Talks have broken down between DC's transit authority and Google over displaying system information on Google Transit. The magnificent Tom Lee explains it all.
Hell with the tool. I'd rather read the schedules anyway. If google transit is anything like google maps walking directions, this tool will be the answer to the auto industry bailout.
I tried to get directions from Banff to Lake Louise, a relatively short bike ride about 8 miles north. The google maps sent me south and across the continental divide (aka really big hill) twice and about 60 miles out of my way.
With maps you can see easily see this is crazy. With transit, since you cant see all the routes, the "tool" could send you on a 45 minute journey when another option is available if you want to walk a couple of blocks that would only take 10 minutes.
My advice to all you kids out there is to learn the local system. It is stable and doesn't change that much. Then you still can be high functioning green professionals even if your preferred hand held device as fallen into the toilet.
Natty the mountain air must be getting to your head. The purpose of Google Transit is to allow visitors to major cities, unfamiliar with the local transit options, an easy way to navigate often confusing systems.
Your point about Google's walking directions are also irrelevant, given that (1) it's a beta tool, and (2) the nature of rural areas means routes are less precise than urban neighborhoods.
WMATA wants money from Google apparently because Google is rich. However, Google is providing a service to transit riders for no cost to WMATA, and one that makes the entire system run better (assuming it works!) Ordinarily, Google should be charging WMATA for broadcasting the information. I say WMATA should suck it up and just provide the data for a 2 year trial period. If it becomes a huge money maker, WMATA can negotiate for better rates in 2 years.
Google is either being lazy here or pushy here or both. It would be fairly trivial for them to simply crawl the schedules and mine the GTFS data themselves; the information is publicly available, and they don't need WMATA's permission to publish it. Instead, they tried to get WMATA to adopt their standard and publish the data to Google's specifications. WMATA didn't, and I'm fine with that. Why should government money be spent enhancing Google's product offering?
Typical Google arrogance. No wonder their enterprise offerings are a total joke.
WMATA is a government entity. That data should be available to the public in a format that is easily parseable in software. Let the WMATA site compete on equal footing with other ways of looking at that information.
Typical Google arrogance. No wonder their enterprise offerings are a total joke.
The only thing that Staash and I will ever agree on. Has Google ever moved anything out of beta? I think I heard the word "betaware" used to coin Google's offerings.
It's preposterous for WMATA to demand cash from anyone for the privilege of obtaining their schedule and route information. It's public data. Give it up.
According to that link, the information Google wants is provided in an open, text-based format, and the files can be made publicly available for anyone to download and parse. So there's absolutely nothing to stop someone, "an employee at a competitor" perhaps, from building a better interface to present that very same information. The only requirement is that they're competent and interested enough to try. Google's already done all the hard work. I'd love to see everyone try their own approach.
Bryan C writes: "According to that link, the information Google wants is provided in an open, text-based format, and the files can be made publicly available for anyone to download and parse. So there's absolutely nothing to stop someone, "an employee at a competitor" perhaps, from building a better interface to present that very same information."
Changing the way the publish their info is a bigger PITA than you may imagine for organizations with legacy IT infrastructure, ingrained work procedures, and obstinate, self-protective employees. Never underestimate the bureaucratic shenanigans involved in anything remotely-tied to the public sector.
Once again, the data is already freely available; it's just tied to the current format. If Google wants the data so badly in a format that's compatible with their own propriety mapping software, then there's nothing stopping them from crawling the schedules, parsing out the various data and metadata of interest, and outputting said data and metadata in GTFS format. Last I heard they were still a search company, right?
Of course, that would really cut into the time they need to do useful stuff, like make a "Ninja" mode for Google Reader, or, code an application that makes you do math so you can't send email when you're drunk.
As for us, we recognize how difficult it is for a customer to make changes on their end to accommodate our product. Our products and professional service people play well with the weirdo formats and byzantine system configurations that you actually find in real-world. That's why we're wiping the floor with Google in the enterprise, and that's why we're not wasting time and money in developing garbage like "Lively".
That's why we're wiping the floor with Google in the enterprise, and that's why we're not wasting time and money in developing garbage like "Lively".
Right. Keep telling yourself that the terms "enterprise" and "beta" mean something (or that the failure of Lively, a little-attended side project, is significant).
Google's certainly not above reproach, but those pretending to be more successful or technically competent are fooling themselves. And no, I have no connection to Google.
Tom writes: "Keep telling yourself that the terms "enterprise" and "beta" mean something"
Maybe they don't in Django web developer la-la land, but they really do have a meaning when you have, you know, actual clients using your software in a mission critical applications.
Tom continues: "Google's certainly not above reproach, but those pretending to be more successful or technically competent are fooling themselves. And no, I have no connection to Google."
As you stated, you have no connection to Google, which is why you can make such a statement with a straight face.
This is why you should move back to NYC.
Hell with the tool. I'd rather read the schedules anyway. If google transit is anything like google maps walking directions, this tool will be the answer to the auto industry bailout.
I tried to get directions from Banff to Lake Louise, a relatively short bike ride about 8 miles north. The google maps sent me south and across the continental divide (aka really big hill) twice and about 60 miles out of my way.
With maps you can see easily see this is crazy. With transit, since you cant see all the routes, the "tool" could send you on a 45 minute journey when another option is available if you want to walk a couple of blocks that would only take 10 minutes.
My advice to all you kids out there is to learn the local system. It is stable and doesn't change that much. Then you still can be high functioning green professionals even if your preferred hand held device as fallen into the toilet.
Natty the mountain air must be getting to your head. The purpose of Google Transit is to allow visitors to major cities, unfamiliar with the local transit options, an easy way to navigate often confusing systems.
Your point about Google's walking directions are also irrelevant, given that (1) it's a beta tool, and (2) the nature of rural areas means routes are less precise than urban neighborhoods.
WMATA wants money from Google apparently because Google is rich. However, Google is providing a service to transit riders for no cost to WMATA, and one that makes the entire system run better (assuming it works!) Ordinarily, Google should be charging WMATA for broadcasting the information. I say WMATA should suck it up and just provide the data for a 2 year trial period. If it becomes a huge money maker, WMATA can negotiate for better rates in 2 years.
Google is either being lazy here or pushy here or both. It would be fairly trivial for them to simply crawl the schedules and mine the GTFS data themselves; the information is publicly available, and they don't need WMATA's permission to publish it. Instead, they tried to get WMATA to adopt their standard and publish the data to Google's specifications. WMATA didn't, and I'm fine with that. Why should government money be spent enhancing Google's product offering?
Typical Google arrogance. No wonder their enterprise offerings are a total joke.
Signed,
An employee at a competitor
WMATA is a government entity. That data should be available to the public in a format that is easily parseable in software. Let the WMATA site compete on equal footing with other ways of looking at that information.
The only thing that Staash and I will ever agree on. Has Google ever moved anything out of beta? I think I heard the word "betaware" used to coin Google's offerings.
It's preposterous for WMATA to demand cash from anyone for the privilege of obtaining their schedule and route information. It's public data. Give it up.
According to that link, the information Google wants is provided in an open, text-based format, and the files can be made publicly available for anyone to download and parse. So there's absolutely nothing to stop someone, "an employee at a competitor" perhaps, from building a better interface to present that very same information. The only requirement is that they're competent and interested enough to try. Google's already done all the hard work. I'd love to see everyone try their own approach.
Why is Google getting special treatment. I live in nyc and i use hopstop.com to get subway/bus directions. they also have the same service for D.C.
Bryan C writes: "According to that link, the information Google wants is provided in an open, text-based format, and the files can be made publicly available for anyone to download and parse. So there's absolutely nothing to stop someone, "an employee at a competitor" perhaps, from building a better interface to present that very same information."
Changing the way the publish their info is a bigger PITA than you may imagine for organizations with legacy IT infrastructure, ingrained work procedures, and obstinate, self-protective employees. Never underestimate the bureaucratic shenanigans involved in anything remotely-tied to the public sector.
Once again, the data is already freely available; it's just tied to the current format. If Google wants the data so badly in a format that's compatible with their own propriety mapping software, then there's nothing stopping them from crawling the schedules, parsing out the various data and metadata of interest, and outputting said data and metadata in GTFS format. Last I heard they were still a search company, right?
Of course, that would really cut into the time they need to do useful stuff, like make a "Ninja" mode for Google Reader, or, code an application that makes you do math so you can't send email when you're drunk.
As for us, we recognize how difficult it is for a customer to make changes on their end to accommodate our product. Our products and professional service people play well with the weirdo formats and byzantine system configurations that you actually find in real-world. That's why we're wiping the floor with Google in the enterprise, and that's why we're not wasting time and money in developing garbage like "Lively".
That's why we're wiping the floor with Google in the enterprise, and that's why we're not wasting time and money in developing garbage like "Lively".
Right. Keep telling yourself that the terms "enterprise" and "beta" mean something (or that the failure of Lively, a little-attended side project, is significant).
Google's certainly not above reproach, but those pretending to be more successful or technically competent are fooling themselves. And no, I have no connection to Google.
Tom writes: "Keep telling yourself that the terms "enterprise" and "beta" mean something"
Maybe they don't in Django web developer la-la land, but they really do have a meaning when you have, you know, actual clients using your software in a mission critical applications.
Tom continues: "Google's certainly not above reproach, but those pretending to be more successful or technically competent are fooling themselves. And no, I have no connection to Google."
As you stated, you have no connection to Google, which is why you can make such a statement with a straight face.