Stop Amenities
J. R. Westmoreland
Hi all,
We are now using the stop amenities, stop_features.txt, file in our data.
We have found it necessary to change some of the naming tags.
I will give just a few quick examples and follow up with a more complete list soon.
There are three: vending machine, ticket vending machine and food vending machine.
We have changed them, in our tags, to be, Vending machine - other, vending machine - ticket, venting machine - food.
Lighting is another area where we are making a few changes with the tags.
Also, what is the difference between bike locker and bike storage?
Thanks,
J. R.
--------------------
J. R. Westmoreland
Custom Computers & Consulting
E-mail: j...@jrw.org
Twitter: GeneralJR
Skype: j.r.westmoreland
Mike Gilligan
identifying the use of each enumeration and should not be included in
any feed. As a consumer of GTFS, you can display it on your end
however you would like. If there are industry standard names that are
clearer than those on the proposal page, feel free to edit them.
Also, bike storage is a high level enumerator to identify there is a
place to put your bike, it could be a bike rack, bike locker, etc.
Consumers of the data, as well as publishers, can consume/publish as
much or as little detail as they have/want. For example, as a
consumer, if you wanted to identify all stops with some kind of bike
storage, you would select all stops within stop_features.txt with a
feature_type between 2300 and 2399.
I hope this helps clarify my proposal.
tompw
bike. They are very secure, but take up quite a lot of room.
Bike storage is any place where a bike can be left. Generally it means
some sort of bike stand to which the bike can be locked. The bike
itself is exposed to the general public. (Consequently, they are
generally near places with high pedestrain traffic and/or within sight
of transit staff).
Joe Hughes
we can get it into the spec sooner rather than later, now that a few
clients are exploring uses for it. Looking over the spec and the data
from TriMet, I had a few questions and comments:
1) Are there other agencies besides TriMet that have amenities that
they're ready to publish? It would be nice to either get more
complete testing coverage of the values, or remove some of the
speculative values from the taxonomy. I did an exercise of seeing
which of the values in the proposed taxonomy were unused in the
currently-active TriMet feed, obtained from:
http://developer.trimet.org/schedule/GTFS/20091213/google_transit.zip
Not counting the top-level (x000) values, here are the unused values:
2200 Trash Can
2420 Food Vending Machine
2500 Phone
4120 Electronic Schedule Display
It'd be good to either get some real data that uses these values, or
maybe leave them for a future expansion.
2) It'd be good to provide definitions for all the listed values, to
help feed publishers pick the right one. There seemed to be some
confusion upstream in this thread.
3) Now that we have stations as well, the proposal should say whether
a stop_id can reference a station, and if so, what that means.
4) Since there always has to be some nitpicking of any taxonomy, I
found myself wondering whether ticket and food vending really belonged
under "furniture", or whether there should be something like a
"services" parent category. If you had staffed ticket booths and/or
food kiosks in a station, you'd think that those values would be near
to the corresponding vending machines in the taxonomy, but ticket
counters don't seem to belong under furniture.
Thoughts? Anyone else with amenities data to offer for testing?
Cheers,
Joe Hughes
Google
tompw
One example worth lookin at is the UK's National Rail website. They
have a large amount of detailed information on each railway station.
See http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/bth/details.html or
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/bhm/details.html for examples.
The website's just been revamped, so there are some bugs present. That
should give you a fairly large list of what attributes would be
needed.
Hoep this is useful.
Tom W
Roger Slevin
European IFOPT (Identification of Fixed Objects in Public Transport)
standard which was adopted a year ago ... though I am not sure that the
documentation has been published yet (we are chasing for this to happen as
soon as possible). I will see if I can get a summary of the relevant
elements pulled together in the next few days.
Roger
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google Transit Feed Spec Changes" group.
To post to this group, send email to gtfs-c...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
gtfs-changes...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/gtfs-changes?hl=en.
Joe Hughes
helpful if you could provide any real data that is coded using the
IFOPT scheme, so that the members of this group can get a better sense
of how the scheme would be applied in practice.
Thanks,
Joe Hughes
Google
On Dec 31, 6:59 am, "Roger Slevin" <ro...@slevin.plus.com> wrote:
> There is also a comprehensive approach to accessibility issues within the
> European IFOPT (Identification of Fixed Objects in Public Transport)
> standard which was adopted a year ago ... though I am not sure that the
> documentation has been published yet (we are chasing for this to happen as
> soon as possible). I will see if I can get a summary of the relevant
> elements pulled together in the next few days.
>
> Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gtfs-c...@googlegroups.com [mailto:gtfs-c...@googlegroups.com]
>
> On Behalf Of tompw
> Sent: 31 December 2009 2:46 PM
> To: Google Transit Feed Spec Changes
> Subject: [gtfs-changes] Re: Stop Amenities
>
> [Cross-posting this at the accessibility information discussion]
> One example worth lookin at is the UK's National Rail website. They
> have a large amount of detailed information on each railway station.
> Seehttp://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/bth/details.htmlorhttp://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/bhm/details.htmlfor examples.
tompw
Have you seen http://www.dft.gov.uk/transmodel/schema/doc/GoogleTransit/TransmodelForGoogle-09.pdf
, which looks how to get the IFOPT scheme (a.k.a "transmodel") and
GTFS data working together? See http://www.transmodel.org.uk for more
info.
Tom W
Joe Hughes
Thanks for the pointer--I am familiar with this document (I'm the "JH"
credited for corrections in the last few revisions), but it may be of
interest to others on this group.
In any case, it would be very interesting to hear any concrete
proposals on ways to integrate ideas from the IFOPT taxonomy in GTFS
(assuming that such a thing would be compatible with the way the IFOPT
spec is licensed).
Thanks,
Joe Hughes
Google
On Jan 4, 9:59 am, tompw <to...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Joe,
> Have you seenhttp://www.dft.gov.uk/transmodel/schema/doc/GoogleTransit/TransmodelF...
> , which looks how to get the IFOPT scheme (a.k.a "transmodel") and
> GTFS data working together? Seehttp://www.transmodel.org.ukfor more