PR for stricter rules for locations.geojson

81 views
Skip to first unread message

Leonard Ehrenfried

unread,
Jun 18, 2024, 4:08:10 AM6/18/24
to gtfs-c...@googlegroups.com
Hi,

I have opened a PR for tightening the rules for polygons in locations.geojson: https://github.com/google/transit/pull/476

If you're using this file, your feedback would be very welcome.

All the best.

--
  Leonard Ehrenfried

Elias Gino Cripotos

unread,
Aug 28, 2024, 11:41:18 AM8/28/24
to GTFS Changes
As per request of Leonard Ehrenfried, I open the vote for this proposal

The vote requirements are as follow:
  • Vote lasts the minimum period sufficient to cover 14 full calendar days. Vote ends at 23:59:59 UTC.
  • Anyone is allowed to vote yes/no in a form of comment to the pull request, and votes can be changed until the end of the voting period. If a voter changes her vote, it is recommended to do it by updating the original vote comment by striking through the vote and writing the new vote.
  • Votes before the start of the voting period are not considered.
  • The proposal is accepted if there is a unanimous consensus yes with at least 3 votes


The voting period ends on Wednesday, September 11, 2024 at 23:59:59 UTC.

Happy voting!

Elias Gino Cripotos

unread,
Sep 16, 2024, 2:30:46 PM9/16/24
to GTFS Changes
The voting period has ended on Wednesday, September 11, 2024 at 23:59:59 UTC.

The result is:
+1 Trillium
+1 Caltrans
+1 Transit
+1 Spare
+1 Arcadis
+1 Podaris

@leonardehrenfried Congratulations the vote has passed with 6 votes for and 0 against. 

Daniel Lisa

unread,
Apr 27, 2026, 9:09:16 AM (3 days ago) Apr 27
to GTFS Changes
  The proposal to tighten rules for polygons in locations.geojson has been successfully approved after a unanimous vote. With 6 votes in favor and none against, the update reflects strong industry support for improved data accuracy and standards. This change will help streamline processes similar to those used in construction management services, where precision and consistency are critical. Overall, it marks a positive step toward better geospatial data governance.  
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages