This answer is perhaps a gloss on David's one. It is often useful to replace taking a quotient by forming the equivalence relation as a groupoid. Thus the initial situation you describe has the classical equivalence-relation-from-a-function form. This will work in any category with pullbacks as it is the pullback of f along itself. In a homotopy situation, such as you need, the analogue will be the homotopy pullback of $f$ along itself.

This does not form the quotient as such, but is, I maintain, better (especially in the presence of differential structures for instance).It corresponds to the idea that was sketched in the question, but is natural functorial and so less hassle(<- technical categorical term meaning 'less hassle'!). It is also going to give results that do not depend on the homotopy class of $f$ and that is often important especially if you are thinking of the simplicial sets as being weak infinity groupoids or similar. I believe there are extensions to quasicomplexes but do not have sources with me to check at the moment or to give chapter and verse.

This construction not only says two simplices in $Y$ are to be thought of as being the same but records WHY, and that is important.

This answer is perhaps a gloss on David's one. It is often useful to replace taking a quotient by forming the equivalence relation as a groupoid. Thus the initial situation you describe has the classical equivalence-relation-from-a-function form. This will work in any category with pullbacks as it is the pullback of f along itself. In a homotopy situation, such as you need, the analogue will be the homotopy pullback of $f$ along itself.

This does not form the quotient as such, but is, I maintain, better (especially in the presence of differential structures for instance).It corresponds to the idea that was sketched in the question, but is natural functorial and so less hassle(<- technical categorical term meaning 'less hassle'!). It is also going to give results that do not depend on the homotopy class of $f$ and that is often important especially if you are thinking of the simplicial sets as being weak infinity groupoids or similar. I believe there are extensions to quasicomplexes but do not have sources with me to check at the moment or to give chapter and verse.

This construction not only says two simplices in $Y$ are to be thought of as being the same but records WHY, and that is important.

(Edit: Thanks Tom. I should have said 'It is also going to give results that only depend on the homotopy class of $f$ ..')