Makes vehicle capacity at stations consistent between station_information and status

[cmonagle]

Note: If your PR is to add, remove, or correct a system in systems.csv, please delete this template.

If you are new to the specification, please introduce yourself (name and organization/link to GBFS). It’s helpful to know who we're chatting with!

👋 Cameron at Transit (app)

What problem does your proposal solve? Please begin with the relevant issue number. If there is no existing issue, please also describe alternative solutions you have considered.

Currently, we treat station capacity differently in station_status and station_information. In station_status, we have the spaces (docks or areas), with the count (how many docks/how much space), and the vehicle types that can use those spaces.

In station_information, it's the inverse: We include every vehicle type and the maximum number of spaces they can use.

Because they can overlap in station_information (ie: the count may exceed the total capacity), but not in station_status, it's hard to determine for sure what percentage of docks are available for a specific vehicle.

What is the proposal?

This PR makes station_information follow the same format as station status: communicate the number of places (or areas) in total, and the vehicles that can be docked or left there.

Is this a breaking change?

• Yes
• No
• Unsure

Which files are affected by this change?

station_information.json

[josee-sabourin]

I hereby call a vote on this proposal. Voting will be open for 10 full calendar days until 11:59PM UTC on Friday, October 27th.
Please vote for or against the proposal, and include the organization for which you are voting in your comment.
Please note if you can commit to implementing the proposal.

[josee-sabourin]

Tagging for more visibility: @viestat @ArashMansouri @AntoineAugusti @ezmckinn @fbouchPBSC @Carl-NM @bdferris-v2 @kulovan @gajayraghav @hynick4 @PierrickP @tdelmas @tobsesHub @tstrubel @HannesOlszewski @simonsolnes @futuretap @testower

[PierrickP]

fluctuo: +1

[futuretap]

+1 from Where To?

[testower]

+1 From Entur for the proposal itself, but I had a question about "should"

[richfab]

Thank you all for the detailed comments 💯

[josee-sabourin]

Voting on this PR closes in 2 calendar days. Please vote for or against the proposal, and include the organization for which you are voting in your comment. Please note if you can commit to implementing the proposal.

[simonsolnes]

Vote for

[josee-sabourin]

This vote has now closed, and it passes! There was a lot of discussion during the vote about SHOULD vs. MUST. This vote will pass using SHOULD. A new proposal and vote will need to be had in order to include a MUST.

Votes in favor:
fluctuo (consumer)
Whereto.app (consumer)
Entur (consumer)
Hyre (consumer)


There were no votes against.

This change will be added to v3.0-RC2, which will be released in the coming weeks.

[richfab]

LGTM

[richfab]

For reference, this PR is an additional change to #384 and #407 which also changed the name and structure of vehicle_docks_capacity and vehicle_types_capacity in station_information.json.