 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I am a bit concerned that this page diverges quite far, in my estimation, from the traditional use of the term "ridesharing" in transportation studies. For one thing, "real-time" or "dynamic ridesharing" should be a subcategory of ridesharing, but there is no page covering ridesharing in general. Second, and this is quite serious, several of the for-profit services listed as examples on this page are not traditionally considered ridesharing, because the drivers operate for a profit, and take riders on routes that the driver would not have taken otherwise. While it is true that these companies adopted the term "ridesharing" for legal purposes, they are not considered true ridesharing by scholars.
I would propose altering the text to either a) remove references to for-profit ridesharing companies, or b) include a section noting how these are different from traditional ridesharing services. I can't help but note that:
-- Very close to the beginning, there is a statement that ridesharing is provided by "Transportation Network Companies," yet the State of California invented that category specifically as a rejection of the argument that the companies involved were, in fact, "ridesharing." This is laughable and should be corrected.
-- Not until far down the page does the distinction between "TNCs" and traditional ridesharing services get mentioned, at the end of a paragraph. If reference to TNCs is kept, this point should be brought further to the front, where TNCs are first introduced.
Squidface tony (
talk) 20:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
please don´t enter references to commercial services here, unless you create a fair comparisson of various services that fulfill the given criteria.
Ideally somebody could create a table listing advanced ridesharing services against a set of criteria,like 1. access by mobile phones, 2. automatic billing and compensation 3. monohop vs multihop 4.subscription and rating system 5. usage of mobile GPS, 6. both driver and passenger know destination beforehand, etc.
64hardy 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a NYT article: [1] MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 21:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's the MIT research site: [2] MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 04:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Here are a few sources from EcoSummit 2011: [3] [4] [5] MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 22:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Include Non-ridesharing Companies?
Currently the article says "Examples include Lyft, Uber, Sidecar and Wingz." But none of these are ridesharing in any meaningful sense. They all offer cars that go where the paying customer directs, and then perhaps travel empty back to the source of rides. This does not reduce car miles any more than taxis do. They are nice services, but hardly a way to "better utilize the empty seats in most passenger cars, thus lowering fuel usage." I lean toward removing these examples. Tomday ( talk) 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think they're the subject of the article in that they represent the state of the field. At the very least they are a significant development or evolution, or something that springs partly from the earlier ad-hoc ride sharing. In the early days, and in places outside California, their legal justification is that someone happens to be driving around in their car, and the service matches them with someone who happens to want to go from point A to point B. That shares some attributes and probably overlaps both with taxi services and with noncommercial ride sharing. Is there a separate article on the subject? - Wikidemon ( talk) 16:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I propose we rename this to Real-time ridesharing. This gets almost three times as many Google hits [6] as the current title [7]. It is a more precise term. Also, alliteration. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 13:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Seeing no objections, I will rename it. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 05:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the lead, as it seemed too specific for a broad article like this:
- In 2013, San Francisco International Airport began issuing cease and desist letters to numerous rideshare companies. Airport officials also began to admonish and make citizen arrests of drivers for trespassing. [1] Taxicab companies also cite the lack of regulation on rideshare drivers as a reason that the practice needs to be regulated. [2]
This material probably would fit nicely on the pages of the particular companies involved, though. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 23:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I did not feel that the example was any more specific than some of the other examples already in the article. Also, it is the first example of actual backlash that I have heard of. Real-time ridesharing is very popular here. But it's your article, so I will let you decide. dj_ansi ( talk) 20:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- There have been a lot of cases of regulatory agencies shutting down ridesharing services, generally the agencies dealing with taxis and limousines. The article would probably benefit from a summary of these various obstacles - that would be better than simply pointing out a single case. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 02:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes may be promotional in tone. |
Hi there,
I'm contacting you because few days ago I edited this page including the name of the company I'm working for: Funryde. I really don't understand why it has been rejected given the fact I put other references than Funryde's website. I would like to understand how it works. There are so many pages on wiki which has one single external reference (all other external references are actually their own) such as this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapjoy. They just talk about one company and no references outside their own website and social media presence.
