[GTFS Fares v2] Add rider_categories.txt #511
Conversation
tzujenchanmbd
added
Extension: GTFS-Fares
| | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | | ||
| | `rider_category_id` | Unique ID | **Required** | Identifies a rider category. | | ||
| | `rider_category_name` | Text | **Required** | Rider category name as displayed to the rider. | | ||
| | `is_default_fare_category` | Enum | **Required** | Specifies if an entry in [rider_categories.txt](#rider_categoriestxt) should be considered the default category (i.e. the main category that should be displayed to riders). For example: Adult fare, Regular fare, etc. Valid options are:<br><br>`0` or empty - Category is not considered the default.<br>`1` - Category is considered the default one.<br><br>When multiple rider categories are eligible for a single fare product specified by a `fare_product_id`, there must be only one of these rider categories indicated as the default rider category (`is_default_fare_category = 1`). | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This could be a bit clearer (as well as in the definition for fare_products.rider_category_id), should it be "there must be at most one" or "there must be exactly one"? In other words, should it be permissible to not have any categories as is_default_fare_category = 1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the idea is that multiple entries in rider_categories.txt may have is_default_fare_category = 1. However, when a fare_product_id in fare_products.txt references multiple rider_category_ids, exactly one of these referenced rider_category_ids must have is_default_fare_category = 1. When entries in the fare_products.txt and rider_categoies.txt files exist, it is not allowed to have no categories set as is_default_fare_category = 1.
Does it look clearer if we just modify the sentence from
there must be only one of these rider categories indicated as the default rider category (
is_default_fare_category = 1).
to
there must be exactly one of these referenced rider categories indicated as the default rider category (is_default_fare_category = 1)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, @tzujenchanmbd, the explanation makes a lot of sense, I think in my initial reading I missed the context that this was among those rider categories filtered for a specified fare product ID.
I like your proposed clarification, though might suggest changing "referenced" to "eligible" to make even more clear which rider categories we're talking about.
gtfs/spec/en/reference.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Used to describe the range of fares available for purchase by riders or taken into account when computing the total fare for journeys with multiple legs, such as transfer costs. | ||
|
|
||
| | Field Name | Type | Presence | Description | | ||
| | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | | ||
| | `fare_product_id` | ID | **Required** | Identifies a fare product or set of fare products.<br><br>Multiple records in [fare_products.txt](#fare_productstxt) may share the same `fare_product_id`, in which case all records with that ID will be retrieved when referenced from another file.<br><br>Multiple records may share the same `fare_product_id` but with different `fare_media_id`s, indicating various methods available for employing the fare product, potentially at different prices. | | ||
| | `fare_product_id` | ID | **Required** | Identifies a fare product or set of fare products.<br><br>Multiple records in [fare_products.txt](#fare_productstxt) may share the same `fare_product_id`, in which case all records with that ID will be retrieved when referenced from another file.<br><br>Multiple records may share the same `fare_product_id` but with different `fare_media_id`s, indicating various methods available for employing the fare product, potentially at different prices.<br><br>Multiple records may share the same `fare_product_id` but with different `rider_categories_id`s, indicating multiple rider categories are eligible for the fare product, potentially at different prices. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think there’s an opportunity here to clarify both existing language and new language around what is permitted with shared fare_product_ids. Would the following language be an improvement, and does it accurately describe what is allowed?
Multiple records sharing the same
fare_product_idare permitted as long as they contain differentfare_media_ids orrider_category_ids. Differingfare_media_ids would indicate various methods are available for employing the fare product, potentially at different prices. Differingrider_category_ids would indicate multiple rider categories are eligible for the fare product, potentially at different prices.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the suggestion @westontrillium!
This looks great to me - changes on 8068e8c
The
rider_categories.txtfile is part of the GTFS-Fares v2 proposal, aimed at modeling rider categories that are eligible for certain fares.In the August and September meetings, the working group reached the following consensus:
rider_category_idwill be referenced infare_products.txtmin_ageandmax_agefields for nowChanges in this PR
rider_categories.txtfilefare_products.rider_category_idfield and update the primary key offare_products.txtfare_product_idFor previous discussions please see the working group meeting note
Comments and questions welcome!
Side note: Currently the fares working group is primarily discussing fare use cases. However, in the future this file may be used for use cases such as service eligibility.