GTFS-Fares v2: Add networks.txt & route_networks.txt #389
Description
Context
The networks.txt and route_networks.txt are derived from Ito World's proposal. These two files provide another way to define a network to which route or multiple routes belong, and enable the naming of the network. Currently, the network is defined in a schedule file - routes.network_id. The following is the proposal for these two files from Ito World:
networks.txt
File: Optional
Primary key (network_id)
| Field Name | Type | Presence | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| network_id | Unique ID | Required | Identifies a network. Must be unique in networks.txt. |
| network_name | Text | Optional | The name of the network as displayed to the rider. |
route_networks.txt
File: Optional
Primary key (*)
| Field Name | Type | Presence | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| network_id | Foreign ID referencing networks.network_id | Required | Identifies a network to which one or multiple route_ids belong. |
| route_id | Foreign ID referencing routes.route_id | Required | Identifies a route. |
Values
- Make it possible for producers to create fares datasets without adding information to schedule file, especially useful when fares dataset and schedule dataset are handled by different parties.
- Producers can name networks.
- It will synchronize the definition of the
areas.txtandstop_areas.txtmechanism
Topics/risks can be discussed
- Currently a route can belong to only 1 network, do we want to release the many-to-many relationship?
- If we add these two files, how do we deal with
routes.network_id? Do we want to specify this in spec?- Is there many
routes.as-routeimplementation in the wild? Does it affect adopting these two files?
- Is there many
Please share any thoughts on route_networks.txt and networks.txt in this issue.