►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Group Meeting / 2018-08-01
Description
A public hangout for members of the OpenActive W3C Community Group.
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openactive/2018Jul/0010.html
For more information visit: https://www.openactive.io/w3c-community-group.html
A
A
Ok
we've
got
a
lot
of
new
people
on
the
call
today
great
to
see
so
many
new
faces
and
new
names.
Obviously
roots
is
of
interest
to
lots
of
you.
So
before
we
jump
into
the
discussion
of
the
proposal,
I
was
just
wondering
if
we
could
quickly
go
around,
so
everyone
can
each
introduce
themselves
just
say
your
name
and
which
organization
you're
from
because
we've
got
one
person
who's
on
the
phone.
C
A
Okay,
so
we've
got
I'll
just
introduce
people
that
I
know
it's
Katherine
Joan
is
an
intern
has
just
joined
the
open
active
team.
We've
also
got
Sean
Radford
on
the
court
as
well,
so
in
versus
time,
I'm
gonna
move
on
with
the
core
I'll
share.
My
screen
I
usually
prepare
some
slides
for
the
call
just
to
help
guide
us
through
the
discussion
so
because
we've
got
a
few
new
people
today,
I
just
wanted
to
put
a
bit
of
context
to
what
these
calls
are.
All
about.
A
So
Nick
you
just
let
me
know
if
you
can
see
the
slides,
okay,
so
yeah.
It
looks
good
great,
okay
thanks!
So
these
these
are
our
fortnightly
cause
of
the
community
group
who
are
collaborating
on
building
the
data
standards
for
the
open,
active
project.
So
we've
been
them
every
two
weeks.
The
topics
vary
depending
on
what
the
focus
of
our
work
is
at
any
at
any
point
in
time,
and
that's
largely
driven
by
the
feedback.
A
It's
that
we
hear
from
their
community.
So
at
the
moment,
we're
working
through
a
number
of
updates
to
our
specifications
in
parallel,
we're
working
on
some
open
booking
API
we're
working
on
a
revision
to
main
data
model
specification
which
we
might
get
to
depending
on
how
quickly
we
move
through
the
core,
as
well
as
discussing
a
number
of
other
proposed
changes
and
building
some
tools
to
help
people
with
publishing
their
data.
A
If
you
are
not
aware
of
it
that
we
coordinate
this
work
through
a
w3c
community
group,
which
you
can
google
and
also
share
these
slides
afterwards,
both
to
our
community
group
mailing
list,
which
is
the
right
place
to
come
to
kind
of
follow
along
to
what
we're
doing,
but
I'll
also
ask
the
engagement
team
to
share
with
those
of
you
who
they've
invited
directly
today
and
we're
doing
all
of
my
work
in
the
open.
We
have
open
processes,
open
governance
that
helps
build
the
standards
that
should
hopefully
be
useful
to
the
whole
community.
A
You
cut
you're
welcome
to
come
along
and
join.
These
calls
to
contribute
on
github
leave
comments
on
the
issues
and
proposals
that
we
raise,
but
it
would
be
great
if
your
you
organization
can
come
and
formally
join
the
community
group
as
well.
It's
a
very
straightforward
process,
so
just
kind
of
joining
signing
up
on
the
w3
site
and
joining
the
group.
A
A
A
A
A
A
So
the
approach
that
I'm
proposing
to
get
the
the
first
support
in
four
routes
is
to
try
and
focus
on
the
most
basic
use
case
initially,
and
this
in
line
with
what
we've
been
doing
with
other
aspects
of
the
data
model.
So
we
know
that
there
will
be
a
variety
of
more
advanced
requirements
around
not
just
roots
but
also
events
and
use
of
facilities.
A
But
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
generally
is
tale
approach
where
we
identified
the
kind
of
minimum
data
model
in
order
to
enable
people
to
start
publishing
data
and
then
use
that
to
then
start
addressing
more
complex
use
cases.
So
we've
been
guided
by
the
data
that
we
know
that
people
have
already
or
are
collecting
already
and
then
expanding
that
out,
based
on
how
people
develop
and
improve
their
systems
or
as
we
get
new
requirements
in.
A
It
doesn't
address
some
of
the
more
advanced
requirements
which
I,
which
we've
been
having
some
discussion
about
on
the
github
issue,
arounds.
