-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 214
Add GTFS extended route_types #279
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't support these kind of changes. Google Maps is not the exclusive user of these datasets.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From cursorary observation of a small sample of datasets, these seem to be the more popular ones.
Very happy to revert that commit if these (official but unofficial) extensions are actually in use in the real world.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would say, these values should be update to recent TPEG changes, and then use all the TPEG values. It is a hierarchy anyway.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If it's desirable to synchronise with TPEG2-PTS (TS 21219-13:2020), that seems like a logical course of action. However, I don't personally have access to this specification (it comes at a cost of 178 CHF from the ISO webshop or £260 from the BSI webshop) to know the new values, and as far as I know they aren't publically available in isolation from the standard anywhere. I'm also unsure on the terms of the copyright for that standard and whether it'd be permissible to replicate a part of it in the GTFS specification.
Also, it may not be desirable to simply replicate the TPEG standard list of vehicle types, but actually only a subsection of it that is likely to be useful for data export in GTFS format. The intended uses of the two are different - TPEG is primarily interested in transmission of transport related information for immediate consumer use (e.g. traffic alerts in DAB radios, where it originated) - rather than describing a schedule or changes to it. The types of vehicle represented may not all be relevant to GTFS.
Then again, transit providers may already have systems which use the TPEG codes for use in different areas (e.g. issuing service alerts to broadcasters), so making the two instantly compatible may be beneficial.
Hard for me to know from my viewpoint! Would welcome thoughts from others.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think SIRI should be / is going to be updated. Already with a limited scope.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SIRI modes for the most part seem to be compatible here. The only difference is they don't have numeric values (they've just enums) - so in order to preserve compatibility with providers implementing the defacto Google extension, the original numbers would need to be preserved and any additions to be assigned new numbers.