Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for required via tag (if given inside OSM data) #129

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 4, 2018
Merged

Add support for required via tag (if given inside OSM data) #129

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 4, 2018

Conversation

ialokim
Copy link
Contributor

@ialokim ialokim commented Feb 15, 2018

This PR adds support for the required via tag if it is set in the OSM data.

After merging in #126, this PR should be rebased and we should change the verification check introduced there by adding the via tag.

Fixes #101.

@xamanu
Copy link
Contributor

xamanu commented Feb 25, 2018

I was first hesitating about the via tag, as it doesn't seem to be an official tag in OpenStreetMap. However it is mentioned in the wiki, part of the approved proposal, and it is used quite extensively. So, all good, to include it into the osm2gtfs core. It looks good so far. Will wait until #126 got in until I test it thoroughly.

@ialokim
Copy link
Contributor Author

ialokim commented Feb 27, 2018

I've only rebased and made pep8 happy 😆

Copy link
Owner

@grote grote left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @ialokim for all these bug fixes! :)

if (trip[
"from"] == itinerary.fr and trip[
"to"] == itinerary.to and service in trip_services):
"to"] == itinerary.to and trip[
"via"] == itinerary.via and service in trip_services):
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It was already like this, but breaking open the accessor like this looks like bad style. Can we keep trip["via"] together without line breaks?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've changed it accordingly, it's now like in line 87.

@ialokim
Copy link
Contributor Author

ialokim commented Mar 1, 2018

Before merging this, we should check all the creators' GTFSes, because of the new required information in the schedule file. I had to fix Esteli's schedule accordingly.

@xamanu
Copy link
Contributor

xamanu commented Mar 5, 2018

I guess the tests (#133, #135, #136 and #137) will be very useful for this.

@grote
Copy link
Owner

grote commented Aug 4, 2018

Thanks @ialokim!

@grote grote merged commit f47de24 into grote:master Aug 4, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants