forbidden travel in stops pairs

[inler]

Hi,

I have a doubt in relation to the way "forbidden travel" is
represented in GTFS. Forbidden traffic is related to the "pickup_type"
and "drop_off_type", as it shows if people can go into the vehicle or
go out from the vehicle in each stop.

This is the concrete case:

- We know the "pickup_type" and "dropoff_type" for each pair of stops.
For example:

route, stop_sequence1, stop_sequence2, travel
1, 1, 2, F
1, 1, 3, F
1, 1, 4, F
1, 2, 3, T
1, 2, 4, F
1, 3, 4, F

Where
F: it allows to travel from stop_sequence1 to stop_sequence2
T: it DOESN'T allow to travel from stop_sequence1 to stop_sequence2


In the GTFS format we cannot define the pair 2,3,T, because:

* traveling is allowed from stop 2 to stop 4, so in GTFS we would
have said that pickup_type is allowed in stop 2
* traveling is allowed from stop 1 to stop 3, so in GTFS we would
have said that dropoff_type is allowed in stop 3

So, if I am saying that I can go up into the vehicle in stop 2, and
that I can go down from vehicle in stop 3, I am saying that traveling
between 2 and 3 is allowed. And this is NOT allowed.

Is there any way of representing this case in GTFS format? Has this
ever occurred to someone else (I have looked for it in the forum, but
I haven't found any)?


Thank you very much in advance.
Best regards,

[Adam Ernst]

On Oct 18, 2011, at 7:50 AM, inler wrote:

> * traveling is allowed from stop 2 to stop 4, so in GTFS we would
> have said that pickup_type is allowed in stop 2
> * traveling is allowed from stop 1 to stop 3, so in GTFS we would
> have said that dropoff_type is allowed in stop 3
>
> So, if I am saying that I can go up into the vehicle in stop 2, and
> that I can go down from vehicle in stop 3, I am saying that traveling
> between 2 and 3 is allowed. And this is NOT allowed.

Huh. This is very interesting. What prevents people from getting off? And what system is this, if I may ask?

Adam

[Brian Ferris]

I'd also be interested hearing more details about this use-case, since it does seem a bit unique.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Transit Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to transit-d...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transit-develop...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transit-developers?hl=en.

[Roger Slevin]

In the UK this use case exists quite often with long-distance coach services.  In order to keep them outside the regulatory regime for local bus services, they cannot pick up a passenger and then allow them to get off less than 15 miles away.  So where stops lie within 15 miles of each other there has to be a restriction shown that prevents the journey being offered to stops which are less than 15 miles away.

 

It is difficult to handle in print media and in our experience, it is difficult to handle even within sophisticated electronic systems.  But the use case is there!

 

Roger

[T Sobota]

Entirely inelegant... but could the use case be modeled through multiple overlapping trips?  The trip leaving the origin point a 0800 would be board only at origin stop, and alight only at every stop where a passenger would be allowed under use case.  Then having the same trip duplicated, but instead starting at second stop along route (board only), and alight only at every subsequent permissible stop.  The outlying stops would eventually have "multiple" trips all arriving at the identical time as the actual single vehicle is scheduled (in alight only)?  The trip plan would then effectively be displaying a passenger boarding at stop A with journeys on version a of trip 1; boarding at stop B with journeys on a version b of same trip 1; etc.

Tim Sobota, Transit Planner

Metro Transit, City of Madison (WI)

[inler]

This way of controlling the pickup and dropoff type is origined by the
ticketing system. Tickets can be (or can't be) sold depending on the
origin and destination stops.

I have not found the way of representing this in GTFS. Does anybody
know how could it be done?

Best regards.

[Gert van den Berg]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 15:48, Brian Ferris wrote:
> I'd also be interested hearing more details about this use-case, since it
> does seem a bit unique.

With the Gautrain in South Africa one of the lines have this physical setup:
OR Tambo airport <--> Rhodesfield station <--> Marlboro station <-->
Sandton station

They are (normally) using 4 car trains that have half the cars
equipped for commuter services and half for (significantly more
expensive) airport service (more luggage space, etc)

The platform at the airport is only big enough for the airport service
cars to board / disembark and the airport service doors doesn't open
at Rhodesfield station.

(If you want to travel from Rhodefield to the airport) (which is just
across the freeway from each other, you need to take the train to
Marlboro/Sandton and transfer to the airport service cars (probably on
a second train travelling in the opposite direction))

On the maps provided by the operators, this is shown as 2 lines, with
one excluding Rhodesfield and the other excluding OR Tambo Airport.

Gert

[fabien viger]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 15:48, Brian Ferris <bdfe...@google.com> wrote:

I'd also be interested hearing more details about this use-case, since it does seem a bit unique.

This feature request for GTFS (to be able to provide pairs of stop_sequence as feasible or infeasible for a trip) has been asked a few times in the past -- I think that I remember the Spanish bus system to have a similar requirement as what Roger describes for the UK bus system: long-distance coaches don't let passengers board the bus within a city if they don't buy a ticket for getting off in another city, yet they have several stop at this city (at which passengers who come from a previous city will get off the bus).

I presume that technically it is possible to climb in the bus in Oviedo, buy a ticket for Santander and then get off two stops later, still in Oviedo, but that's a bit expensive and therefore unpractical :-)

One could argue that this is more of a fare system requirement though.

[Adam Ernst]

On Oct 20, 2011, at 2:10 PM, fabien viger wrote:

> One could argue that this is more of a fare system requirement though.

Good point. Perhaps we can expand fares to encompass the notion of a "prohibited" fare?

Adam

[Joel Haasnoot]

This is something we're looking for too, we have a use case in the
Netherlands where train services dictate you're not allowed to take
the routes that are either fastest or with the least transfers, but
you are never allowed to double back and pass a station twice. Maybe
not crossing a station twice could be covered by this use case.

Joel Haasnoot

----------------------------------------------------------
Joel Haasnoot
Lead Developer & Owner | Deskbookers