Talk:Key:ref:gbfs

Status and progress?

@CjMalone: What OSM project or application is this used? I have comments about ref:gbfs=* from an import. Talk:Import/Catalogue/GBFS_Docomo_Bike_Share_Import#Standardizing_with_OSM https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gbfs-docomo-bike-share-import-in-japan/106704/4
—— Kovposch (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't really used it since. The aim was to be able to link the official data, and do regular diffs. I haven't been doing that, someone else did some a while ago, but I think that too ended up being a 1 time thing. It also looks like some of the 8.5k current usages is in Japan, I've had no contact with them. --CjMalone (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

All the Places produce a GBFS snapshot every week, I would like for that to have the same ref as OSM, but that code is easily changed, OSM data is harder to change. I've been on both side of the namespace debates, and don't really want to be pulled into it again but my opinion on this one is: It's unlikely for 1 OSM object to need multiple GBFS refs, so the current usage is easier to parse. However I trust you/the community to decide without me. --CjMalone (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Going from the current ref:gbfs=* to the proposed ref:gbfs:{System ID}=station_id would mean there would at least 452 potential keys that could be used for matching to official data. --CjMalone (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Because there seems to be little to no possibility of collision in bike (as in how same stops can be provided from different transit system feeds in GTFS), I suggested separating into gbfs:system_id=* + gbfs:station_id=* to them.
—— Kovposch (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)