I'm pretty sure OBA ignores both shape_dist_traveled fields, even when specified, because there is no guarantee from the spec about what units will be used for these values (we use meters internally) and we generally trust ourselves to compute these values just as accurately if not more so than the GTFS providers. I will check the code later tonight to confirm.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Frumin, Michael <mfr...@mtahq.org> wrote: > Brian, > > > > Currently our GTFS has neither stop_times.txt::shape_dist_traveled nor > shapes.txt::shape_dist_traveled so OBA calculates both itself, apparently > correctly in every case I've looked at. > > > > I'm considering trying to add these fields, but I want to know how much risk > this will create around how OBA digests and uses our GTFS. Does OBA even > use these fields *if* they are there, or does it always re-calculate them > for itself? > > > > My concern is that if we messed it up at first, we might be breaking > something that's not currently broken. > > > > Thanks, > > Mike > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "onebusaway-developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to onebusaway...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > email@example.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/onebusaway-developers?hl=en.