explain, the better way will imho be a property "insists of", then you'll create a connection between the two classifications. By the way a highway has not to be a road, i.e. Washington State Route 339 was a ferry route. -- feuerst – talk 18:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Terminus property proposals[edit]

There is currently a proposal to create two new properties to store information about termini of linear features. See Wikidata:Property proposal/Place#Terminus and Wikidata:Property proposal/Place#Terminus direction to read the proposals and comment. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Deutsch: Ich habe dem Vorschlag zu den neuen Eigenschaften zugestimmt. Sie betreffen nur die Parameter der englischsprachigen Vorlage Template:Infobox road. In der deutschsprachigen Vorlage:Infobox hochrangige Straße werden diese Parameter nicht verwendet. In den Parametern terminus_a und terminus_b werden die Straßen bezeichnet, an denen die hochrangigen Straße beginnt bzw. endet. Die Parameter BEGINN-NAME und ENDE-NAME der deutschen Vorlage bezeichnen die Gemeinden, in denen die hochrangige Straße beginnt bzw. endet.
English: I have approved the proposal to the new properties. They affect only the parameters of the English Template:Infobox road. In the German template Vorlage:Infobox hochrangige Straße, these parameters are not in use. In the parameters terminus_a and terminus_b, the roads are meant, where the road begins and ends. The parameters BEGINN-NAME and ENDE-NAME in the German template are the municipalities meant where the road begins and ends.
The English accessory is just an attempt of a translation. Only the German version is binding. >> Help --Labant (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, the terminus_a and terminus_b nomenclature on English infobox road is just an arbitrary way of distinguishing which terminus is which (terminus_a is typically west/south, and terminus_b is east/north), but since we can specify this with the "terminus direction" qualifier on Wikidata, it can be done away with. The BEGINN-NAME and ENDE-NAME parameters can be expressed by using "is in the administrative unit (P131)" as a qualifier. (If you don't want to fill in the intersecting feature, or it's not relevant, it is possible to set the terminus property to "none" and still use P131.) —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
In the German task force integrating the statements (whether, and if so, which) in the Infobox has not even been discussed. An opinion which I have not yet. I wanted to represent only the facts/differences.--Labant (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Another property has been proposed to remedy a deficiency in the new terminus properties; see Wikidata:Property proposal/Place#Terminus location (en) / Ubacación del término (es). —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

German translation of Typical properties[edit]

Deutsch: Ich habe die Seite Wikidata:Projektgruppe für hochrangige Straßen/Typische Eigenschaften ins Deutsche übersetzt (siehe hier). Nun haben die Benutzer:Michgrig, Benutzer:Rschen7754 und Benutzer:Scott5114 an der englischsprachigen Version gearbeitet und in der deutschsprachigen Version ist dann das herausgekommen, alles wieder in Englisch. Ich bitte darum die deutschsprachige Übersetzung wiederherzustellen.
English: I have the page Wikidata:Roads task force/Typical properties translated into German (see here). Now the User:Michgrig, User:Rschen7754 and User:Scott5114 have worked on the English version and the German version is then emerged that, everything back into English. Please someone can restore the German translation again.
The English accessory is just an attempt of a translation. Only the German version is binding. >> Help --Labant (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
When you use the translation software, you should have the ability to see the old version of the translations. --Rschen7754 06:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I have made ​​the translation. --Labant (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
And thank you for translating. Face-smile.svg --Rschen7754 07:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Termini at borders[edit]

Now that we have the terminus location property, we can easily handle termini in cities, and we will be able to handle termini in between cities when the relative direction property is created. But how shall we handle termini at borders, such as between countries or states? Should we just have the terminus be "Canada", or "Mexico", or "Kansas", or whatever? For certain borders, items like Mexico–United States border (Q1057263) exist, but those may not exist for all international borders, and I doubt we would be able to get away with creating items for things like "Oklahoma-Kansas state line". —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Would it possibly work to include the highway the designation becomes in the next state? Like how South Dakota Highway 42 becomes Iowa Highway 9 at the border. TCN7JM 03:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
That would go in terminus (P559), which is used for intersecting features. I'm asking about what we should put in terminus location (P609), which is the newly created property for geographic location of termini. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, derp. A bit on the tired side I guess (admittedly trying to make an excuse). Anyway, I would actually try to be as specific as possible with the property. In the US and Canada, we may be able to mention what county/census division the route crosses into instead of just the state or country. TCN7JM 05:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Does that make the fact that the terminus is at a border explicit enough, though? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I look at this in the same way I look at is in the administrative territorial entity (P131). You use the most specific unit possible so that the most precise location of the place (in this case, the border) can be known easily. Another thing, too. If a highway from a different state is put in terminus (P559), that makes it pretty obvious that the terminus is at a border. TCN7JM 22:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Should any consideration be given to any location that exists in the jurisdiction that is being left (e.g. where US-169 crosses from Oklahoma to Kansas, it crosses from South Coffeyville, OK to Coffeyville, KS. Should South Coffeyville be noted, or just Coffeyville, KS?) —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this all comes back to the terminus property again. To me, it wouldn't make much sense to say the terminus is a road in Oklahoma, then say the terminus location is in Kansas. But that's just my opinion. TCN7JM 03:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
In the item Bundesstraße 1 (Q34438) I have inserted the statements according to the German Wiki-Infobox: The last municipality in Germany and the adjacent road in the Netherlands and Poland.--Labant (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is one of the terminus directions a geographical feature? Shouldn't it just be "west"? Also, I thought "terminus location" was to be used as a qualifier, not a separate property. TCN7JM 19:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Now I have talken the right "west". The second problem: I oriented myself on the Oklahoma State Highway 325 (Q2174691).--Labant (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, my bad. I misunderstood how the properties worked, but I know now. You are correct. Anyway, can you clarify a bit on your opinion on what to do at termini that exist at borders? Right now all I can understand is that you're following the German Wikipedia's infobox. TCN7JM 23:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The road ends right at the border and goes into road in the neighboring country → "Provinciale weg 278" is a road in the Netherlands → Dutch-German border → "Bundesstraße 1" runs through Germany → German-Polnish border → "Droga krajowa 22" is a road in Poland. (map)
I only hope that the word "terminus" was correctly translated into German ("Endpunkt") and also I have understood your question.--Labant (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the items on international borders exist, we're wondering what to do when the terminus is at a border that is less notable and doesn't deserve an item or an article. TCN7JM 00:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