So
so
far,
I
talked
through
what
the
basic
use
case
looks
at
the
moment,
but
so,
if
I
haven't
had
anyone
disagree
with
the
content
of
the
basic
proposal,
most
of
the
discussion
seems
to
be
around
some
of
these
more
advanced
requirements
so
being
able
to
segment
roots
and
describe
sections
of
the
root,
perhaps
in
terms
of
a
different
difficulty
grade
surface.
A
A
So
I'll
just
quickly
summarize
what
I
think
the
breeze
puzzle
is
and
then
I'll
ask
people
for
feedback.
So
what
I'm
proposing
is
that
we
add
a
new
type
to
the
data
model
which
is
route,
which
is
the
the
object
that
we
use
to
capture
so
to
describe
any
type
of
route,
whether
it's
for
walking,
cycling
or
running,
and
we
already
have
quite
a
rich
set
of
properties
in
the
data
model
for
describing
a
whole
variety
of
different
things,
different,
very
different
aspects
of
events,
facilities
and
these
will
apply
to
routes
as
well.
A
A
We
as
part
of
a
date
model
we're
drawing
quite
heavily
on
schema.org,
which
is
an
existing
standard,
that's
being
developed
by
broad
community,
including
Google.
They
already
have-
and
they
only
have
a
few
features
which
are
relevant
here.
So
in
particular,
they
have
a
geo
shape
type
which
can
be
used
to
describe
a
line
so
over
a
polygon
for
a
kind
of
circular
route,
for
example,
so
I'm
proposing
that
what
we
do
is
attach
geo
shape
information
to
this
new
route
type.
A
So
together,
that
would
give
us
a
way
to
say
there
is
a
named
route,
provide
description,
indicate
what
type
of
activity
is
suitable
for
and
then
also
publish
a
some
geospatial
data
which
could
be
a
do
JSON
file.
It
could
be
a
GPX
trace,
depending
on
what
people
have
and
I
think
that
it
could
cover
these
core
use
case.
A
So
the
distance
kind
of
estimated
duration
app
some
indication
of
the
kind
of
elevation
change
over
the
course
of
the
route,
but
this
is
where
it
starts
to
kind
of
get
into
some
of
these
more
details,
discussions
that
have
been
raised
on
the
mailing
list
so
any
any
thoughts
from
anyone
on
at
that
point.
So
far,.
E
Anyway,
are
you
going
to
move
on
to
Italy,
but
that's
been
first
bits
of
conversation
by
the
tail
end
of
the
discussion
on
github
abouts,
sort
of
easy
versus
hard
and
sort
of
qualitative
indicators,
as
opposed
to
quantitative
ones
of
the
routes,
so
I
think
that's
certainly
worth
a
discussion
here.
I
wasn't
sure
you
going
to
get
to
this
little
bit
further
in
the
conversation.
A
Within
that
this,
this
notion
of
attaching
kind
of
difficulty
is
not
specific
to
routes.
It
comes
up
with
other
other
types
of
opportunities
as
well.
So
you
know
is
a
class
designed
for
beginners
or
experts,
for
example.
So,
at
the
moment,
in
the
data
model,
we
have
a
property
called
level
which
indicates
the
kind
of
level
of
you
know.
Experience
for
you
know
an
event
or
potentially
route
is
suitable
for
well.
What
we
haven't
done
is
standardized
the
values
for
that,
because
we
see
that
there's,
there's
probably
a
lot
of
different
type.
A
There
could
be
a
lot
of
different
ways
that
people
want
to
classify
things.
So
at
the
moment,
we
allow
or
sorry
from
the
2.0
specification
we'll
be
saying
to
people
those
can.
When
you
publish
a
level,
you
can
indicate
that
it's
coming
from
a
controlled
vocabulary
to
allow
the
community
to
kind
of
have
some
discussion
about
what
those
levels
are,
but
without
requiring
everybody
to
agree
on
it
on
what
they
are
in
advance.
That
makes
sense.
E
Do
you
think
that
she
says
controlled
vocabulary?
Do
you
think
there
should
be
some
requirement
to
be
able
to,
for
instance,
as
a
level
categorization
to
go
off
to
their
schema
and
find
a
description
from
the
organization?
That's
giving
it
so,
basically
that
it's
a
level
category
in
their
schema.
So
if
I'm,
a
member
of
the
British
Ironman,
Foundation
and
I'm,
putting
out
a
level
of
difficulty
for
a
route
that
my
classification
of
what
a
difficult
group
might
entail
would
be
probably
death
to
anybody.
E
A
So
there's
there's
some
support
for
that
in
the
in
the
data
model
that
we're
using
to
publish
some
of
these
control
vocabularies,
so
we're
using
an
existing
standard
called
Scott's
which
comes
from
the
library
community,
and
in
that
you
can
indicate
that
it's
a
an
organization
is
publishing
a
control
set
of
values.
You
can
provide
those
values
and
put
some
notes
or
description
against
them,
so
give
that
kind
of
qualification
that
you
were
suggesting
would
be
useful
and
then
in
the
routes,
information
you'll,
be
able
to
say
we're
using
level
as
defined
in
this.
E
Do
you
think
levels
should
be
an
atomic
property,
or
should
it
be
able
to
actually
have
over
time
I
can
just
sort
of
see
a
particular
route
gaining
beyond
its
ownership?
What's
what
other
people
think
it
is,
and
potentially
the
Ramblers
would
take
a
walking
level
of
a
route
around
a
particular
place,
and
you
know
the
running
guys
would
have
a
different
set
of
its
qualifications
for
exactly
loot
done
as
a
running
activity.
A
A
We
then
the
date
well,
at
the
moment,
we
ask
for
a
unique
identifier
for
in
this
case
for
boots,
it's
possible
that
multiple
publishers
could
provide
some
data
about
the
same
route
using
the
same
identifier,
which
would
mean
that
the
consumers
could
take
on
these
different
viewpoints,
but
I
think
that's
a
pattern
that
we'd
have
to
document.
It's
just
not
I,
think
you
don't
think
it's
that
common
at
the
moment.
B
David,
okay,
with
the
routes
Oliver,
is
that
going
to
be
the
vision
of
the
truth
we've
published
in
the
feed
independently
from
salient
activity?
If
that's
the
case,
then,
with
the
category,
the
fiber,
walking
or
cycling,
and
then.
F
A
B
A
I
think
so
I
put
a
couple
examples
in
the
in
the
proposal,
so
there
I
was
using
the
activity
property
to
say
this
is
a
cycling
walking
route.
There
could
be
multiple
if
it
was
a
shared
use
and
then
category
was
things
like
dog,
friendly,
wheelchair,
accessible,
other
kind
of
tags
or
labels
that
he
wants
most
times
the
route.
B
A
E
Just
going
back
to
the
sort
of
different
publishers
idea
wonder
whether
some
of
the
ways
that
we've
got
sort
of
different
people's
take
on
elements
of
the
information
displayed,
I,
wonder
if
there's
some
idea
of
a
seal
so
kind
of
approach
to
this,
so
that
if
I
had
the
Ramblers
circular
walk
around
regents
park,
you
could
see
also
the
cycling
networks,
cycle
route
and
Regents
Park
or
whatever
it
happens.
To
be
so,
there's
a
there's,
a
less
of
a
hard
association
between
them.
E
A
F
A
conceptual
mapping
question
related
to
that
David
on
the
so
basically,
how
does?
How
does
this
work
with
so
you've
got
as
far
as
Chris
wasn't
and
so
you've
got
facility
use
currently,
which
is
a
particular
facility
being
used
for
a
particular
purpose,
so
that
would
be
a
tennis
I'll,
be
a
sports
hall
being
used
for
tennis,
and
we
also
have
activities
only
which
are
events
are,
which
are
usually
have
a
particular
activity
associated
with
them.
So
there
is
yoga
happening
at
7
p.m.
generally
speaking
if
there
was
also
Zumba
happening
at
7
p.m.
F
that
would
be
a
distinct
activity,
and
if
there
was
also
trampolining
happening
in
a
sports
hall,
that
would
be
a
separate
facility
use.
So
we
have
this
kind
of
separation
between
the
activities
and
the
and
the
place
where
you
do
them
so
with
roots
I'm.
