|proposal: remove "Google" from the name of GTFS||Joe Hughes||10/19/09 8:48 AM|
Rename the "Google Transit Feed Specification" to the "General Transit
Feed Specification" to remove the increasingly misleading "Google"
In the years since then, many more applications have started consuming
It's time to bring the name in line with the current state of affairs.
Given the wide use of the format, and the community process that this
In the past, some of you have suggested changing the name to the "Open
In light of this, I propose that we take the near-term step of
In addition, I propose that we remove the "Submitting a Transit Feed
|Re: [gtfs-changes] proposal: remove "Google" from the name of GTFS||Martin A||10/19/09 9:58 AM|
I am surprised Google wants to remove their name from arguably the
most successful data spec to ever hit transit.
The GTFS represents a usable subset used for schedule and calendar
display in a Google maps environment. "General" implies parts of
transit operations that GTFS currently can't represent. It's very big
of Google to allow this change to happen. Maybe "Geospatial" is more
|RE: [gtfs-changes] proposal: remove "Google" from the name of GTFS||jrw||10/19/09 11:16 AM|
J.R.> I like just making it GTFS. If we find a name that makes a cute word
we can revisit this then. Maybe we could rewrite the introductory section at
the top of the document to indicate that this is a general specification to
be used for producing a Transit Feed in a Portable and Open manner.
J.R.> I guess I'm pretty bad. What I'm doing didn't require knowing about
its representation on a Google Map so I didn't read this part. Removing it
shouldn't cause any harm.
|Re: [gtfs-changes] proposal: remove "Google" from the name of GTFS||Jehiah||10/19/09 8:33 PM|
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Joe Hughes <joe.hug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the past, some of you have suggested changing the name to the "Open
+1 good idea
I generally find myself describing GTFS as "an open standard data
I think s/Google/General/ is fine, I also think (as J.R. mentiond)
> In addition, I propose that we remove the "Submitting a Transit Feed
I think we need to cultivate a more official/comprehensive place to
> and remove or replace the
I think the google maps examples serve some purpose, but perhaphs they
|Re: proposal: remove "Google" from the name of GTFS||Tom Hixson||10/20/09 10:12 AM|
First, if you pay the vet bill you get to name the dog, so Google is
welcome to name the spec how they want. But I always thought of the G
as referring to the spec's sponsor, not its consumer, and it never
occurred to me to be limiting. I agree with Martin that the spec is
not yet broad enough to be called 'general', but I would accept the
name as a goal. The trouble with keeping it G is we old-timers will
likely keep calling it Google, which may cause confusion for newbies.
|RE: [gtfs-changes] Re: proposal: remove "Google" from the name of GTFS||jrw||10/20/09 10:50 PM|
|Re: proposal: remove "Google" from the name of GTFS||Sean Barbeau||10/21/09 1:05 PM|
I agree that replacing the "Google" from the GTFS title would increase
the use of the specification and decrease confusion surrounding it.
We've been advocating the use of GTFS as the import format for our
Travel Assistance Device (TAD) cell phone transit nav. app system,
and one of the most common questions we get when presenting to transit
agencies is how TAD's use of GTFS relates to Google Transit. There
seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding the distinction of the
"Google Transit" website and the GTFS format, especially among non-
developers or new developers. People often assume that our
application depends on the Google Transit website to operate, or that
Google is the one creating/hosting the actual transit data, and don't
understand that they can use the GTFS format without necessarily being
involved in Google Transit. I believe that removing/replacing the
"Google" name from GTFS would help resolve this confusion and clearly
separate the open data format specification from the online service
provided by Google. I agree that sticking with a "G" word to replace
"Google" would result in the minimum amount of confusion going
forward. "General" does seem somewhat broad given the current scope
of the specification, but, then again, I think its fitting given that
"useful" generality is the goal of an open specification such as GTFS.
I agree with Jehiah's suggestion of showcasing the use of GTFS data in
different systems in the example images, as I think it really helps to
have visual indicators of how the actual data is used to help new
users understand the specification. This could also help broaden the
scope of ideas for future GTFS developers who would see many examples
instead of seeing only the one Google Transit example.
CUTR @ USF
|Re: [gtfs-changes] proposal: remove "Google" from the name of GTFS||Brian Ferris||10/21/09 1:40 PM|
I think the switch from Google to General sounds fine.
I have a bigger question about governance of the GTFS spec. I think Google has done a commendable job of encouraging and incorporating changes to the spec, but I wonder if a more official or open mechanism for incorporating changes and extensions might not further encourage adoption? I'm not entirely sure what that mechanism should look like, as there are probably ten bad governance structures for every good one. However, if the switch from Google to general is all about the Google in the name, the fact that the spec is hosted and ultimately still defined by Google will probably give similar pause.
|Re: [gtfs-changes] Re: proposal: remove "Google" from the name of GTFS||Joe Hughes||10/21/09 3:10 PM|
Thanks for the feedback. You're absolutely right that this is just
one more step towards the goal of the community taking complete
ownership of ongoing spec development. In that spirit, would you be
willing to lead a new thread on the governance question?
As it stands, all the relevant discussion about future improvements to
the spec already happens on this list, and while Google does lend a
tech writer to polish up the final product, the draft of each update
is now posted here for group's approval before going live. As a
reminder, here's a summary of the existing process for changing the
However, there is plenty of room for improvement, and I look forward
to hearing people's ideas on how future evolution of the the spec
should be organized. (Let's keep it in a new thread to not derail the
name change discussion.)