[Open-transport] Open Transport Data tools / webservices

Tue Jul 16 10:10:07 UTC 2013

I'm not sure if NETex can be considered a standard, it's more a collection
of standards. For example the NETex specification for the Netherlands
currently drafted is in almost every aspect completely different to the
NETex exported by Chouette....

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Byrd <andrew at fastmail.net> wrote:

> On 07/16/2013 11:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Christophe Duquesne-Aurige wrote:
> >> It has GTFS, NEPTUNE and NeTEx import and export (the latest, NeTEx,
> >> being the very new CEN standard for scheduled public transport data
> >> exchange), and was recently added a KML export ...
> >
> > If you have ever seen an export made to NeTEx you directly understand
> > the tool just converts to a call based format a la GTFS - which is
> > insane if you have a Transmodel definition at your hands.
>
> What is a "call-based format"?
>
> > What I expect from tooling that converts is to increase entropy at a
> > conversion. Especially if the "latest NeTEx" is so rich in its
> > vocabulary you wonder why you praise it, when most of the people don't
> > use it beyond the GTFS simplistic use case.
>
> So you want your conversion tools to increase entropy? Can you give a
> concrete example of this and why it's desirable?
>
> I'm not sure anyone's specifically praising NeTEx, I think we just find
> it has a few concepts that GTFS doesn't and sometimes need to use those
> concepts.
>
> -Andrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-transport mailing list
> open-transport at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-transport
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-transport
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-transport/attachments/20130716/53fc8052/attachment.html>