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

is operator field in journey structure mandatory or optional? #56

Open
matkoniecz opened this issue Sep 5, 2018 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #57
Open

is operator field in journey structure mandatory or optional? #56

matkoniecz opened this issue Sep 5, 2018 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #57

Comments

@matkoniecz
Copy link
Contributor

most fields in https://github.com/public-transport/friendly-public-transport-format/blob/master/spec/readme.md#journey are described as mandatory or optional.

operator field is unspecified

@matkoniecz
Copy link
Contributor Author

I can make PR after confirmation that this field was supposed to be optional.

@matkoniecz matkoniecz changed the title is operator field in journey structire mandatory or optional? is operator field in journey structure mandatory or optional? Sep 5, 2018
@matkoniecz
Copy link
Contributor Author

I made it anyway, before confirmation.

@juliuste
Copy link
Member

juliuste commented Oct 25, 2018

Sorry for being so late to comment, IMHO we should be consistent with the decision to make operator required/optional, e.g. also in line.operator. I personally would rather have it required, @derhuerst @matkoniecz @ialokim opinions?

@matkoniecz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Personally I would prefer it optional, as without it data still makes sense.

I would keep required for things that once missing make data completely useless (like destination or origin).

@juliuste
Copy link
Member

We should also decide on #55 while we're at it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants