Rename `coordinates` field to `coordinate`

[kiliankoe]

Small change, but makes more sense imo though if there's just a single pair of lat/lng values. Reading the plural makes me think of getting several value pairs.

Regarding station and stop objects.

[juliuste]

As far as I know, one does always use the term coordinates in plural form, because one coordinate (singular) would only describe the value for one dimension, e.g. only latitude or only longitude. Since both dimensions are included, the plural form should be correct. But I wouldn't mind being proven wrong here 😄

@derhuerst @dirkschumacher Any opinions?

[kiliankoe]

No you're definitely right^^ I've just typically seen a single value pair (or triple if all dimensions are relevant) almost always being referred to as a coordinate, which feels more natural as there's no difference to the plural otherwise. Many frameworks (like Apple's CoreLocation) also refer to coordinate objects in the singular to make the distinction clearer.

I just thought that whilst technically being incorrect or at least not entirely correct, it feels more friendly and accessible to change that around^^ It is just a tiny change though, I'm fine with either way.

[derhuerst]

@kiliankoe I can see your point. While coordinates is technically accurate, it might sounds to people as if we are talking about a set of tuples.

[juliuste]

If it doesn't bother you too much, I'd strongly prefer the plural form since - for me - it seems more intiutive for people not influenced by the naming mistakes* made in other frameworks (including me) 😄

* 😛

[derhuerst]

Can we close this in favour of #19, as we seem to agree that a location object is necessary?

[juliuste]

This is still open depending on our decision in #19