proposal: Modify route_type to add new types and to group similar types together - General Transit Feed Spec Changes

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion proposal: Modify route_type to add new types and to group similar types together
Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning jhug...@google.com does not designate 172.28.16.151 as permitted sender) client-ip=172.28.16.151;
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:sender:to:subject:
	in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:
	content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
	b=xELLDyNL0U8L5GLfk/hDR25ZYEIuvkzjyCMNiIc0gOHptrndD5KyPY/pPZJ2Y6gk0
	TqgXLjuI8pYq4LJJfhhqg==
Message-ID: <968f70060803201018k61221618u338fa51408140...@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:18:43 -0700
From: "Joe Hughes" <joe.hughes.c...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: joe.hughes.c...@gmail.com
Sender: jhug...@google.com
To: gtfs-changes@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [gtfs-changes] Re: proposal: Modify route_type to add new types and to group similar types together
In-Reply-To: <968f70060803200955l67328bb7y725b9e70f1840...@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <968f70060802201720h71852486o7ecae227a9425...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <968f70060802291008o42580a0cxdb8645307c5bb...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <bbdc5952-c7e6-4c61-957c-92e4ca370...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	 <968f70060803010821k108a6ae5ofb25042603e10...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <000d01c87bc5$cafc5f50$0500a8c0@REDSOL>
	 <968f70060803051201j67d6f798sb32332c284ce2...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3672ee89-c336-4042-b244-308a4aa75...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	 <63f98736-c7ae-4bf3-a9ad-b65a5c693...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
	 <00d501c88a7e$4d3a7c10$0200a8c0@REDSOL>
	 <968f70060803200955l67328bb7y725b9e70f1840...@mail.gmail.com>

Here's a more minimalist proposal that's still based as closely on
TPEG as I can manage.  Again, in the absence of a better reference, my
understanding of the TPEG taxonomy derives from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/travelnews/xml/pti/pti_index.html

As a reminder, the other concrete proposals that have been posted so far are:
http://groups.google.com/group/gtfs-changes/web/route-type-proposal
http://groups.google.com/group/gtfs-changes/msg/ed917a69cf8c5bef

Here's the TPEG-derived list of potential route_type values, filtered
to a subset that's consistent with current needs, and with a few
additions for modes not found in TPEG:

100 Railway Service
 101 High Speed Rail Service
 102 Long Distance Trains
 108 Rail Shuttle (Within Complex)
 109 Suburban Railway

200 Coach Service
 201 International Coach Service
 202 National Coach Service
 204 Regional Coach Service
 208 Commuter Coach Service

400 Urban Railway Service
 401 Metro Service
 402 Underground Service
 405 Monorail

700 Bus Service
 701 Regional Bus Service
 702 Express Bus Service
 704 Local Bus Service

800 Trolleybus Service

900 Tram Service

1000 Water Transport Service

1100 Air Service

1300 Telecabin Service

1400 Funicular Service

1700 Miscellaneous Service
  1701 Cable Car
  1702 Horse-Drawn Carriage

Deprecated Types

The values below are retained for backwards-compatibility with
existing feeds; feed-reading applications should continue to
understand these, but they shouldn't be used in new feeds.

Existing Value - Meaning - Corresponding New Value
0 - Tram, Light Rail, Streetcar - 900
1 - Subway, Metro - 400
2 - Rail - 100
3 - Bus - 700
4 - Ferry - 1000
5 - Cable Car - 1701
6 - Gondola, Suspended cable car - 1300
7 - Funicular - 1400

