Your hackathon work has been written up and filed upstream. Tagging you so you know
it exists and can correct anything that misrepresents it.
Where it went: Hackathon 2026 — data quality & new analyses
in hasadna/open-bus-map-search — 34 issues (#1770–#1803): 12 data/API defects,
17 proposed visualizations, 5 scale-up asks.
Full write-ups: algorithms/
— one file per solution with the algorithm, the reasoning, findings graded by
confidence, and criticism.
Please read this part
Every issue was drafted by an AI agent from your materials, and says so in a
banner at the top. They are labelled ai-generated and needs-validation. The
endpoint behaviour and figures were re-verified against the live API on 2026-08-01,
but the analyses were built fast under hackathon conditions and nobody has
peer-reviewed the conclusions.
If anything misstates your work, say so here or edit the issue directly — you are
the authority on your own analysis, not the write-up.
Who is credited where
- noamf2001 — segment reliability, Marey diagram, rush-hour heatmap (#1782, #1783, #1784)
- yuvalko1 — schedule adherence ×3, SIRI coverage, Poisson headway decay, GPS trace (#1785–#1789, #1798)
- Broundal — days-without-cancellations, per line and per operator (#1795, #1796), plus the
three-option API study that ruled out gtfs_rides_agg
- lihay7 — the census figures behind four defect reports (#1775, #1776, #1780, #1781)
Credit is plain-text handles only, no personal information. Note that "orion" is the
group/branch name — the GitHub user orion is an unrelated person, so the credit
goes to @Broundal.
@lihay7 — one thing needs your call
Four issues cite figures from BusAnalysis, which is currently private. Readers
cannot check them, so each of those issues carries a Confidence section saying the
numbers need independent confirmation, and #1781 explicitly says "treat as a lead to
investigate rather than a confirmed finding" because it was not reproduced elsewhere.
No links to the private repo appear in the bodies — they would 404 for everyone.
If you would rather those figures were removed, or if you would like to make the repo
public so the evidence is checkable, either is easy — just say. Your F1/F6/F7/F8/F9
write-ups are the most rigorous work in this hackathon and it would be a shame for
them to land as unverifiable claims.
cc @noamf2001 @yuvalko1 @Broundal @lihay7
Your hackathon work has been written up and filed upstream. Tagging you so you know
it exists and can correct anything that misrepresents it.
Where it went: Hackathon 2026 — data quality & new analyses
in
hasadna/open-bus-map-search— 34 issues (#1770–#1803): 12 data/API defects,17 proposed visualizations, 5 scale-up asks.
Full write-ups:
algorithms/— one file per solution with the algorithm, the reasoning, findings graded by
confidence, and criticism.
Please read this part
Every issue was drafted by an AI agent from your materials, and says so in a
banner at the top. They are labelled
ai-generatedandneeds-validation. Theendpoint behaviour and figures were re-verified against the live API on 2026-08-01,
but the analyses were built fast under hackathon conditions and nobody has
peer-reviewed the conclusions.
If anything misstates your work, say so here or edit the issue directly — you are
the authority on your own analysis, not the write-up.
Who is credited where
three-option API study that ruled out
gtfs_rides_aggCredit is plain-text handles only, no personal information. Note that "orion" is the
group/branch name — the GitHub user
orionis an unrelated person, so the creditgoes to @Broundal.
@lihay7 — one thing needs your call
Four issues cite figures from
BusAnalysis, which is currently private. Readerscannot check them, so each of those issues carries a Confidence section saying the
numbers need independent confirmation, and #1781 explicitly says "treat as a lead to
investigate rather than a confirmed finding" because it was not reproduced elsewhere.
No links to the private repo appear in the bodies — they would 404 for everyone.
If you would rather those figures were removed, or if you would like to make the repo
public so the evidence is checkable, either is easy — just say. Your F1/F6/F7/F8/F9
write-ups are the most rigorous work in this hackathon and it would be a shame for
them to land as unverifiable claims.
cc @noamf2001 @yuvalko1 @Broundal @lihay7