Skip to content

Add that shapes should be included#470

Merged
isabelle-dr merged 2 commits intogoogle:masterfrom
isabelle-dr:shapes_recommended
Jul 18, 2024
Merged

Add that shapes should be included#470
isabelle-dr merged 2 commits intogoogle:masterfrom
isabelle-dr:shapes_recommended

Conversation

@isabelle-dr
Copy link
Collaborator

Context

This PR follow-up on issue #45, which received good engagement.
This originated form an issue by @e-lo for the GTFS Schedule Best Practices.
We'd like to eventually have the Best Practices and the specifications consolidated into one document, so we are incorporating new Best Practices directly into the spec (see efforts to merge the specifications and Best Practices here and here).

Proposal

This PR adds the following mention in shapes.txt description:

The shapes.txt file should be included for all route-based services (not for zone-based demand-responsive services).

Given that zone-based services can now be modeled in GTFS and don't need shapes.txt defined, I didn't modify the Presence type of shapes.txt to Recommended, and rather chose a "should" statement in its description.

Note that merging this PR means we'd add a WARNING in the Canonical GTFS Schedule Validator, which is the severity level for all GTFS Best Practices (spec should & recommended + everything in the Best Practices).

@isabelle-dr isabelle-dr added GTFS Schedule Issues and Pull Requests that focus on GTFS Schedule Change type: Functional Refers to modifications that significantly affect specification functionalities. Change type: Non-Functional Refers to important updates to the specification that do not significantly affect functionalities. and removed Change type: Functional Refers to modifications that significantly affect specification functionalities. labels Jun 3, 2024
@isabelle-dr isabelle-dr linked an issue Jun 3, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@isabelle-dr
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This PR has been open for at least 7 calendar days. I assume the lack of discussion in the PR means most comments were made in issue #459.

As per the Spec Amendment Process, I am opening a vote for making shapes.txt a recommended GTFS file.
Voting ends on 2024-07-17 at 23:59:59 UTC.

You can find previous discussions on the topic in issue #459.

@isabelle-dr isabelle-dr added the Vote to Test Community votes to determine whether the proposal is ready for testing. label Jul 3, 2024
@doconnoronca
Copy link
Contributor

+1 from TransSee

TransSee relies on shape data heavily and is significantly degraded when it's not present.

@gcamp
Copy link
Contributor

gcamp commented Jul 3, 2024

+1 Transit

@westontrillium
Copy link
Contributor

+1 Trillium

@skinkie
Copy link
Contributor

skinkie commented Jul 3, 2024

+1 OpenGeo

@drewda
Copy link

drewda commented Jul 3, 2024

+1 from @interline-io

@evansiroky
Copy link
Contributor

+1 Caltrans

@jfabi
Copy link
Contributor

jfabi commented Jul 4, 2024

+1 @mbta

@bijustrada360
Copy link

+1 strada360

@stevenmwhite
Copy link
Contributor

+1 GMV

@isabelle-dr
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The voting period ended on 2024-07-17 at 23:59:59 UTC.

With 9 votes in favor and no votes against, the vote passes.
The votes came from:

Thank you to everyone who participated!

@isabelle-dr isabelle-dr merged commit 38a74f9 into google:master Jul 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Change type: Non-Functional Refers to important updates to the specification that do not significantly affect functionalities. GTFS Schedule Issues and Pull Requests that focus on GTFS Schedule Vote to Test Community votes to determine whether the proposal is ready for testing.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Make Shapes a recommended file in GTFS

10 participants