Required type of transportation at `routes` level may lack flexibility (multi-modal routes) about transit

[barbagus]

Have you asked the TER authorities about their thinking behind this case?

Not directly, I did approach them to get confirmation of the fact that their stops.stop_id do follow the pattern I mention in the original issue, i.e. StopPoint:OCECar* means bus and StopPoint:OCETrain* means train (they also have a prefix for Tram..).
Also, I invited them to checkout this issue post.

[skinkie]

Then I think it is plainly wrong to use the same route. I would also argue that in every other standard TER uses they have to split them in two separate lines, which may for the public share the same public code, but never is this thing combined into one timetable.

[leonardehrenfried]

I think you want to take a look this: #358

Entur (Norway) has the same request.

[barbagus]

I suppose the conversation over there is more about temporary replacements of trains by buses, a related but distinct issue. This use case is about regular routes served by both trains and buses.

[skinkie]

Can you board and alight at the same stops?

[barbagus]

No. Usually the same parent station but, as I mentioned, they do have separate stops, one for trains, one for buses.

[barbagus]

I agree that the "route duplication" is my favourite workaround.
However whether it is wrong for them to do so, it seems that they actually do combine... Upon talking with the administrators of that datasets, they confirmed that the gtfs generation is the end of a very long pipeline using their own information system as a source.
And they do show them combined in one time table (see the linked pdf exemple)

One thing is sure, we might not succeed to have them change their IS... the question is then, as a community standard... should gtfs support this ?

[skinkie]

Can you show me their NeTEx output for this line?

[eliasmbd]

Thank you for bringing this issue to the community's attention. Your contribution is clear and well structured! 🙏

One thing is sure, we might not succeed to have them change their IS... the question is then, as a community standard... should gtfs support this ?

You also ask an essential question here especially for an edge case like this. Have you asked the TER authorities about their thinking behind this case?

[barbagus]

Can you show me their NeTEx output for this line?

I can try, but I am not at all familiar with NeTEx format... I will look it up.