As we're starting to spread across the UK,I found it legitimate to be on this page. Additionally, Funryde is real peer-to-peer ridesharing as passengers are covered and drivers are not making extra money. They only offset their car expenses. On the contrary, Lyft and sidecar are not...
This is the reason why, I would like to gain a better understanding of how it works and what to do for the future.
Many thanks,
Best,
Astrid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tridou ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: the requested edit appears to be of a
promotional nature, and the link has per
WP:ELNO not been added. Please also read
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
Sam Sailor
Sing 10:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the following simultaneous changes to this and some other pages:
As I understand it, we need these separate pages:
(1) Ride-hailing: This should be the term that encompasses what are currently called "Transportation Network Companies" -- that's a term that those companies have successfully advanced, and it should re-route to Ride-hailing. Note that serious researchers use ride-hailing (e.g., UC Davis ITS - https://itspubs.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/themes/ucdavis/pubs/download_pdf.php?id=2752, and the Shared Use Mobility Center - http://sharedusemobilitycenter.org).
(2) A (mostly new) separate page for genuine ride-sharing, probably under that label. There are apps that do genuine sharing, and we should feature them as a separate category. Lyft, Uber, and other so-called TNCs (or ride-hailing apps/companies) aren't really engaged in _sharing_ of any kind, unless one specifically orders a shared ride. (A previous comment has noted this.)
I don't want to sound dogmatic here; there are other coherent paths forward: (a) Instead of ride-hailing (which is accurate and evocative, I think), we could say ride-sourcing (similarly accurate and evocative). (b) "Peer-to-peer transportation platforms" and "Transportation as a Service" (an example here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bbf9b/t/591a2e4be6f2e1c13df930c5/1494888038959/RethinkX+Report_051517.pdf) both work well.
I would be happy to chip in, but I don't have the authority to make these changes. Also, I'm generally not sure how to move this conversation forward. Let me know how I can help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregonskov ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I am a bit concerned that this page diverges quite far, in my estimation, from the traditional use of the term "ridesharing" in transportation studies. For one thing, "real-time" or "dynamic ridesharing" should be a subcategory of ridesharing, but there is no page covering ridesharing in general. Second, and this is quite serious, several of the for-profit services listed as examples on this page are not traditionally considered ridesharing, because the drivers operate for a profit, and take riders on routes that the driver would not have taken otherwise. While it is true that these companies adopted the term "ridesharing" for legal purposes, they are not considered true ridesharing by scholars.
I would propose altering the text to either a) remove references to for-profit ridesharing companies, or b) include a section noting how these are different from traditional ridesharing services. I can't help but note that:
-- Very close to the beginning, there is a statement that ridesharing is provided by "Transportation Network Companies," yet the State of California invented that category specifically as a rejection of the argument that the companies involved were, in fact, "ridesharing." This is laughable and should be corrected.
-- Not until far down the page does the distinction between "TNCs" and traditional ridesharing services get mentioned, at the end of a paragraph. If reference to TNCs is kept, this point should be brought further to the front, where TNCs are first introduced.
Squidface tony (
talk) 20:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
please don´t enter references to commercial services here, unless you create a fair comparisson of various services that fulfill the given criteria.
Ideally somebody could create a table listing advanced ridesharing services against a set of criteria,like 1. access by mobile phones, 2. automatic billing and compensation 3. monohop vs multihop 4.subscription and rating system 5. usage of mobile GPS, 6. both driver and passenger know destination beforehand, etc.
64hardy 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a NYT article: [1] MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 21:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's the MIT research site: [2] MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 04:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Here are a few sources from EcoSummit 2011: [3] [4] [5] MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 22:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Include Non-ridesharing Companies?
