-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 187
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
Simplifying locations.geojson #339
Comments
I agree with
But to me, I do not see the advantage of including zones in stops.txt.
But then information on zones will be split between two files, so two files still have to be referenced. Why do stops and zones need to live in the same file? It seems redundant to list zones in stops.txt when they will already exist with an Setting aside the existence of location_groups.txt for a moment, if you still need to reference locations.geojson somewhere along the line, isn’t referencing a
I think it's unlikely that this would become an issue, more so if we simplify the locations.geojson file. First, what kind of changes to the attributes of stops are likely and likely to affect zones as well? Secondly, including zones in stops.txt doesn't guarantee the necessity to maintain parity with other files in the event that there is some sort of change to the spec in this way; there would still be a locations.geojson file, a location_groups.txt file, and potentially others down the road, to deal with. |
The last, 'MutliLineString', I'm not so sure about. A polygon could accomplish the same but a multiline seems like the right way to indicate that a specific set of roads within a polygon is the service area. I'm also a little unclear on question of 'zone_id', and will need to review the Fares v2 spec again before I feel like I can comment on that. Generally, however, I support this change. |
If the two objectives are to
I'm thinking about something like:
|
I haven't yet heard a good justification for adding zones to the In addition, I don't think zones need attributes akin to @e-lo IMO, those kinds of changes would have been better suited for the drafting stage of the spec. Given the maturity of Flex, I personally think the community needs to focus on addressing blockers to getting the spec to PR status rather than proposing alternative files/key relationships. |
Fair enough. Happy to commit to the process to get it approved. |
OBA and OTP only support a subset of the available geometry types anyway so I'm ok with allowing only a subset of the available Geojson geometry types. I'm with @westontrillium when it comes to moving stop_name, stop_description into stops.txt. You already need to parse both files to get a complete picture so you might as well keep all the information about a zone in one place. I do believe however that zone names and descriptions are useful as they can give hints to a user about why they can be picked up in one place but not another one a few meters down the street. In OTP we've settled on the following implementation. The start point of a flex leg has the name I would not vote -1 on the moving of the properties into stops.txt as I can see the benefits of having all the information in one place. |
After a discussion with @tzujenchanmbd, I am closing this issue, it has been included in #433 |
This issue relates to the GTFS-Flex proposal, and is opened following a series of roundtable discussion to resolve the outstanding issues with the proposal. These discussions were hosted by MobilityData and attended by various stakeholders within the GTFS community.
You can find the GTFS-Flex proposal here: https://github.com/MobilityData/gtfs-flex/blob/master/spec/reference.md
The file
locations.geojson
is based on the geoJSON format defined by RFC 7946.In the current GTFS-Flex proposal, the file
locations.geojson
is structured as follows:It is possible to simplify
locations.geojson
and to tailor it to GTFS-Flex while remaining compliant with RFC 7946. We propose the following changes:locations.geojson
lighterproperties
and all fields that fall under it (those will be described instops.txt
)Point
,MultiPoint
,Linestring
, andMutiLineString
from the list of options forGeometry.Type
since there is no need to define points or lines inlocations.geojson
locations.geojson
to create the zone (ID and geometry)stops.txt
to associate attributes to the zone (stop_name
,stop_desc
,zone_id
,stop_url
, and others)This means that zones are created in
locations.geojson
, and then listed with all other stops instops.txt
to associate attributes to the zone (some fields such asstops.stop_lat
andstops.stop_lon
will be forbidden when a record instops.txt
corresponds to a zone)The advantages to doing this are:
stops.txt
(no need to maintain field parity withlocations.geojson
)With these changes, the file
locations.geojson
will be structured as follows:If there is a general consensus on proceeding with this option, we can post a proposal of how to modify the files and fields in
stops.txt
(and other files liketransfers.txt
,pathways.txt
,levels.txt
, andfare_leg_rules.txt
) to accommodate GeoJSON locations.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: