Load additional data from GBFS and expose it

[hannesj]

Summary

Read all fields from GBFS feeds and expose them through the Transmodel API

Issue

Closes #3227, #2814, #2778, #2618, #2563

Unit tests

Added additional feed to check compability with GBFS v1.0 feeds

Code style

Should be correct

Documentation

None changed

Changelog

Added

Open questions

• Add everything to rental service vs having references between objects
• Banned and allowed systems/vehicle types/floating/form factor/propulsion type
• Should we map to new traverse modes
  • What about speed and permissions
• Can we add new vertex types?
• Stations with multiple types
• Use max distance from vehicle
• Astar dominance?
• Which additional fields should be added?

[leonardehrenfried]

I have just a few questions, nothing major really.

I'm going compile and run this with out data set to give a final review.

[leonardehrenfried]

Is a VehicleRentalPlace what used to be called VehicleRentalStation?

[hannesj]

Yes, It has two classes implementing it, VehicleRentalStation and VehicleRentalVehicle

[leonardehrenfried]

I've tested this with our dataset and it still works.

[optionsome]

I think OTP1 supported defining network name in the updater config. I think that feature is not broken by this pull request and I haven't tested if the upstream OTP1 code actually allowed it but by quickly looking at the code it at least looked like it. Has it been an intentional change that defining the network name in config doesn't do anything anymore or was it broken by accident? I reviewed the code changes here and tested with a gbfs and smoove feed, and everything looked good otherwise.

[leonardehrenfried]

The feature that you're talking about has been removed in a previous GBFS-related PR. The network name is now retrieved from system_information's system_id.

I think a contribution to put it back would be accepted. Or WDYT, @hannesj ?

[optionsome]

Also to clarify, it still works with the smoove updater, just not with the GBFS updater.

[hannesj]

@optionsome Do you have some use case for overriding the system id? It is meant exactly for things like this, as it is guaranteed to be globally unique. Also, for non-GBFS-updaters, network is still a configuration parameter.

[optionsome]

@optionsome Do you have some use case for overriding the system id? It is meant exactly for things like this, as it is guaranteed to be globally unique. Also, for non-GBFS-updaters, network is still a configuration parameter.

A numeric network id doesn't tell much by itself, we have had a standard in our project to name the networks after cities/operators so they can be easily recognized. Would it be ok for me to add back the support to give a custom network id for the GBFS updaters? Haven't checked yet how complicated it would be with the current codebase but I'm going to do some changes anyway now so I could do that addition as well unless it's unwanted or too troublesome.