On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:31:46 -0800 "Joe Hughes" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hugh Barnes said: > > >> http://code.google.com/p/googletransitdatafeed/wiki/PublicFeeds > > > > Ewww, CSV serialisations requiring their own purpose-built > > validator … Like you say, we can build from it. Let's look through > > the fields/elements, but make something proper and scalable that > > leverages XML as it should. > > I can sympathize with your format prejudice, but GTFS is aimed at > making things as easy as possible for the data provider, since getting > the data in the first place is often the hardest part. I can sympathise with your pragmatism, and was starting realise that must be what's behind your choice. Sad but true. I still think while you can accept CSV, you should want to cast into XML pretty soon to make it nice to work with. Ultimately, it's possibly not that important. > I should also > point out that the validator also checks a lot of deeper semantic > things related to transit timetable logic, not just syntactic issues. > AFAIK most complex validations can be done with the standard XML toolkit. If you haven't already, you should look at Schematron. If you can express a constraint as a boolean XPath expression, the power is yours. > As far as I'm aware, though, there's been more detailed transit data > opened to the public in GTFS than in any other format, and it'd be > great to get the relevant parts of that into OSM. > Yep, or to an offshoot data set or wherever. Cheers _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
