Wikidata:Property proposal/height above ground level

located at a height

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Done: located at a height (P14788) (Talk and documentation)

Description	a property intended to indicate the height of any objects from the ground
Represents	height above ground level (Q323170)
Data type	Quantity
Domain	item
Example 1	Green Dome (Q727042)→20 meters
Example 2	Seventh Heaven (Q16695855)→328 meters
Example 3	Angel weather vane of the Peter and Paul Cathedral (Q64364596)→120 meters
Planned use	I will add information about the heights of significant objects that are above the earth's surface
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
See also	focal height (P2923), height (P2048)
Single-value constraint	yes

Motivation

I'll be brief - it seems to me that this is a fairly obvious property that should have appeared a long time ago.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miikul (talk • contribs) at 20:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC).

Discussion

•  Leaning support Makes sense. Not to be confused with elevation above sea level (P2044), which is similar, but instead measures the height above sea level rather than ground level. This property would be useful for objects that aren't directly connected to the ground. That said, I think "ground level" can be somewhat ambiguous, thinking of Chongqing as being an extreme example. But maybe it's okay so long as there's some source that describes the object as being at a certain height. And in many cases there's no ambiguity. -- Yirba (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• I think we need to set property constraint on physico-geographical object (Q20719696) region (Q82794) and populated place (Q123964505), they are usually measured from the height above mean sea level (Q6452016).I think this would be a good way to resolve this potential ambiguity. Miikul (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  •  Leaning support I tend to agree with @Yirba for the same reasons as them JhowieNitnek (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

•  Support but I struggle to think of examples that are not objects placed on top of other objects, so I think we could restrict it to those classes. Vicarage (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
•  Conditional support — I agree with @Yirba and @Vicarage that this property is useful but needs stricter constraints to avoid overlapping with elevation above sea level (P2044)) and height (P2048).

Specifically, I support this property only if these constraints are implemented:

1. Exclude physico-geographical object (Q20719696), region (Q82794), and populated place (Q123964505) — these use mean sea level, not ground level.
2. Restrict to objects placed on or attached to other structures (e.g., domes, antennas, statues, weather vanes) — as @Vicarage suggested.
3. Keep the single-value constraint — an object has one ground level.
4. Clarify the description to state: "height of an object above the ground level of the structure or terrain it sits on, excluding the object's own structural height."

With these changes, this property cleanly fills the gap between elevation above sea level (P2044) and height (P2048). SonalDahanayaka ^(Talk) 04:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

About #2 .... Something like this? Just so that a notification appears that when specifying the height from the ground, the object on which the described object is located must also be indicated? If I understood correctly, then I agree with you. Miikul (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Miikul: Yes, exactly — that's the perfect example. Adding location (P276) (location) to indicate the supporting structure alongside the height above ground is exactly what I meant by condition #2. With @Vicarage's base-clarification too, my conditions are fully satisfied. Upgrading to  Support. SonalDahanayaka (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

location (P276) rather than part of (P361) ??? Of your examples The Green Dome is already marked as part of a mosque, but the weather vane has a location. I'd allow both. Vicarage (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vicarage: Good point — allowing both location (P276) and part of (P361) makes sense depending on the relationship. No objection from me. SonalDahanayaka (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

"height of the base of an object", so its the bottom of a spire, not its middle or top. Vicarage (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

•  Support JhowieNitnek (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• @Vicarage, Yirba: Would you like to give your final opinion based on the response? -- Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Still  Support, proposer responded to suggestions. Vicarage (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. Upgrade to full  Support. --Yirba (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Yirba, Miikul, JhowieNitnek, Vicarage, SonalDahanayaka:  Created as located at a height (P14788). Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)