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

Add optional station_parking rule to geofencing_zones.json #349

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 15, 2021

Conversation

viestat
Copy link
Contributor

@viestat viestat commented Aug 13, 2021

What problem does your proposal solve? Please begin with the relevant issue number. If there is no existing issue, please also describe alternative solutions you have considered.

This PR follows up on the suggestions made by @mplsmitch on #332 (specifically here).

It is also worth noting that for #332 to be fully resolved, #329 is also needed.

What is the proposal?

From #332 (comment):

The parking restriction could then be defined with a geofencing_zones.json clockwise polygon with a rule applied that outlines the parking restriction.

Suppose we define another rule in gefoencing_zones.json like station_parking. This could be used to flag zones where parking at a designated area or station is required within the zone. Making it a Boolean would allow you to be explicit about where it is and is not required within your operating area.

Is this a breaking change?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unsure

Which files are affected by this change?

geofencing_zones.json

@tadam313
Copy link

Hey! can I ask for the status of this topic? We (TIER) have the same problems mentioned in #332, this would solve this definitely. Is this planned for the next GBFS release?

@heidiguenin
Copy link
Contributor

I'll add it to MobilityData's Q4 roadmap. We're planning on another set of batched votes this quarter once some of the open discussions settle into a community consensus. But before we open a vote for this, it would be great if we could hear from any GBFS consumers who would support this addition - we'll need it for the vote!

@heidiguenin heidiguenin added proposal:nonbreaking v3.0-RC Candidate change for GBFS 3.0 (Major release) labels Oct 21, 2021
@heidiguenin
Copy link
Contributor

I hereby call a vote on this proposal. Voting will be open for 10 full calendar days until 11:59PM UTC on December 10th, 2021.

Please vote for or against the proposal, and include the organization for which you are voting in your comment.

Please note if you can commit to implementing the proposal.

@heidiguenin heidiguenin added Vote open v2.3-RC2 and removed v3.0-RC Candidate change for GBFS 3.0 (Major release) labels Nov 30, 2021
@cmonagle
Copy link
Contributor

+1 from Transit

@tadam313
Copy link

tadam313 commented Dec 1, 2021

+1 from TIER

@@ -1009,6 +1009,7 @@ Field Name | REQUIRED | Type | Defines
&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;\-&nbsp;`ride_allowed` | Conditionally REQUIRED | Boolean | REQUIRED if `rules` array is defined. Is the undocked (“free bike”) ride allowed to start and end in this zone? <br /><br /> `true` - Undocked (“free bike”) ride can start and end in this zone. <br /> `false` - Undocked (“free bike”) ride cannot start and end in this zone.
&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;\-&nbsp;`ride_through_allowed` | Conditionally REQUIRED | Boolean | REQUIRED if `rules` array is defined. Is the ride allowed to travel through this zone? <br /><br /> `true` - Ride can travel through this zone. <br /> `false` - Ride cannot travel through this zone.
&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;\-&nbsp;`maximum_speed_kph` | OPTIONAL | Non-negative Integer | What is the maximum speed allowed, in kilometers per hour? <br /><br /> If there is no maximum speed to observe, this can be omitted.
&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;\-&nbsp;`station_parking` | OPTIONAL | Boolean | Vehicle MUST be parked at stations defined in station_information.json within this geofence zone? <br /><br />`true` - MUST only be parked at stations. <br /> `false` - MAY be parked outside of stations.
Copy link
Contributor

@testower testower Dec 6, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This usage of capitalized keywords "MUST" and "MAY" seems non-standard. These capitalized keywords are used for describing the spec, and not for the semantics of the data itself.

I suggest this:

Can the vehicle only be parked at stations defined in station_information.json within this geofence zone?

true - Can only be parked at stations.
false - May be parked outside of stations.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for catching this, @testower . We will make sure it is corrected before merging. @viestat - could you update the language?

@testower
Copy link
Contributor

testower commented Dec 6, 2021

Entur supports this proposal

@heidiguenin
Copy link
Contributor

Voting on this PR closes in 2 calendar days. Please vote for or against the proposal, and include the organization for which you are voting in your comment. Please note if you can commit to implementing the proposal.

@heidiguenin
Copy link
Contributor

This vote has now closed, and it passes!

Votes in favor:
Transit (consumer)
Entur (consumer)
TIER (producer)

There were no votes against.
Thank you to everyone who took the time to review and to vote on this!

We will tag and merge this into v2.3-RC2 in the coming weeks.

@mplsmitch mplsmitch merged commit 4477767 into MobilityData:master Dec 15, 2021
@mplsmitch mplsmitch mentioned this pull request Mar 1, 2022
3 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants