Clarifying geofencing_zones.json language about intersections

[heidiguenin]

What is the issue and why is it an issue?

In the geofencing documentation, rules states:
"In the event of colliding rules within the same polygon, the earlier rule (in order of the JSON file) takes precedence.
In the case of overlapping polygons, the combined set of rules associated with the overlapping polygons applies to the union of the polygons. In the event of colliding rules in this set, the earlier rule (in order of the JSON file) also takes precedence."

As more stakeholders begin implementing geofencing, it has become clear through discussion in the GBFS slack channel (request an invite here) that this language is confusing and does not conform to the intent of the rule. Specifically, the intention is that, in the case of overlapping polygons, the combined set of rules applies to the intersection, not to the union. MobilityData would like to update the language and provide some clarifying examples, but before we do, we want to understand if anyone is currently implementing geofencing_zones.json treating overlapping polygons rules as a geographic union. If not, then we can clarify the language without creating a breaking change and requiring an extra governance step.

Please describe some potential solutions you have considered (even if they aren’t related to GBFS).

Is your potential solution a breaking change?

• Yes
• No
• [ x] Unsure

[josee-sabourin]

Hi all! We talked about this issue during the Developers' Workshop, see details here.

[mplsmitch]

This is covered in PR #384
#384