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

EPIP: Conflicting documentation on where to store the route-on-map. #787

Open
skinkie opened this issue Oct 2, 2024 · 2 comments
Open
Assignees
Labels
EPIP needs documentation update The NeTEx document needs to be updated
Milestone

Comments

@skinkie
Copy link
Contributor

skinkie commented Oct 2, 2024

Clarify if the gml:LineString in RouteLink is to be used or not.

route

service-link

@Aurige
Copy link
Contributor

Aurige commented Oct 8, 2024

The comment in the table says that the place to put the schematic "shape" of a Line / Service Pattern is in the LineString of the ServiceLink (so that's where users will look for first). But you can still use the RouteLink to provide a more accurate geometry (so probably not schematic), i.e. matching the road/road-side, rails, etc.
I remember the discussion about it, and the idea was mainly to have a systematic way to describe the Line / Service Pattern shape.. so if a shape is provided, one (even schematic) has to be there.

@skinkie skinkie added the needs documentation update The NeTEx document needs to be updated label Oct 8, 2024
@skinkie skinkie assigned trurlurl and unassigned Aurige Oct 8, 2024
@trurlurl
Copy link
Collaborator

I don't really see any conflict or contradiction myself. Based on the comment from @Aurige I would suggest adding the following clarification after the depicted text of section 7.2:

"EPIP requires gml:LineString of SERVICE LINKs to be provided whenever the shape is known. Thus, the geographically most accurate description of a ROUTE can be found in gml:LineString of the ROUTE LINKs if available; otherwise, it can be derived from gml:LineString of the SERVICE LINKs."

@skinkie Would that resolve the issue for you?

@ue71603 ue71603 added this to the netex_2.0 milestone Oct 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
EPIP needs documentation update The NeTEx document needs to be updated
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants