Wikidata:Property proposal/number of tunnel tubes
number of tunnel tubes
editOriginally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Transportation
| Description | Number of parallel tubes in a tunnel. |
|---|---|
| Data type | Quantity |
| Domain | item, tunnel (Q44377) |
| Allowed units | none |
| Example 1 | Lærdal Tunnel (Q303563)→1 |
| Example 2 | Fosskollen tunnel (Q17773643)→3 |
| Example 3 | Drogden Tunnel (Q5713889)→4 (2 rail, 2 road) |
Motivation
editOn larger roads, a tunnel often has more than one parallel tube. The proposal is to have a property where you can add number of tubes for a tunnel as quantity. This can be useful to categorize tunnels by how many tubes they have. It will also be used in the infobox for tunnels on one or more wiki. I tried to figure out if I could somehow use number of spans (P1314) or number of lanes (P10367) for this purpose, but it doesn't make sense, and both will cause possible conflicts.
I think that we should only count tubes that are used for actual traffic, not those that are only used for infrastructure or evacuation. In this cross section illustration for Drogden (example 3), one can see two road tubes, two rail tubes, and three other tubes. This makes four tubes, because the latter three are not notable.
I have deliberately left "allowed values" blank for now, because I don't know what exists in the world. Lower number obviously has to be 1. But what is the highest number? I doubt that there are many tunnels in the world that have more than 4 or 5 tubes. I think that we're not into double figures.
Does anybody think that this property could have any use outside of only tunnels? In that case I'm open to change the proposal to include more versatility. Bergenga (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Discussion
edit
Comment I think has part(s) of the class (P2670) was designed for this, I don't think we really need a special property for it do we? All kinds of entities have "parts" that you can count. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- I must embarrasingly admit that this method was completely unknown to me. I have seen the use of P2670 some times, but never understood what actually made it different from P527. I might also have seen that P1114 has been used as a quialifier, but not actually realised that this was an alternative solution to having a "number of" property. I see that there is exactly one example of this use for tunnel tubes so far, so it's not exactly numerous. I guess this can be a solution to my needs, even if it is a bit more work to add, and a lot more complex to retrieve. Bergenga (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith I see your point about using has part(s) of the class (P2670), but I’m wondering why properties like number of spans (P1314), number of lanes (P10367) and number of platform tracks (P1103) still exist then. Wouldn’t it be more logical then to remove these properties and model something like East Bloomsburg Bridge (Q15133614)→has part(s) of the class (P2670)
bridge span (Q3538246) to replace number of spans (P1314) this to replace number of spans (P1314) for example? JhowieNitnek (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)quantity (P1114) 6 - Wel number of spans (P1314) and number of platform tracks (P1103) were created before has part(s) of the class (P2670) so they didn't have that available at the time. For number of lanes (P10367) it looks like this alternative was considered but there was sufficient support for a separate property in that case - see Wikidata:Property proposal/Nombre de voies routières ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Not done, @ArthurPSmith, Bergenga, JhowieNitnek: No consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. -- Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)