[Talk-transit] Naming concepts

[Greg Troxel]

"Roger Slevin" <roger at slevin.plus.com> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20161031/c175df6e/attachment.sig>