Item talk:Q6

Confusing labeling and usage

This item Q6 should represent the class of subject to be set with Property:P2, IMHO. So "relation" and not "relation type". There is "type" Item:Q798 which should contain the labeling and descriptions from the current content of the Q6 here. Or am I on the wrong track? --Chris2map (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this will answer your question: [1]. If all you mean is to change the label from "relation type" to "relation", then yes, I think so too. Q798 is just a key, so it should be treated as other keys (with no label). maro21 11:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

But we must consider that there are three other properties containing "relation type": Property:P40, Property:P41, Property:P43. So maybe "relation type" was justified after all. I haven't thought about which is better and whether "relation type" is justified. maro21 11:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got it - it should stay "relation type", because e.g. route relation is not a relation, but a relation type. A relation would be e.g. https://osm.org/relation/2222656. maro21 11:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for following up. I agree with you. Let's leave the labels as they are. Otherwise it will be splitting hairs. The only thing I see room for improvement is the description. IMO something simple like "A specific relation. Used with P2 (instance of)." --Chris2map (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The description can be improved - the example with multipolygon is not needed here I think, and popularity of this relation may change in the future. But "A specific relation" is not the same as relation type, a specific relation would be e.g. https://osm.org/relation/2222656 IMO. maro21 13:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm reaching my limits in terms of the best way to formulate it in English. I tried to avoid the verb determine, or any verb at all, since the actual process of determining is done by Key:type. --Chris2map (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)