-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 215
Add NewRoutes to GTFS-RT to support dynamic service (#606) #621
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
Open
cleveramarquet
wants to merge
4
commits into
google:master
Choose a base branch
from
cleveramarquet:cleveramarquet-add-new-routes-proposal
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+81
−2
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a4aa723
Update gtfs-realtime.proto
cleveramarquet 315d4bc
Update gtfs-realtime.proto
cleveramarquet 6cf9c5b
add Route message and fields for sort order and dates
cleveramarquet f03724f
add route_sort_order and activation dates to Route message
cleveramarquet 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
As I did in the Google doc, I'm requesting this to be changed to an int so it can reflect the full range of extended route types. As a benefit this enum would then not have to be kept in sync with static GTFS.
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.
cc @hbruch
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 see your point about the extended route types. However, I used an enum here to stay consistent with how the rest of the current GTFS-RT specification handles route types. Perhaps we could stick with the enum for this PR to keep the scope focused on NewRoutes, and then address a global move to int32 for route types across the entire spec in a separate proposal?
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.
Well, since GTFS has ironclad backwards-compatibility guarantees, I don't think I will be able to convince the community that there are two ways to define the mode.
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.
100% agree with @leonardehrenfried.
We need extended route types support from the beginning so the feature can be useful.
(off topic: IMO the current GTFS route types should be deprecated and replaced with extended route types)
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've updated route_type to int32 to support extended types as suggested. Thanks for the catch!
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.
The move to
int32(should probably beuint32?) doesn't bother me, but it's really not obvious to me that extended route type is the way to go. There's been discussion in the past about this and it was contentiousThere 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 agree that the status of the extended route types have been pretty frustrating for many years.
I'm aware that they are pretty unimportant in North America (correct?) but in Europe people very much like to separate their services into distinct types. From the perspective of a routing algorith, it may not matter much, but regular commuters care quite a lot about the difference between regional rail and suburban rail, for example.
I'm in favour of these distinctions, too, and would like to hear your opinions. If @gcamp, @felixguendling and I agree that it's worthwhile, we could try another attempt at standardising.
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 support this as it's a very obvious shortcoming of GTFS compared to NeTEx and commercial proprietary data formats like HRDF, DIVA, ISA, etc. And it should be easy to fix because extended route types are used in practice in a lot of places already.
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.
Previous discussions:
issue#310, PR#279
We can continue route type discussion in #310