Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Proposal: Label GTFS-RT ADDED trips as not fully specified #230

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 15, 2020

Conversation

barbeau
Copy link
Collaborator

@barbeau barbeau commented Jun 26, 2020

Given existing discussions around how to add or modify trips in GTFS-RT (1) (2) (3), I hope one thing we can all agree upon is that we don't currently agree upon how ADDED trips are produced or consumed.

This proposal puts a label on the ADDED enumeration to make this lack of agreement clear to newcomers to the spec while we discuss how these concepts should be represented, similar to how the DIFFERENTIAL feature is currently labeled in the GTFS-RT spec.

cc @paulswartz @gcamp @skinkie @Bertware @tleboulenge @darylweinberg @juanborre @hbruch @nathan-reynolds @lauramatson

Posted to the Google Group at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gtfs-realtime/p8pXNzGOafQ.

@barbeau barbeau added the GTFS Realtime Issues and Pull Requests that focus on GTFS Realtime label Jun 26, 2020
@skinkie
Copy link
Contributor

skinkie commented Jun 26, 2020

+1 OpenGeo

@jamespfennell
Copy link

Awesome, thanks Sean! Do you think we could add an analogous comment in the proto file around line ~615 where ADDED is defined?

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 26, 2020

+1 IBI

@barbeau
Copy link
Collaborator Author

barbeau commented Jun 26, 2020

@jamespfennell Thanks for pointing that out! I forgot that, and just added the same text in the .proto file in ec976f2.

@juanborre
Copy link
Contributor

juanborre commented Jun 26, 2020

+1 Transit App

@paulswartz
Copy link
Contributor

+1 @mbta

@prhod
Copy link

prhod commented Jun 29, 2020

+1 Kisio

@tleboulenge
Copy link

+1 Google

@barbeau
Copy link
Collaborator Author

barbeau commented Jul 6, 2020

This pull request has been open for more than one week, so per the Official Process I'm calling for a vote.

Vote will be closed on Monday July 13th at 23:59:59 UTC.

@skinkie, @jamespfennell, @juanborre, @paulswartz, @prhod, @tleboulenge you all expressed support above, so you can officially vote with another comment now.

@skinkie
Copy link
Contributor

skinkie commented Jul 6, 2020

+1 OpenGeo

@gcamp
Copy link
Contributor

gcamp commented Jul 6, 2020

+1

2 similar comments
@paulswartz
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@darylweinberg
Copy link

+1

@prhod
Copy link

prhod commented Jul 9, 2020

+1 Kisio

@lauramatson
Copy link

+1 Metro Transit (Minneapolis)

@barbeau
Copy link
Collaborator Author

barbeau commented Jul 15, 2020

The vote has closed, and here are the results:

  • 6 in favor
    • OpenGeo
    • Transit App
    • MBTA
    • CapMetro
    • Kisio
    • Metro Transit (Minneapolis)
  • 0 against
  • 0 abstain

So it passes! Thanks all!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
GTFS Realtime Issues and Pull Requests that focus on GTFS Realtime
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.