Just
wondering
if
there's
something
implicit
here
about
having
is
a
cycling
route,
a
distinct,
different
thing
to
a
walking
route.
So
the
reason
I
say
that
is
on
the
surface,
it
looks
similar.
The
GPX
file
might
be
the
same,
so
they
might
have
the
same
track
trail.
F
If
it's
a
cycling
route
and
there's
also
a
running,
there's
ability
to
use
it
as
a
running
route,
then
potentially
they're
separate
routes,
maybe
they
put
into
the
same
GPX
file.
But
then
we
can
describe
them
appropriately,
label
them
appropriately,
and
people
would
turn
up
with
either
a
bike
or
their
trainers,
and
maybe
not
both.
E
So
so,
in
that
case
too,
similar
to
how
you
have
an
activity
at
a
venue,
you
have
an
activity
at
a
roost,
and
that
is
a
separate
object.
Essentially
the
refers
to
the
route,
so
you
can
find
the
activities
for
routes
or
you
can
so
you
can
do
it
or
youth
for
activities
you
can
find
the
routes
for
the
active.
Can
you
looking
to
do?
I
was.
F
Always
suggesting
that
the
route
itself
is
for
a
particular
activity,
and
so
would
be
a
distinct
route
that
you
would,
you
would
call
it
a
separate
route,
even
if
it's
the
same
GPX
trail
so
kind
of
almost
separating
the
maybe
I'm
misusing
the
word
group
here,
but
separating
the
kind
of
the
lat/long
coordinates
of
the
trail,
which
is
the
kind
of
I.
Suppose
you
could
say
that's
a
route
from
the
kind
of
more
well
described
route.
If
you
said
I
mean.
E
F
D
Would
allow
multiple
providers
of
activities
or
describers
of
activities
to
reference
the
same
geo
shape
what
easily
so,
yes,
the
Ramblers
say
is
the
Geo
shape
he's
all
stuff.
We
have
to
say
about
it.
Cyclists
say
something
different
wanna
say
something
in
all.
The
eight
different
running
organizations
describe
it
differently,
but
it's
all
the
same
gear
shape
is
metadata
that
describes
that
yeah.
D
Know
were
currently
deferring
things
like
segments
and
suchlike,
but
just
overlapping
slightly
that
could
be
representatives.
The
triathlon
might
be
here.
Are
the
three
geo
shapes
or
the
the
running
swimming
cycling
routes?
Part
of
this
overall
thing?
So
can
she,
when
we
go
there,
multiple
GAO
could
be
included
in
one
descriptor
to
represent
the
composite
activity.
Okay,.
F
There's
I
mean
triathlon,
specifically,
there's
already
a
composite
problem
with
event
because
they
want
to
represent
for
any
swimming
cycling
the
three
different
aspects
with
the
distance
for
each.
So
this
probably
yeah
and
I,
know
we're
bringing
distance
into
routes.
Aren't
we
so
maybe
that
is
the
same
thing.
A
F
Okay:
okay,
just
long
day
back
on
the
thing
I
was
mentioning
before
we
just
back
off
the
back
of
what
Chris
suggested.
Are
we
saying
that
there
for
root
is
still
a
good
name
or
roots
activity?
I
know
we
talked
about
that,
do
I
mean:
do
we
think?
Is
it
clear
enough
that
a
root
isn't
just
a
described
geo
shape,
peruses,
something
a
bit
more
than
that
or
we
ring
on
that
all
of
us?
Where
are
we
with
that?.
A
Well,
I
think
with
to
me
it
seems
like
whether
we
allow
and
a
roots
to
have
more
than
one
activity
associated
with
it.
It
really
only
has
one
activity
and
then
a
at
least
one
geo
shape.
Then
I'm
not
sure
the
root
activity
makes
a
is
a
great
name.
I
think
when
I
see
what
I've
seen
when
people
are
describing
is
on
the
web
at
the
moment
it's
a
they're
publishing
a
root,
and
then
sometimes
there
is
a
more
details.
A
From
what
I've
seen
so
far,
but
then
that's
because
they're
tending
to
be,
you
know,
it's
is
a
walking
website
or
it's
a
cycling
website.
I
haven't
I
haven't
looked
to
see
whether
people
are
publishing
information
on
kind
of
multi
or
just
going
to
shared
information.
I
was
kind
of
thinking
of
things
like
four
canals.
If
the,
if
you're,
publishing
information
about
a
towpath-
and
how
do
you
say
it's
shared
use,
would
would
you
expand
it
to
be
two
routes
in
that
case.
B
D
A
D
Analogous
you
might
you've
got
a
facility
and
then
you've
got
a
whole
bunch
of
sessions
that
might
be
at
that
facility.
You've
got
the
geo
shape
route
and
then
you've
got
a
bunch
of
potential
different
uses,
usages
of
that
they're
running
the
cycling,
the
wheelchair
potentially
something
like
Canal
Authority.
They
might
publish
their
routes
and
then
and
the
running
club
might
publish
things
on
top
of
that
for
all
of
their
recommended
things,
basically
basing
on
top
of
someone
else's
or
geo
shape,
feed.
F
A
E
Yeah,
it
feels
to
me,
like
roots,
is
at
least
outside
of,
if
you're
not
solely
looking
at
activity
providers,
if
you're
looking
your
wayfinding
has
a
meaning.
That's
a
lot
more
specific
than
this.
It
feels
like
we
do
need
to
do
that
routes
would
need
some
qualification,
as
you
say,
like
a
route
use,
is
my
mic
up
feel
otherwise.
You
know
the
natural
language
way
of
really
it
is
okay,
let's,
instead
of
GPS
points,
I
can
grab.
Oh,
what's
this
other
data
doing
dangling
off?
E
A
Okay,
I
was
gonna,
also
talk
about
the
more
complex
use
cases,
but
if
I
move
more
move
on
to
that,
do
we
think
we've
covered
that
kind
of
the
core
metadata
that
we
want
to
associate
with
a
root
use.
So
you
know
title
description,
images,
categories,
level,
activity
idea,
shape
starting
points.
What
other
information
do
you
think
we
wants
on
there
hi.
G
This
is
Innes
on
with
David
at
Nordic
Walking,
because
one's
board
is
facilities
that
might
be
available,
maybe
in
a
starting
point
or
a
longer
route,
so
whether
that
toilet
refreshments,
wheelchair
access
car
parking,
whatever
those
things
might
be,
that
would
be
they'd
have
more
significance
depending
upon
the
type
of
use
of
the
room.
Yeah.
A
C
It
was
more
about
things
like
duration.
You've
got
a
question
question
that
I
think
it
ties
into
that
discussion
about
how
you
describe
the
difficulty
and
that's
a
consistent
issue.
We
have
even
now
we
categorize
things
as
steady
or
hard
going.
It's
all
relative
to
your
ability.
There
so
I
think
it's
right
to
kind
of
try
and
look
at
separating
that
into
the
second
stage.
Okay,.
E
H
F
A
A
H
H
A
C
A
C
C
F
Triathlon
have
something
similar.
Would
there
approved
races
for
events,
so
they
have,
they
have
a
permit
permitted
race
and
they
have
to
get
clearance
for
all
their
races.
So
there
might
be
some
I,
don't
know
if
that's
a
crossover,
but
it
might
be
that
there's
a
property
around
level
of
checking
that's
gone
on
for
an
event
or
route.
B
A
F
Yeah,
the
other
thing
I
was
going
to
mention,
was
duration,
so
I
know,
British
Cycling
have
two
types
of
duration
for
their
activities.
They
have
the
activity,
duration
and
then
they
have
the
duration
that
cycling
would
take
I
guess
that's
more
related
to
the
event,
but
there's
a
potential
here.
So
one
of
the
things
that's
a
bit.
F
So
by
saying
this
route
should
take
you
20
minutes
to
cycle,
but
then
on
the
event,
you
could
then
use
that
duration
on
the
event
say
and
the
event
is
actually
three
hours
long,
obviously,
there's
a
20
minute
cycle
in
there
somewhere,
because
that's
the
route.
This
is
hatched
and
I'm,
not
sure.
If
so,
that
might
be
solving
something
separate
that
doesn't
need
to
be
brought
into
this
much
just
might
be
not
changed.
You
solve
it.
E
On
the
duration
question,
because
that
also
kicked
off
some
discussion,
it
isn't
useful
I
wonder
whether
there's
a
range
version
of
that
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
I
can't
been
nervous
and
on
the
route
there.
