Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[DRT] Clarification on continuous pickup/dropoff value and field Type in booking_rules.txt #528

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[DRT] Clarification on continuous pickup/dropoff value and field Type in booking_rules.txt #528

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

tzujenchanmbd
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR includes only clarifications for DRT:

  • For DRT services indicated by start_pickup_drop_off_window/end_pickup_drop_off_window, allow value 1 for continuous_pickup/continuous_drop_off.
  • Modify Type of four fields in booking_rules.txt to positive integer.

@tzujenchanmbd tzujenchanmbd linked an issue Jan 10, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
How is continuous_pickup/continuous_drop_off forbid language interpreted? Should it be adjusted to explicitly allow values of 1? #507
Open
@tzujenchanmbd tzujenchanmbd added Extension: GTFS-Flex Issues and Pull Requests that focus on GTFS-Flex Extension Change: Clarification Revisions of the current specification to improve understanding. Support: Needs Review Needs support to review proposal. labels Jan 10, 2025
@tzujenchanmbd tzujenchanmbd changed the title [DRT] Clarification on continuous pickup/dropoff and fields Type in booking_rules.txt [DRT] Clarification on continuous pickup/dropoff value and fields Type in booking_rules.txt Jan 10, 2025
@tzujenchanmbd tzujenchanmbd changed the title [DRT] Clarification on continuous pickup/dropoff value and fields Type in booking_rules.txt [DRT] Clarification on continuous pickup/dropoff value and field Type in booking_rules.txt Jan 10, 2025
@westontrillium
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@tzujenchanmbd tzujenchanmbd mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2025
Closed
@miklcct
Copy link

miklcct commented Jan 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

The use of positive integer is problematic here, because it implies that 0 is not a valid value, i.e. you can't specify an immediate booking.

@westontrillium
Copy link
Contributor

@miklcct Positive integer is correct. 0 is not a valid value for these fields, because immediate booking is expressed with booking_type=0. All other booking types by definition require a non-zero amount of advance notice.

@miklcct
Copy link

miklcct commented Jan 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

also prior_notice_start_day and prior_notice_duration_max being forbidden for booking_type=0 is problematic, if you want to allow booking up to a certain number of days, or a certain amount of time before until the journey itself.

For example, if a service requires booking between 72 hours before but can be made right until the trip starts, booking_type will then be 0 but you still needs to make prior_notice_duration_max.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Change: Clarification Revisions of the current specification to improve understanding. Extension: GTFS-Flex Issues and Pull Requests that focus on GTFS-Flex Extension Support: Needs Review Needs support to review proposal.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
3 participants
@tzujenchanmbd @westontrillium @miklcct