You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi,
Ilevia, our public transport network here in Lille, sometimes experiences major breakdowns and regular outages, particularly on the metro and tramway lines, and I'm currently working on user interaction with the route engine via the MOTIS API. I'd like to know if it's possible to exclude certain lines when calculating a route (the lines in question would be brought up via an internal API) to avoid sending our users to lines that are out of order.
Thank you in advance for your reply!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If I understand the use case correctly, the best way would be to cancel those lines using GTFS-RT. You can have several GTFS-RT endpoints for the same GTFS-static file. With one you could produce cancellation messages for every trip you want to remove from the routing.
But my problem is that Ilevia doesnt have any GTFS-RT for the metro because the VAL system is too old for that :/
So I'd have to produce a GTFS-RT myself when there's a technical problem?
So I'd have to produce a GTFS-RT myself when there's a technical problem?
Yes. If you have a list of trips you want to remove anyway, it should also not be difficult to produce the protobuf. It's probably not a big difference if you do it via the routing query or via GTFS-RT. So I would recommend to do it via GTFS-RT.
Hi,
Ilevia, our public transport network here in Lille, sometimes experiences major breakdowns and regular outages, particularly on the metro and tramway lines, and I'm currently working on user interaction with the route engine via the MOTIS API. I'd like to know if it's possible to exclude certain lines when calculating a route (the lines in question would be brought up via an internal API) to avoid sending our users to lines that are out of order.
Thank you in advance for your reply!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: