[Places] Initial commit of places operating status

[Jacob Wasserman (jwass)]

Major change release plan

Minor release as its a new optional column

B. Related MINOR change steps

Add operating_status field

C. Public documentation and messaging plan

TODO.

Description

Brief description of the business purpose and effect of the pull request.

Allow Overture to include places that are known to be closed

Reference

List of relevant links to GitHub issues, PRs, and other documentation.

Testing

Added example and counterexample

Checklist

Checklist of tasks commonly-associated with schema pull requests. Please review the relevant checklists and ensure you do all the tasks that are required for the change you made.

1. [x ] Add relevant examples.
2. [ x] Add relevant counterexamples.
3. [ x] Update any counterexamples that became obsolete. For example, if a counterexample uses property A but is not intended to test property A's validity, and you made a schema change that invalidates property A in that counterexample, fix the counterexample to align it with your schema change.
4. Update in-schema documentation using plain English written in complete sentences, if an update is required.
5. Update Docusaurus documentation, if an update is required.
6. Review change with Overture technical writer to ensure any advanced documentation needs will be taken care of, unless the change is trivial and would not affect the documentation.

Documentation website

Update the hyperlink below to put the pull request number in.

Docs preview for this PR.

[Cj Malone (Cj-Malone)]

How does this fit in with confidence=0?

[Victor Schappert (vcschapp)]

How does this fit in with confidence=0?

Good question. This is something we should document carefully also.

(Related: Are we still thinking about switching confidence to existence?)

[Jens Goossens (jensgoossens-tomtom)]

How does this fit in with confidence=0?

Good question. This is something we should document carefully also.

(Related: Are we still thinking about switching confidence to existence?)

We're still debating on this one - for now we settled on setting confidence to 0 when it's also marked as closed to match the current confidence definition.

From discussions happening - I think the confidence score will be redefined to indeed more like 'existence' to indicate whether the place ever existed or not, and used more to weed out junk vs real places (even places that are now closed, but used to exist)

[Eric Godwin (ericgodwin)]

How does this fit in with confidence=0?
Good question. This is something we should document carefully also.

(Related: Are we still thinking about switching confidence to existence?)
We're still debating on this one - for now we settled on setting confidence to 0 when it's also marked as closed to match the current confidence definition.

From discussions happening - I think the confidence score will be redefined to indeed more like 'existence' to indicate whether the place ever existed or not, and used more to weed out junk vs real places (even places that are now closed, but used to exist)

The Places TF this was actually discussed in great detail. First confidence = existence. There has been no further conversation to change the schema field name to existence. Basically documentation can explain that is our confidence in the existence of a place.

Without this field we would drive the confidence to 0 as that is the only closure indicator that we had. Once we have this the confidence should be independent of the closure status. For example we could have an operating status of open and a very low confidence indicating that the place most likely does not exists. Or we can have an operating status of closed and a very high confidence indicating that we know the place is there but it is closed.

[Victor Schappert (vcschapp)]

How does this fit in with confidence=0?

Good question. This is something we should document carefully also.
(Related: Are we still thinking about switching confidence to existence?)

We're still debating on this one - for now we settled on setting confidence to 0 when it's also marked as closed to match the current confidence definition.

From discussions happening - I think the confidence score will be redefined to indeed more like 'existence' to indicate whether the place ever existed or not, and used more to weed out junk vs real places (even places that are now closed, but used to exist)

I said it above, but "closed with confidence 0" sounds to me like "you are not confident it is closed".

[Victor Schappert (vcschapp)]

Seth Fitzsimmons (@mojodna) Jennings Anderson (@jenningsanderson) Jens Goossens (@jensgoossens-tomtom) This change will have to be ported to the Pydantic model.

[Seth Fitzsimmons (sethfitz)]

Mostly mechanical changes, though we may want to consider how we think about what "default" means and how it manifests.

[Seth Fitzsimmons (sethfitz)]

Pydantic equivalent here: #389

[Jennings Anderson (jenningsanderson)]

Looks like we will need to rebase / resolve these conflicts?