Changes <gtfs-changes@googlegroups.com>
Received: by 10.52.21.68 with SMTP id t4mr10768632vde.8.1333475197569;
        Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: gtfs-changes@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.220.107.81 with SMTP id a17ls294513vcp.2.gmail; Tue, 03 Apr
 2012 10:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.71.232 with SMTP id y8mr1090572vdu.18.1333475197025;
        Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 10:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: tompw <to...@hotmail.com>
To: gtfs-changes@googlegroups.com
Message-ID: <13558649.1822.1333475196707.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtb5>
In-Reply-To: <CAG9YwWDVkQc53OrK+ZRPFD49rNdvjuSrNSvHKSsB51Uj6f0S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG9YwWAHZ4ag49TGtEG-Ov+ZMufeTe=m-uiEJWmFZf1V_we9_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN3pBF7h4f3eqeJPgVVEvkkHxpFm-d2gwB5LFzBeiesa=N64Bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG9YwWDVkQc53OrK+ZRPFD49rNdvjuSrNSvHKSsB51Uj6f0S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gtfs-changes] Proposal: wheelchair_accessibility - revisted
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1820_27448707.1333475196706"

------=_Part_1820_27448707.1333475196706
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1821_24096031.1333475196706"

------=_Part_1821_24096031.1333475196706
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:15:44 AM UTC-5, Brian Ferris wrote: 
>
> John also raises a larger question that I had meant to bring up in my 
> origin email: wheelchair accessibility for stations. 
>
> Right now, the proposal doesn't say much about what should happen when a 
> feed uses stop-station hierarchy.  My interpretation would be that if a 
> stop that is part of a larger station complex has been marked as 
> "wheelchair_boarding=1", then there is some accessible path from outside 
> the station to the specific stop / platform.  By the same token, if a stop 
> has been marked with "wheelchair_boarding=2", there there is no accessible 
> path from outside the station to the specific stop / platform.  These 
> semantics would hold true no matter what value of "wheelchair_boarding" has 
> been specified for the parent station.
>
> I think the one grey area is what happens when a stop has a 
> "wheelchair_boarding" value of "0" or blank (aka unknown) but the parent 
>  station has a known "wheelchair_boarding" value.  One interpretation would 
> be to let the parent station value propagate down to the child stop.  This 
> would potentially make it easier for feed producers, but I think it's 
> problematic because it's not clear how to explicitly specify that a child 
> stop has an "unknown" wheelchair_boarding value if the parent station 
> "wheelchair_boarding" value has already been set.
>
 
I think the general approach should be that a child value over-rides a 
parent value, and the parent value should only be applied when its children 
have blank/zero values. 

------=_Part_1821_24096031.1333475196706
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<BR>On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:15:44 AM UTC-5, Brian Ferris wrote: 
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=gmail_quote>John also raises a larger question that I had meant to bring up in my origin email: wheelchair accessibility for stations. 
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Right now, the proposal doesn't say much about what should happen when a feed uses stop-station hierarchy. &nbsp;My interpretation would be that if a stop that is part of a larger station complex has been marked as "wheelchair_boarding=1", then there is some accessible path from outside the station to the specific stop / platform. &nbsp;By the same token, if a stop has been marked with "wheelchair_boarding=2", there there is no accessible path from outside the station to the specific stop / platform. &nbsp;These semantics would hold true no matter what value of "wheelchair_boarding" has been specified for the parent station.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I think the one grey area is what happens when a stop has a "wheelchair_boarding" value of "0" or blank (aka unknown) but the parent &nbsp;station has a known "wheelchair_boarding" value. &nbsp;One interpretation would be to let the parent station value propagate down to the child stop. &nbsp;This would potentially make it easier for feed producers, but I think it's problematic because it's not clear how to explicitly specify that a child stop has an "unknown" wheelchair_boarding value if the parent station "wheelchair_boarding" value has already been set.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I think the general approach should be that a child value over-rides a parent value, and the parent value should only be applied when its children have blank/zero values. </DIV>
------=_Part_1821_24096031.1333475196706--

------=_Part_1820_27448707.1333475196706--