Currently the article says "Examples include Lyft, Uber, Sidecar and Wingz." But none of these are ridesharing in any meaningful sense. They all offer cars that go where the paying customer directs, and then perhaps travel empty back to the source of rides. This does not reduce car miles any more than taxis do. They are nice services, but hardly a way to "better utilize the empty seats in most passenger cars, thus lowering fuel usage." I lean toward removing these examples. Tomday ( talk) 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think they're the subject of the article in that they represent the state of the field. At the very least they are a significant development or evolution, or something that springs partly from the earlier ad-hoc ride sharing. In the early days, and in places outside California, their legal justification is that someone happens to be driving around in their car, and the service matches them with someone who happens to want to go from point A to point B. That shares some attributes and probably overlaps both with taxi services and with noncommercial ride sharing. Is there a separate article on the subject? - Wikidemon ( talk) 16:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I propose we rename this to Real-time ridesharing. This gets almost three times as many Google hits [6] as the current title [7]. It is a more precise term. Also, alliteration. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 13:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Seeing no objections, I will rename it. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 05:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the lead, as it seemed too specific for a broad article like this:
- In 2013, San Francisco International Airport began issuing cease and desist letters to numerous rideshare companies. Airport officials also began to admonish and make citizen arrests of drivers for trespassing. [1] Taxicab companies also cite the lack of regulation on rideshare drivers as a reason that the practice needs to be regulated. [2]
This material probably would fit nicely on the pages of the particular companies involved, though. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 23:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I did not feel that the example was any more specific than some of the other examples already in the article. Also, it is the first example of actual backlash that I have heard of. Real-time ridesharing is very popular here. But it's your article, so I will let you decide. dj_ansi ( talk) 20:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- There have been a lot of cases of regulatory agencies shutting down ridesharing services, generally the agencies dealing with taxis and limousines. The article would probably benefit from a summary of these various obstacles - that would be better than simply pointing out a single case. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 02:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
|
| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes may be promotional in tone. |
Hi there,
I'm contacting you because few days ago I edited this page including the name of the company I'm working for: Funryde. I really don't understand why it has been rejected given the fact I put other references than Funryde's website. I would like to understand how it works. There are so many pages on wiki which has one single external reference (all other external references are actually their own) such as this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapjoy. They just talk about one company and no references outside their own website and social media presence.
As we're starting to spread across the UK,I found it legitimate to be on this page. Additionally, Funryde is real peer-to-peer ridesharing as passengers are covered and drivers are not making extra money. They only offset their car expenses. On the contrary, Lyft and sidecar are not...
This is the reason why, I would like to gain a better understanding of how it works and what to do for the future.
Many thanks,
Best,
Astrid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tridou ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: the requested edit appears to be of a
promotional nature, and the link has per
WP:ELNO not been added. Please also read
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
Sam Sailor
Sing 10:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the following simultaneous changes to this and some other pages:
As I understand it, we need these separate pages:
(1) Ride-hailing: This should be the term that encompasses what are currently called "Transportation Network Companies" -- that's a term that those companies have successfully advanced, and it should re-route to Ride-hailing. Note that serious researchers use ride-hailing (e.g., UC Davis ITS - https://itspubs.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/themes/ucdavis/pubs/download_pdf.php?id=2752, and the Shared Use Mobility Center - http://sharedusemobilitycenter.org).
(2) A (mostly new) separate page for genuine ride-sharing, probably under that label. There are apps that do genuine sharing, and we should feature them as a separate category. Lyft, Uber, and other so-called TNCs (or ride-hailing apps/companies) aren't really engaged in _sharing_ of any kind, unless one specifically orders a shared ride. (A previous comment has noted this.)
I don't want to sound dogmatic here; there are other coherent paths forward: (a) Instead of ride-hailing (which is accurate and evocative, I think), we could say ride-sourcing (similarly accurate and evocative). (b) "Peer-to-peer transportation platforms" and "Transportation as a Service" (an example here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bbf9b/t/591a2e4be6f2e1c13df930c5/1494888038959/RethinkX+Report_051517.pdf) both work well.
I would be happy to chip in, but I don't have the authority to make these changes. Also, I'm generally not sure how to move this conversation forward. Let me know how I can help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregonskov ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)