They
basically
say
you
know
if
you're
doing
well,
you
get
up
in
three
hours
if
you're
doing
the
slower
engine
or
if
we
get
up
in
five
hours,
and
it
gives
useful
information
just
to
plan
your
day.
E
If
you
know
broadly
where
that
is
without
saying,
this
is
a
20-minute
cycle
which,
for
someone,
some
pretty
sickly,
as
opposed
to
me,
might
be
rather
a
different
measure.
So
some
some
range
bass.
What
you
can
expect
to
spend
on
this
and
that
could
possibly
as
the
providers
get
smarter,
could
actually
be
based
on
the
distribution
based
on
the
measurements
of
people
actually
doing
this
route.
A
Just
to
think
briefly
about
the
the
more
complex
use
cases,
so
we
don't
have
to
solve
them
now,
but
I
wants
to
make
sure
that
there
are
the
basic
model
will
accommodate
them
at
some
point
when
we
start
to
get
into
the
detail.
So
my
understanding,
some
of
some
of
the
detail,
is
around
actually
bending
or
breaking
up
the
roots.
To
be
able
to
have
more
fine-grained
things.
A
To
make
statements
about
a
particular
section
of
a
root
might
be
a
different
elevation
or
there
might
be
amenities
at
that
point,
as
opposed
to
for
the
reach
in
general.
Do
people
currently
have
that
level
of
data
available?
Is
that
just
accessed,
or
is
this
more
of
a?
This
is
what
we
think
we
we
need
in
future.
D
A
Okay,
and
if
somebody
had
detailed
information
on
like
segments,
then
I
think
that
the
way
I
thought
we
might
allow
it
is,
you
could
have
multiple
shapes
attached
to
a
route
and
use
reduce
rather
might
have
multiple
shapes.
You
know
start
and
end
at
the
same
point,
it
kind
of
describes
a
larger
geospatial
object,
which
you
can
attach
information
to.
H
F
Wondering
so,
we've
talked
about
route,
use
and
I.
Think
it's
a
route
you
seems
like
it
does
definitely
solve
a
need
in
terms
of
extra
metadata
and
they
say
dangling
off.
The
staff
is
crisp
earlier
when
it
comes
to
things
like
communities,
so
in
facilities,
it's
quite
straightforward
because
we
have
a
facility
use
which
has
a
place
and
the
place
has
amenities
and
the
communities
are
actually
property
of
the
place
and
not
property
of
the
facility
use
itself.
F
Suppose
the
root
use
is
that
thing
what
we
were
talking
about
if
you've
got
a
few
were
describing
around
a
particular
route.
Take
you
the
GPX
kind
of
that,
well
suppose
the
yeah
mountain
path
up
the
mountain
or
whatever
it
is
you're
ascribing
that
with
the
route
use,
if
you're
talking
about
particular
sport
or
particular
activity
and
you've
got
the
description
and
the
level
and
photos,
and
whatever
is
all
related
to
that,
because
that's
what
your
routing
and
potentially
that'll
be.
F
You
know
if
they'll
be
cycling,
photos
if
it's
a
cycling
route
they'll
be
use
form
that
on
a
cycling
website,
you're
not
gonna,
want
anyone
walking
on
that
website.
If
that
same
things
being
used
buying
the
Athletics
for
run
running
then
you'd
want
running
photos.
You
would
running
description.
You
want
running
duration,
you
would
run
all
these
things.
We
talked
about
the
things
that
are
common,
though,
between
all
those,
so
all
the
see
the
duration.
We
change
the
description.
F
We
change
the
post
of
the
change,
but
the
roots
itself
have
the
same
distance,
because
that's
like
a
no
that's
a
geo
property,
really
that's
quite
fundamental.
It
would
also
have
the
same
GPX,
but
it
would
also
have
the
same
amenities
because
those
amenities
don't
change,
because
the
route
cover
the
same
ground,
and
so
it's
just
whether
those
two
things
are
actually
is
it
worth
having
out
the
sting
so
that
we're
presenting
it
probably.
A
F
So
there's
one
thing
I'll
observe
based
on
the
existing
data.
