Clarify num_bikes_available and num_docks_available definitions

[heidiguenin]

Addressing issue #94.

I've updated the language for num_bikes_available and num_docks_available. Does this create enough clarity?

[mplsmitch]

@heidiguenin I would say this is backwards or unnecessary. If a station contains X bikes and is_renting is false (0) then num_bikes_available would be zero and num_bikes_disabled would be X. Same would apply to docks if is_returning were false

[heidiguenin]

@mplsmitch Did you have the chance to look through the conversation over at #94 again? This is the solution that was agreed upon after quite a bit of back and forth.

[mplsmitch]

@heidiguenin you're correct- disregard my previous comment

[kanagy]

While you're here, can you change num_docks_available to be optional? That would allow better handling of virtual stations. Comment could say: Required, except for stations that have unlimited docking capacity (e.g. virtual stations). I found at least one feed that does not set num_docks_available because of this.

[heidiguenin]

Updated based on @kanagy's comment.

[heidiguenin]

@kanagy Thinking on this more, shouldn't num_docks_available then be Conditionally required? Am I understanding your use cases correctly?

[madupras]

+1 from PBSC

[heidiguenin]

I hereby call a vote on this proposal. Voting will be open for 7 full days, until 11:59PM UTC on December 11th.

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

[heidiguenin]

@maduprasPBSC @kanagy I have updated the proposal and opened the vote. Let me know if that works for you!

[madupras]

@maduprasPBSC @kanagy I have updated the proposal and opened the vote. Let me know if that works for you!

Still works for us. Thanks for the update

[evansiroky]

+1 from IBI Group

[kanagy]

+1 from Google Maps. We've noticed that some systems with virtual stations already treat num_docks_available as optional.

[kanagy]

@kanagy Thinking on this more, shouldn't num_docks_available then be Conditionally required? Am I understanding your use cases correctly?

Yes, sorry for the late reply. Thanks for updating.

[gcamp]

+1 from Transit

[charlesjump]

+1 JUMP

[mdwestervelt]

• 1 Bird

[heidiguenin]

Voting has closed and this changed has been passed. Six votes were in favor:

PBSC (Vendor / GBFS producer)
IBI Group (Developer of OpenTripPlanner, GBFS consumer)
Google Maps 9GBFS consumer)
Transit App (GBFS consumer)
JUMP (GBFS producer)
Bird (GBFS producer)

There were no votes against or neutral votes.

@MobilityData is refining how we'll implement the versioning scheme (#188). We'll merge this once we arrive at a sensible release process (see #163).

[jcn]

Just for clarification @mdwestervelt, was that a vote for or against from Bird? (I see that you had typed "-1 Bird" and I wasn't sure if that was a negative vote or if that was intended to be markdown formatting).

[mdwestervelt]

Sorry! Was briefly working on an international keyboard. +1

…

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 6:13 PM Jesse Chan-Norris ***@***.***> wrote: Just for clarification @mdwestervelt <https://github.com/mdwestervelt>, was that a vote for or against from Bird? (I see that you had typed "-1 Bird" and I wasn't sure if that was a negative vote or if that was intended to be markdown formatting). — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#195>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALAJZ5LCS6EZ7JWQ23PHIFLQX7E5BANCNFSM4JQVHOFA> .

-- Marla Westervelt *B I R D*