Joe Hughes
Google

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Joe Hughes <joe.hughes.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the comments, Jacques and Roger.
>
>  One question that I would still like to get an answer to is: which
>  software systems, and which agencies/operators currently represent
>  their routes using the TPEG taxonomy?  I'd like for us to have a sense
>  of how this taxonomy has been exercised in real usage.
>
>  There are some things about my TPEG-derived proposal that worry me, namely that:
>
>  (1) It has some ambiguity--for instance, "Metro Service" is both a
>  top-level item (500) and a sub-item under a different heading (401).
>  Which should a data provider use?
>
>  (2) It has more items than I think are needed at this point in time
>  (for instance "Lorry Transport Rail Service").  Would it be a problem
>  to leave out several of the items as long as the categorization of the
>  rest remain TPEG-compatible?
>
>  (3) There are several modes missing that we would like to represent,
>  for instance "Monorail", "Cable Car", and "Horse-Drawn Carriage".
>
>  I hope that we can end up with something that has enough detail to
>  express what needs to be expressed, while not drowning implementors in
>  fine distinctions.
>
>  Again, I encourage the posting of concrete proposals by other group
>  members.  Roger, since you have connections to the TPEG group, it
>  would be extremely valuable if you could ensure that we have the
>  latest TPEG taxonomy documentation.
>
>  Thanks,
>  Joe Hughes
>  Google
>
>
>
>  On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:34 AM, Roger Slevin <ro...@slevin.plus.com> wrote:
>  >
>  >  Joe and Jacques
>  >
>  >  I spoke to the chairman of the TPEG standards group a week or so ago and he
>  >  was keen to see this aspect of their standard adopted as widely as possible
>  >  ... but equally keen to hear of modes which may need to be added, or
>  >  definitions slightly changed, to keep TPEG mode lists up to date.
>  >
>  >  I haven't yet had time to cross-check Joe's proposal against the TPEG
>  >  standard - and I would like to be sure that they are 100% consistent, or
>  >  that there is a very good reason why they are not!  But with just that
>  >  proviso, I think the TPEG list is very comprehensive and will give a very
>  >  helpful consistency between Google's format and the formally adopted
>  >  standard in this area.
>  >
>  >  Best wishes
>  >
>  >  Roger Slevin
>  >  Traveline South East
>  >
>  >
>  >  -----Original Message-----
>  >  From: gtfs-changes@googlegroups.com [mailto:gtfs-changes@googlegroups.com]
>  >
>  >
>  > On Behalf Of Jacques chez stibus
>  >  Sent: 20 March 2008 09:45
>  >  To: Google Transit Feed Spec Changes
>  >  Subject: [gtfs-changes] Re: proposal: Modify route_type to add new types and
>  >  to group similar types together
>  >
>  >
>  >  Bonjour,
>  >
>  >  While it is always helpful to standardize, especially when a standard
>  >  exists, we must be wary of the induced risk of rigidity.
>  >
>  >  For instance, here in Maubeuge, France we have a project that includes
>  >  separated bus lanes, high quality buses and specific stations...  In
>  >  Douai (not so far of Maubeuge) what they call "Tramway" is in fact an
>  >  "optically guided" bus... Neither customers nor agencies would
>  >  consider them as simple buses. But I do not see how to classify thoses
>  >  systems in your taxonomy.
>  >
>  >  I think it would be better to use the TPEG list (which gets the credit
>  >  for being an existing standard), but please keep an ability for
>  >  agencies to define their own type of transportation mode.
>  >
>  >  Cordialement.
>  >
>  >  Jacques Lys
>  >
>  >  On 19 mar, 16:42, Joe Hughes <joe.hughes.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  > Does no one have any thoughts on whether they prefer:
>  >  >
>  >  > http://groups.google.com/group/gtfs-changes/msg/ed917a69cf8c5bef
>  >  >
>  >  > or
>  >  >
>  >  > http://groups.google.com/group/gtfs-changes/web/route-type-proposal
>  >  >
>  >  > Or does anyone have an alternate concrete proposal?  For the sake of