Is
that
the
way
we're
publishing
events
right
now,
you
could
very
well
say
that
the
amenities
are
a
property
of
an
event,
because
there's
very
few
events
published
at
the
same
same
location
in
some
of
the
data
that
we've
got
where
we've
got
immunity
data
as
well,
so.
F
Obviously,
when
you
get
different
data
publishers
coming
on
who
have
more
events,
a
single
location,
for
example,
where
there
are
amenities,
are
specified
because
at
the
moment
for
the
moment.
Thinking
specifically
is
that
the
EMV
data-
it's
all
the
immunities-
are
specified
in
there.
The
individual
instructors
are
just
listing
their
their
locations
totally
separately,
so
they're
all
separate
location
objects.
They
might
happen
to
have
overlapping
geo,
but
they're
not
actually
the
same
identifiers,
so
they're
different,
actual
place
objects.
A
I
think
why
I
was
thinking
of
say,
going
back
to
the
example
of
a
walk-up
been
nervous.
That's
quite
often
how
these
things
are
published,
so
what
we
say
there's
a
root
use,
which
is
a
walk-up,
been
nervous.
What's
the?
What
do
we
call?
The
root
you
know
is
because
you
could
say
it's
just:
is
it
just
been
nervous
and
that
there's
a
been
nervous,
walking
trail
yeah.
F
I
guess
it
would
be
the
been
nervous
walking
trail
is
the
root
the
root
uses.
I
mean.
Oh,
that's
obviously,
and
you
don't
do
many
things
up-
that
room
well,
I
suppose
you
might
do
actually
if
you've
got
people
do
jog
up
there.
Maybe
there's
that
maybe
maybe
there's
people
that
or
all
scram
may
on
this
thing.
F
E
E
Custodians
have
been
nervous,
walking
trail
would
put
that
there's
a
visitor
center
at
the
bottom
and
there's
no
toilets
at
the
top,
and
things
like
that
is
an
anti
amenity
in
France.
But
you
know
there
as
I
say
that
I
can
certainly
see
again
concrete
examples.
I
we're
not
quite
there
yet,
because
people
aren't
pod.
People
are
publishing
this
in
paper
maps
that
are
given
out
at
the
location
and
things
like
that.
E
So
it's
not
electronic
but
for
sure
you
get
walking
and
running
routes,
around
parks
and
sort
of
lakes
and
that
kind
of
thing,
but
a
published
by
the
people
who
maintain
the
facility
for
the
lake
or
the
park
and
that's
a
roost
and
they
put
a
minute
and
amenities
on
that
and
then
you'd
have
here's
the
cycling,
cycling
information.
On
top
of
that,
which
includes
you,
know,
dangerous
road
crossings
that
happen
points
pinch
points
where
you
come
into
contact
with
more
walkers
or
I.
E
F
A
A
Just
in
the
last
minute
or
two
there,
we
are
I,
don't
know
how
many
of
you
are
been
looking
at.
The
data
published
already,
but
one
of
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
do
is
to
improve
the
quality
of
the
data,
that's
there
and
provide
a
bit
more
support
to
new
data
publishers,
so
we're
in
the
middle
of
building
a
data
validation
tool
which
is
at
a
public
URL.
A
We
really
liked
you
just
go
and
try
it
out
and
give
us
some
feedback
on
the
just
the
user
interface,
a
the
functionality
there
just
to
see
whether
it
works
for
you.
We
are
building
this
against
the
draft
2.0
litre
model.
So
it's
a
bit
stricter
and
some
slightly
different
information
in
there
than
one
point
one
speck,
but
he
routes
proposal
will
start
getting
built
into
there
once
we've
had
another
round
of
review
on
it,
so
we'll
be
able
to
use.
A
A
If
you
have
any
so
I
think
I'm
gonna
wind
up
the
call
there
there's
some
other
things
that
that
we
need
to
have
a
discussion
about
brand,
the
2.0
spec
but
I'm
going
to
do
that
on
gonna,
follow
up
on
github
and
on
the
main
list
for
that.
So
so
again
go
back
to
my
intro.
If
you're
not
on
the
the
w3c
community
group
main
list,
then
I'd
recommend
that
you
sign
up,
for
that
is
where
we
are
announcing
new
proposals
and
new
versions
of
the
specification
that
we
need.