Standardize location data to GeoJSON

[pgiki]

I am proposing standardizing the location-related data for v3.0-RC. This proposed change will lead to replacing the lat and lon fields with 1 GeoJSON Point field. The GeoJSON format is a well-known standard for sharing GIS data. In addition, GeoJSON is already used on the GBFS specifications in defining geofences and station areas.

Please describe some potential solutions you have considered (even if they aren’t related to GBFS).

Standard all location-related data (lat and lon) to GeoJSON on vehicle_status.json and station_information.json

Is your potential solution a breaking change?

• Yes
• No
• Unsure

Below is an example of how lat and lon would be changed for the station information example.

    "last_updated": 1640887163,
    "ttl": 0,
    "version": "3.0-RC",
    "data": {
        "stations": [
            {
                "station_id": "station12",
                "name": [
                    {
                        "text": "SE Belmont & SE 10th",
                        "language": "en"
                    }
                ],
                "location": {
                    "coordinates": [
                        -122.655775,
                        45.516445
                    ],
                    "type": "Point"
                },
                "is_valet_station": false,
                "is_virtual_station": true,
                "is_charging_station": false,
                "station_area": {
                    "type": "MultiPolygon",
                    "coordinates": [
                        [
                            [
                                [
                                    -122.655775,
                                    45.516445
                                ],
                                [
                                    -122.655705,
                                    45.516445
                                ],
                                [
                                    -122.655705,
                                    45.516495
                                ],
                                [
                                    -122.655775,
                                    45.516495
                                ],
                                [
                                    -122.655775,
                                    45.516445
                                ]
                            ]
                        ]
                    ]
                },
                "capacity": 16,
                "vehicle_type_area_capacity": [
                    {
                        "vehicle_type_id": "abc123",
                        "count": 7
                    },
                    {
                        "vehicle_type_id": "def456",
                        "count": 8
                    }
                ]
            }
        ]
    }
}```

[josee-sabourin]

tagging for more visibility
@kulovan @cmonagle @futuretap @ezmckinn @bdferris-v2 @hynick4 @testower @fbouchPBSC @rickbruce
@AntoineAugusti @Cj-Malone

[futuretap]

As far as I understand, station_area is already in GeoJSON format. In my opinion, converting lat, lon to GeoJSON doesn't make sense as long as we require type to be Point. Then we'd just add needless clutter.

[AntoineAugusti]

I don't see a clear added benefit to this breaking change

[pgiki]

My argument is that if both station_area and lat and lon represent location details why not standardize all these location-related attributes on GBFS to GeoJSON which is already partially used on the specs anyway?

[mplsmitch]

The current WGS84 format is widely used (including by GeoJSON) and generally understood. While GeoJSON is great for defining polygons, I don't think it would add value to define these as GeoJSON points.
In the example above, what is currently handled in 2 lines becomes 7 lines in GeoJSON, If you apply that to vehicle_status.json even a relatively small fleet of 500 vehicles would need an additional 2,500 lines.

[pgiki]

Thank you, @mplsmitch for bringing up the topic of efficiency/bandwidth (fewer lines) versus consistency (standardizing locations using WGS84 format). If others also agree with this approach, I'm happy to consider this matter resolved unless there are any objections within the next 24 hours.