←TCN7JM: if you haven't figured it out already, as I suspect you might have done, terminus location (P609) is not supposed to be used as a qualifier, because if we did that, then we would have the same problem (having to tag termini with the same location multiple times) we had when we were using is in the administrative territorial entity (P131) as a qualifier.

In other news, on Oklahoma State Highway 325 (Q2174691), which seems to be the de facto test item for terminus properties, I've added the western terminus as Union County (Q485020), as proposed here. Does this work well? My only concern is that it is not immediately clear that "Union County" is in New Mexico (as there is one highway, Oklahoma State Highway 58, which ends at a county line in Oklahoma). —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Uggh...oh well then. I guess the best possible thing would be to name the state for all termini then, because it's not immediately clear that the county is in a different state. TCN7JM 22:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be dependent on who the designating authority is. For example, for OK 325, I'd use New Mexico, while for I-5, I'd use either Canada or Canada–United States border. -happy5214 09:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, for a Washington state route that ended at the Canadian border, you'd advocate using British Columbia, not Canada–United States border? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes. British Columbia would, in my opinion, provide better context for a Washington state route than Canada or Canada–United States border. I'd also use BC for Interstate 5 in Washington. -happy5214 09:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Rschen7754 07:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I, too, support this idea. Is there anything else that needs to be addressed? TCN7JM 08:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a description of Happy's proposal to the typical properties page. Let me know if there are any issues with it so I can correct it before it gets marked for translation. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks good to me! TCN7JM 01:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

US: Tagging for state-detail items[edit]

It might be a good idea to tag items like Interstate 35 in Oklahoma with <part of (P361)> Interstate 35 if we're not already doing so. If nobody has any objection I will add it to the typical properties page. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems good. --Rschen7754 01:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Do it. TCN7JM 01:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Roads with multiple segments[edit]

Hey. So I was wondering what kind of standards we have in place for roads with multiple segments and how we're going to use terminus (P559) and terminus location (P609) within them. Since, say, South Dakota Highway 11 (Q750496) has one northern terminus and one southern terminus for each segment, listing two northern termini and two southern termini doesn't really work since it's impossible to discern which terminus belongs to which segment unless you're an expert with city names in the area and would know which segment is farther south than the other. Any thoughts on what to do regarding this issue? TCN7JM 06:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

When the number datatype comes, we could arbitrarily designate one segment as "1" and one as "2" (or 0 and 1, or something), probably by having the southern/westernmost segment be the first and continuing upward from there. Then a "highway segment" property could be created to be used as a qualifier. This could theoretically also be useful for Y-shaped highways. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
So do we just wait for the time being until that comes along? TCN7JM 23:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, now we have ordering and we can purposefully order one element above another... --Rschen7754 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Country property[edit]

So far, while there are a few items that do use Property:P17, most road items do not. I am proposing that we change this, to make it easier to design infoboxes, and to conform to the standard used by more geographical items. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 17:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I can run autolist to add the property, so don't worry about the work involved. --Rschen7754 17:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems fine to me (seeing that we don't have to manually add it to all 10000+ items). TCN7JM 17:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no objection, although I wonder if we really need to do it since in most cases this data should already be associated with a road because of the system parameter. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are international routes, and routes without a system, and at some point the system has to be tagged with the country too... --Rschen7754 08:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't hurt, only helps (me). -happy5214 08:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Now adding to the properties list, will add to the templates shortly. --Rschen7754 18:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

route number property proposal[edit]

I have proposed a property "route number" to be used on road articles, which would be the road number (Q3241753) that the road (or a section of the road) is part of, or in some cases, equivilent to. Please see/discuss at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place#route_number - Evad37 [talk] 08:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Roads task force -> Wikidata:WikiProject Roads[edit]

Please. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

But then you will need to have all the other task forces renamed... --Rschen7754 03:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Easy or hard, it could be done, as the last WikiProject still with old name. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course it could be done, but is it worth it? --Rschen7754 13:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)