+1, TriMet

+1 (OpenGeo)

+1 Moovit

Now that 7 days of discussion have passed, we can call an official vote (@mgilligan, @skinkie, @flocsy thanks for the enthusiasm, feel free to recast your votes!). This vote is for updating the stop_name best practices as outlined in this PR.

Voting ends on 2021-09-10 at 23:59:59 UTC.

Thanks!

+1 Transit

Still voting +1 (OpenGeo)!

+1 Brody Flannigan Transit Data on behalf of Transcollines.

+1 from Bileto

+1 from @mbta

+1, TriMet again

+1 from Trillium

+1 Moovit

+1 Samtrafiken/Trafiklab

+1 Conveyal

The vote ended on 2021-09-10 at 23:59:59 UTC with 11 votes in favor and 0 opposed. As per the Specification Amendment Process, this vote passes!

Thanks to all involved.

Should something to mentioned about mixed case vs all caps?

@doconnoronca We can add in a following sentence:

Provide stop names in mixed case, following local conventions, as per recommendation for all rider-facing text fields.

What do you think?

That mention should be general to any string, not just stop name.

http://gtfs.org/best-practices/#all-files says:

All customer-facing text strings (including stop names, route names, and headsigns) should use Mixed Case (not ALL CAPS), following local conventions for capitalization of place names on displays capable of displaying lower case characters.

Mixed case is already mentioned elsewhere then it is not needed here.

Often stop names are the names of two cross streets. It would be beneficial if they are seperated by a consistent seperater across the whole file, whether it be " and ", " + ", "/" or whatever. Also the street the vehicle is traveling on should be first and the cross street second.

@doconnoronca Would recommending a consistent separator for cross streets be at odds with:

The stop_name should match the agency's rider-facing name for the location as printed on a timetable, published online, or represented on signage.

? For example if one agency has a timetable that publishes " and " and another agency has a timetable that publishes " / ". Technically they are following the spec recommendation to match their data to their official material, albeit using different ways to describe cross streets.

It's where one agency uses 3 or 4 different seperators in one stops.txt file.

I see! Maybe something like:

Stops named after cross streets should separate street names by a single consistent separator within stops.txt (e.g., "at", "and", "&", "/"). The first street name should be the street that the vehicle is travelling on at the time of the stop, and the second street name should be the cross street (i.e., < first street name > < separator > < second street name >).

I see! Maybe something like:

Stops named after cross streets should separate street names by a single consistent separator within stops.txt (e.g., "at", "and", "&", "/"). The first street name should be the street that the vehicle is travelling on at the time of the stop, and the second street name should be the cross street (i.e., < first street name > < separator > < second street name >).

I love this. I've seen some feeds with 3 or even 4 different seperators and totally inconsitent stop names so this is a huge +1 for me.

Looks good.

maybe it would be wise to create a new PR for the separator discussion, as this PR's vote already finished

@flocsy I agree. Please see #285.