>  >  > agencies with modes not represented in the current spec, it would be
>  >  > great to get an expanded route_type taxonomy of some sort out there.
>  >  >
>  >  > Thanks,
>  >  > Joe
>  >  >
>  >  > On Mar 5, 1:01 pm, "Joe Hughes" <joe.hughes.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  > > Thanks for the pointer, Roger.  Based on the information at this URL
>  >  (http://www.bbc.co.uk/travelnews/xml/pti/pti_index.html), I've put
>  >  > > together a proposed route_type taxonomy that would map closely to the
>  >  > > TPEG taxonomy.
>  >  >
>  >  > > To the agency folks on this list: do you prefer this to the proposal
>  >  > > that I originally posted?  (That one is
>  >  athttp://groups.google.com/group/gtfs-changes/web/route-type-proposal).
>  >  >
>  >  > > Here's the TPEG-derived list of potential route_type values:
>  >  >
>  >  > > 100 Railway Service
>  >  > >   101 High Speed Rail Service
>  >  > >   102 Long Distance Trains
>  >  > >   103 Inter Regional Rail Service
>  >  > >   104 Car Transport Rail Service
>  >  > >   105 Sleeper Rail Service
>  >  > >   106 Regional Rail Service
>  >  > >   107 Tourist Railway Service
>  >  > >   108 Rail Shuttle (Within Complex)
>  >  > >   109 Suburban Railway
>  >  > >   110 Replacement Rail Service
>  >  > >   111 Special Rail Service
>  >  > >   112 Lorry Transport Rail Service
>  >  > >   113 All Rail Services
>  >  > >   114 Cross-Country Rail Service
>  >  > >   115 Vehicle Transport Rail Service
>  >  > >   116 Rack and Pinion Railway
>  >  > >   117 Additional Rail Service
>  >  >
>  >  > > 200 Coach Service
>  >  > >   201 International Coach Service
>  >  > >   202 National Coach Service
>  >  > >   203 Shuttle Coach Service
>  >  > >   204 Regional Coach Service
>  >  > >   205 Special Coach Service
>  >  > >   206 Sightseeing Coach Service
>  >  > >   207 Tourist Coach Service
>  >  > >   208 Commuter Coach Service
>  >  > >   209 All Coach Services
>  >  >
>  >  > > 300 Suburban Railway Service
>  >  >
>  >  > > 400 Urban Railway Service
>  >  > >   401 Metro Service
>  >  > >   402 Underground Service
>  >  > >   403 Urban Railway Service
>  >  > >   404 All Urban Railway Services
>  >  >
>  >  > > 500 Metro Service
>  >  >
>  >  > > 600 Underground Service
>  >  >
>  >  > > 700 Bus Service
>  >  > >   701 Regional Bus Service
>  >  > >   702 Express Bus Service
>  >  > >   703 Stopping Bus Service
>  >  > >   704 Local Bus Service
>  >  > >   705 Night Bus Service
>  >  > >   706 Post Bus Service
>  >  > >   707 Special Needs Bus
>  >  > >   708 Mobility Bus Service
>  >  > >   709 Mobility Bus for Registered Disabled
>  >  > >   710 Sightseeing Bus
>  >  > >   711 Shuttle Bus
>  >  > >   712 School Bus
>  >  > >   713 School and Public Service Bus
>  >  > >   714 Rail Replacement Bus Service
>  >  > >   715 Demand and Response Bus Service
>  >  > >   716 All Bus Services
>  >  >
>  >  > > 800 Trolleybus Service
>  >  >
>  >  > > 900 Tram Service
>  >  > >   901 City Tram Service
>  >  > >   902 Local Tram Service
>  >  > >   903 Regional Tram Service
>  >  > >   904 Sightseeing Tram Service
>  >  > >   905 Shuttle Tram Service
>  >  > >   906 All Tram Services
>  >  >
>  >  > > 1000 Water Transport Service
>  >  > >   1001 International Car Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1002 National Car Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1003 Regional Car Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1004 Local Car Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1005 International Passenger Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1006 National Passenger Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1007 Regional Passenger Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1008 Local Passenger Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1009 Post Boat Service
>  >  > >   1010 Train Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1011 Road-Link Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1012 Airport-Link Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1013 Car High-Speed Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1014 Passenger High-Speed Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1015 Sightseeing Boat Service
