Extending vehicle_types.json

[josee-sabourin]

What problem does your proposal solve? Please begin with the relevant issue number. If there is no existing issue, please also describe alternative solutions you have considered.

This proposal is in response to the discussion in #319 to extend vehicle_types.json. After an in-depth needs assessment and community consultation, these fields are what appear to be the priority for the GBFS community when it comes to vehicle descriptions. The proposal document can be found here.

What is the proposal?

The proposal adds enums to the form_factor field:

• cargo_bicycle
• scooter_seated
• scooter becomes scooter_standing

The proposal also adds 3 fields to the specification:

• wheel_count: to inform the user of the number of wheels on the vehicle
• max_permitted_speed: to inform the user of the maximum speed allowed as well as to better inform trip planners for route planning
• rated_power: the motor wattage of the vehicle to better inform trip planners.

Is this a breaking change?

• Yes - however, the proposal can be rewritten to not include the breaking change by specifying that form_factor.scooter implies a standing scooter.
• No
• Unsure

Which files are affected by this change?

• vehicle_types.json

[bartwr]

Looking good! We definitely can use this in The Netherlands, i.e. for listing cargo bikes and 'snorfietsen' (mopeds <= 25 km/h) following this updated standard.

[schnuerle]

Per issue openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification#692 opened by @sven4all, for MDS 1.2.0 we may be able to add cargo_bicycle as a vehicle type, but would not be able to remove scooter as this would be a breaking change. So we would have to revisit later to align these changes to MDS in the next major release 2.0.0, which will start work in the next few weeks.

[sven4all]

Maybe it's a good idea for both MDS and GBFS to introduce scooter_seated and scooter_standing in the next minor release, but still allow scooter (with a will be deprecated in the next major release annotation).

[josee-sabourin]

I hereby call a vote on this proposal.

Voting will be open for 10 full calendar days until 11:59PM UTC on December 9, 2021.

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

Please note if you can commit to implementing the proposal.

[kanagy]

Hi, could there be a bit more clarification on the difference between seated_scooter and moped? I read that in the motorcycle world, a scooter is more powerful than moped (e.g. need a motorcycle license in Australia for scooter, but not for moped). However, I thought in the bikeshare world (and in this spec) it was the other way round.

[josee-sabourin]

Hi @kanagy
A seated scooter would look like this:

Whereas a moped would be this:

We can update the documentation to be more clear if this passes.

[sven4all]

+1 from CROW

[cmonagle]

+1 from Transit

[kanagy]

+1 From Google Maps. Yes, please clarify the documentation, particularly since this spec will be shared with car sharing (and so potentially motorbike sharing).

[testower]

Entur supports this proposal, but I agree with @sven4all that this could easily be introduced as a non-breaking change, with aiming to remove "scooter" in v3.

[nbdh]

+1 from nextbike

[heidiguenin]

Voting on this PR closes in 2 calendar days. Please vote for or against the proposal, and include the organization for which you are voting in your comment. Please note if you can commit to implementing the proposal.

[ncancelliere]

+1 from Spin

[heidiguenin]

This vote has now closed, and it passes!

Votes in favor:
CROW (producer)
Transit (consumer)
Google Maps (consumer)
Entur (consumer)
nextbike (producer)
Spin (producer)


There were no votes against.
Thank you to everyone who took the time to review and to vote on this!

We'll update the documentation as discussed, and then we will tag and merge this into v2.3-RC2 (with the non-breaking approach discussed in the proposal) and v3.0-RC2 (with the longer-term breaking approach) in the coming weeks.