"Roger Slevin" <[email protected]> writes: > I have watched this debate over the years - and I keep coming back to > what I think is a key question for the OSM community ... if there is > an existing robust standard for public transport information, then is > it really worth trying to add to OSM a different standard (or set of > terms) for that information? If so, can you afford to be less precise > in your terminology than that defined over many, many years of work in > Transmodel? The same issue was faced by GTFS many years ago and, for > better or worse, the decision was taken by the GTFS community to go > ahead with a separate standard. But whilst GTFS is not underpinned by > the Transmodel standard, many aspects of it have taken the Transmodel > reference data model into account. GTFS is not as comprehensive, I > suggest, as Transmodel - and it is an implementation standard and not > a reference data model.
I agree in general - OSM has too much making up of schemas rather than studying the schemas which have been developed in the various professional communities. Overall, though, I am wondering if this discussion is about identifiers to use in source code, or is about some user-facing aspect of the program or something else. I would advocate picking a well-established set of terms (transmodel seems like a good fit, even though I know zero about it) and just use that. The key is defining the terms so that people can understand them.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