>  >  > >   1016 School Boat
>  >  > >   1017 Cable-Drawn Boat Service
>  >  > >   1018 River Bus Service
>  >  > >   1019 Scheduled Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1020 Shuttle Ferry Service
>  >  > >   1021 All Water Transport Services
>  >  >
>  >  > > 1100 Air Service
>  >  > >   1101 International Air Service
>  >  > >   1102 Domestic Air Service
>  >  > >   1103 Intercontinental Air Service
>  >  > >   1104 Domestic Scheduled Air Service
>  >  > >   1105 Shuttle Air Service
>  >  > >   1106 Intercontinental Charter Air Service
>  >  > >   1107 International Charter Air Service
>  >  > >   1108 Round-Trip Charter Air Service
>  >  > >   1109 Sightseeing Air Service
>  >  > >   1110 Helicopter Air Service
>  >  > >   1111 Domestic Charter Air Service
>  >  > >   1112 Schengen-Area Air Service
>  >  > >   1113 Airship Service
>  >  > >   1114 All Air Services
>  >  >
>  >  > > 1200 Ferry Service
>  >  >
>  >  > > 1300 Telecabin Service
>  >  > >   1301 Telecabin Service
>  >  > >   1302 Cable Car Service
>  >  > >   1303 Elevator Service
>  >  > >   1304 Chair Lift Service
>  >  > >   1305 Drag Lift Service
>  >  > >   1306 Small Telecabin Service
>  >  > >   1307 All Telecabin Services
>  >  >
>  >  > > 1400 Funicular Service
>  >  > >   1401 Funicular Service
>  >  > >   1402 All Funicular Service
>  >  >
>  >  > > 1500 Taxi Service
>  >  > >   1501 Communal Taxi Service
>  >  > >   1502 Water Taxi Service
>  >  > >   1503 Rail Taxi Service
>  >  > >   1504 Bike Taxi Service
>  >  > >   1505 Licensed Taxi Service
>  >  > >   1506 Private Hire Service Vehicle
>  >  > >   1507 All Taxi Services
>  >  >
>  >  > > 1600 Self Drive
>  >  > >   1601 Hire Car
>  >  > >   1602 Hire Van
>  >  > >   1603 Hire Motorbike
>  >  > >   1604 Hire Cycle
>  >  > >   1605 All Self-Drive Vehicles
>  >  >
>  >  > > Deprecated Types
>  >  >
>  >  > > The values below are retained for backwards-compatibility with
>  >  > > existing feeds; feed-reading applications should continue to
>  >  > > understand these, but they shouldn't be used in new feeds.
>  >  >
>  >  > > Existing Value - Meaning - Corresponding New Value
>  >  > > 0 - Tram, Light Rail, Streetcar - 900
>  >  > > 1 - Subway, Metro - 400
>  >  > > 2 - Rail - 100
>  >  > > 3 - Bus - 700
>  >  > > 4 - Ferry - 1000
>  >  > > 5 - Cable Car - ?
>  >  > > 6 - Gondola, Suspended cable car - 1300
>  >  > > 7 - Funicular - 1400
>  >  >
>  >  > > Thanks,
>  >  > > Joe
>  >  >
>  >  > > On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Roger Slevin <ro...@slevin.plus.com>
>  >  wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  Joe
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  I thinkhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/travelnews/xml/pti/pti_index.htmlactually
>  >  > > >  shows the public transport (sorry, transit) modes in full detail. I
>  >  think
>  >  > > >  the reference which you mentioned is the multi-mode table for the
>  >  original
>  >  > > >  version of TPEG ... which has then been extended with TPEG-PTI as the
>  >  public
>  >  > > >  transport specialism.  I will still check this out to make sure this
>  >  is the
>  >  > > >  latest version - and to confirm the usage rules.
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  Best wishes
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  Roger
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  -----Original Message-----
>  >  > > >  From: gtfs-changes@googlegroups.com
>  >  [mailto:gtfs-changes@googlegroups.com]
>  >  >
>  >  > > > On Behalf Of Joe Hughes
>  >  > > >  Sent: 01 March 2008 16:22
>  >  > > >  To: gtfs-changes@googlegroups.com
>  >  >
>  >  > > > Subject: [gtfs-changes] Re: proposal: Modify route_type to add new
>  >  types and
>  >  > > >  to group similar types together
>  >  >
>  >  > > > Nicholas,
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  Thanks for your proposal for trying to harmonize the TPEG taxonomy
>  >  > > >  with the one I proposed--it's productive to be discussing details.
>  >  > > >  Unfortunately, with your digits-reversed proposal, it would make it
