I half agree with Mr Smith. Yes, people do crazy things with GTFS.

Yet, many apps from Google Transit on down seem to work with GTFS data from many many agencies.

Clearly the real-time world isn't as standardized as the schedule/GTFS world, but I like to think we have established some very straightforward and workable conventions around the use of SIRI for stop- and route-level real-time info with consistency of identifiers to static GTFS.

Anyone agree or disagree?

Thanks,
Mike

From: Michael Smith [mailto:msm...@nextbus.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 08:01 PM
To: mtadeveloperresources@googlegroups.com <mtadeveloperresources@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [MTAdev] route_id vs route_short_name

One thing to note is that GTFS data is very flexible. Transit agencies do all sorts of "interesting" things with it. Don't expect an application that works with NYC data to work with data from other agencies.

Mike

On 8/9/2012 1:01 PM, Frumin, Michael wrote:
Will, yes, that is correct.

What I believe you and other developers who use Bus Time, OneBusAway, or other GTFS-based systems can/should do is to adopt the distinction between the system's route ID and the customer-facing route id.

GTFS calls these, respectively, route_id and route_short_name. In the Bus Time SIRI API, we use the GTFS route_id for the LineRef item (both in the RESTful queries and in the outputs/results) and the GTFS route_short_name in the PublishedLineName item (results only).

Which is to say that you need to query the system based on route_id/LineRef, but show customers the route_short_name/PublishedLineName.

For MTA, it so happens that for most routes the route_id and route_short_name are identical. But as you have found, this is not the case for the SBS routes. If you look through the new MTA Bus Co GTFS, you will find more examples where they differ.

Thanks,
Mike

From: Will [mailto:w...@electriclabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 04:51 AM
To: mtadeveloperresources@googlegroups.com<mailto:mtadeveloperresources@googleg roups.com> <mtadeveloperresources@googlegroups.com><mailto:mtadeveloperresources@googl egroups.com>
Subject: [MTAdev] route_id vs route_short_name

We've been requesting against the Bus Time API using the route_short_name, but have realised that some routes have recently ceased working. In particular, the "M34-SBS" no longer works. I believe we should instead have been using the route_id for requests against the API e.g. "M34+" in this case. Is that correct?

Best wishes,
Will