derhuerst
commented
1 year ago So instead of creating my own format I would like to discuss the format here and ideally upstream the specification to this repo instead.
Sounds like a good idea! From transport-apis' perspective it makes sense to keep the format similar (within reason) to the other systems' formats.
Compared to TRIA, Hafas, EFA, etc. I am not aware of any "official" MOTIS-Servers provided by a public transport provider, but there are public instances like https://europe.motis-project.de/.
I think documenting almost any open or semi-open transport API that clients might want to consume is valuable! 👍
You might know about MOTIS: https://motis-project.de/
As part of my job I started to work on a library to communicate with Motis-Instances and came to the point that it would make sense to have configuration files. So instead of creating my own format I would like to discuss the format here and ideally upstream the specification to this repo instead. Compared to TRIA, Hafas, EFA, etc. I am not aware of any "official" MOTIS-Servers provided by a public transport provider, but there are public instances like https://europe.motis-project.de/.
I also created a upstream issue here: https://github.com/motis-project/motis/issues/276
If you have any additional aspects you would think about let me know in this issue. And if you would be fine adding the specification to this repository, I would similar to the TRIAS create a draft PR to discuss a proposed format.