>  >  > > >  more complicated for applications that only cared about the
>  >  high-level
>  >  > > >  distinctions; it's no longer as straightforward to check if a code
>  >  > > >  falls in 1000-1999 to see if it's rail or 2200-2299 to see if it's
>  >  > > >  longer-distance coach.
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  Roger,
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  Does this page on the BBC site that Nicholas pointed to accurately
>  >  > > >  represent your understanding of the TPEG taxonomy?
>  >  > > >  http://www.bbc.co.uk/travelnews/xml/loc/loc_index.htm
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  (It looks like table 05 could be read as a top level with tables
>  >  10-16
>  >  > > >  as the second level.)
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  Which systems produce and consume this taxonomy in production today?
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  Joe
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Nicholas Albion <nalb...@gmail.com>
>  >  wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  >  While there's a lot about TPEG that I like, I think that it could
>  >  do
>  >  > > >  >  with some re-working - perhaps come up with a TPEG2?
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  >  I do like that TPEG reserves 0 and 255 for unknown/undefined.  I
>  >  also
>  >  > > >  >  like that it's language independant.
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  >  I like the hierarchical approach Joe has taken in the new GTFS
>  >  > > >  >  proposal, but suspect that the TPEG people would prefer to
>  >  constrain
>  >  > > >  >  the values to 8 bits.
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  >  I've had a go at combining the best of both worlds:
>  >  > > >  >  GTFS (existing)http://mobojax.com/ctdm#a_gtfs_route_type_constants
>  >  > > >  >  TPEG:http://mobojax.com/ctdm#a_tpeg_mode_type_constants
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  >  into
>  >  > > >  >  CTDM:http://mobojax.com/ctdm#a_transport_mode_constants
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  >  Perhaps a better way for TPEG2 and GTFS2 to coexist would be to
>  >  > > >  >  reverse the order in Joe's proposal:
>  >  > > >  >  2 - Rail
>  >  > > >  >  3 - Bus
>  >  > > >  >  8 - Boat
>  >  > > >  >  9 - Air
>  >  > > >  >  10 - Misc
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  >  0002 - Generic Rail
>  >  > > >  >   0012 - Generic Local Rail
>  >  > > >  >     1012 - Tram, Light Rail, Streetcar
>  >  > > >  >     2012 - Subway
>  >  > > >  >     3012 - Metro Rail
>  >  > > >  >     4012 - Monorail
>  >  > > >  >     5012 - People Mover
>  >  > > >  >     6012 - Funicular
>  >  > > >  >     7012 - Cable Car
>  >  > > >  >   0022 - Generic Longer-Distance Rail
>  >  > > >  >     1022 - Commuter Rail
>  >  > > >  >     2022 - Intercity Rail
>  >  > > >  >     3022 - High-Speed Rail
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  >  0003 - Generic Bus
>  >  > > >  >   0013 - Generic Local Bus
>  >  > > >  >     1013 - Regular Local Bus
>  >  > > >  >     2013 - Trolleybus
>  >  > > >  >   0023 Generic Longer-Distance Bus/Coach
>  >  > > >  >     1023 Commuter Bus/Coach
>  >  > > >  >     2023 Intercity Bus/Coach
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  >  0008 - Generic Boat/Ferry
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  >  0009 - Generic Air Travel
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  >  0010 - Miscellaneous
>  >  > > >  >     1010 - Suspended Gondola Lift, Aerial Tram
>  >  > > >  >     2010 - Horse-Drawn Carriage
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  >  ...then again, perhaps TPEG applications could simply divide the
>  >  > > >  >  values in Joe's original proposal by 100 or 1000...
>  >  >
>  >  > > >  --
>  >  >
>  >  > > > This email has been verified as Virus free.
>  >  > > >  Virus Protection and more available athttp://www.plus.net
>  >
>  >
>  >  --
>  >  This email has been verified as Virus free.
>  >  Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  >  >
>  >
>
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
