Talk:Q61467056

Fralambert, using heritage designation (P1435) was intentional. My rationale is as follows. Broadly speaking, there are 1) protected objects of class natural monument (Q23790) like individual trees, bodies of water or a like, for which their designated status isn't a defining characterstic and it wouldn't be natural to provide it as instance of (P31) value (P1435 is used for this purpose), and there are procted objects that essentially are what they are designated to be, e.g. different types of protected areas for which using P31 for designated status is plausbile. Using P1435 for both kinds of objects however makes use of properties more consistent and easier, then it isn't necessary to run different or complex queries for different types of protected objects in order to get their designated status. Is this approach problematic?

You might consider values of P1435 and P31 redundant to one anohter this way, one value being a subclass of another. I think it isn't necessarily a problem if broad categories (i.e. protected area (Q473972)) and specific statuses (i.e. nature reserve (Q45754521)), or defining and non-defining characteristics, are sort of kept apart this way. It seems similar to classification of persons that are instances of "human" and where values for some other properties (e.g. occupation, position held) may be considered as subclasses of "human".

I'm not planning to apply this on other countries than Estonia, but I think it would make sense for protected objects in other countries as well. For instance, all entities with WDPA ID (P809) seem to have certain designated status, this could be provided consistently as heritage designation (P1435) value. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:A449:9979:81B7:C920 07:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)