[GTFS Fares v2] Add nonconsecutive_transfer_allowed field and clarify fare_transfer_type #498
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tzujenchanmbd
added
Extension: GTFS-Fares
|
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because of lack of recent activity. It may be closed manually after one month of inactivity. Thank you for your contributions. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
Status: Stale
|
Keep open (we may have some new interest on this at the @mbta). |
eliasmbd
added
Status: Discussion
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changes in this PR:
nonconsecutive-transfer-allowedfield infare_transfer_rules.txtto indicate whether the transfer rule is allowed to apply to non-consecutive transfers.fare_transfer_typein a journey with multiple transfers, when the consumer calculates the total processed cost of the preceding leg(s) and transfer(s), thefare_transfer_typeof the preceding legs must be considered. Additionally, include an explanation regarding non-consecutive transfers.For more details please refer to this proposal
For previous discussions in the working group please see the working group meeting note (Jul, Aug)
Please help review this PR. Comments/questions welcome!