Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 69.86%. Comparing base (c93fc7c) to head (ee281bc).

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             dev-2.x    #6086      +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage      69.81%   69.86%   +0.04%     
- Complexity     17418    17437      +19     
=============================================
  Files           1974     1974              
  Lines          74545    74547       +2     
  Branches        7633     7633              
=============================================
+ Hits           52047    52080      +33     
+ Misses         19848    19828      -20     
+ Partials        2650     2639      -11     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Added change for cable tram as well. GTFS route type 5 was originally called "cable car", but it was a misleading term because a "cable car" means "aerial lift" in Europe, so the specification has now changed to "cable tram".

I have changed all references to it in the UI, and also fixed the Transmodel mapping mistake resulted from the misleading term.

I am sorry, but I am not in favour of merging this PR, it is possible that we can merge piece of it as separate PRs.

• We have stoped maintaining the old client unless it is a critical fix - we are deleting this code when the new debug client is a good enough alternative for debugging transit (it is already in good shape for debugging street routing).
• There are two fixes to GTFS mapping and Transmodel in this PR - these changes need to be split into separate PRs. We also need issues for each of these analyzing the consequences and giving people time to fix their data. There are also different strategies for how to do these changes - some without breaking backwards compatibility.

Sorry what do you mean? For CABLE_CAR, we need to correct the documentation and also the Transmodel mapping because the Transmodel mistake is a direct result of interpreting American English as British English. Should I put these changes into one PR or separate PRs?

For bus / coach, do you think that having a feature flag (I propose to name it as GtfsCoach) will be a good idea?

Sorry what do you mean? For CABLE_CAR, we need to correct the documentation and also the Transmodel mapping
because the Transmodel mistake is a direct result of interpreting American English as British English. Should I put these
changes into one PR or separate PRs?

No one disagree that it was a mistake, but the mistake is adopted in many clients. So, if someone is selling tickets in one of these clients they might filter on CABLE_CAR - even if it is wrong. So to allow them to migrate we need to analyze if it is a problem first, then find a strategy for migration. This is the "real" task of fixing known problems like this one.

I am going to rework on this and release my proposed changes into a few different packages for each mode of transport.

Superceded by #6170, #6171, #6173 and #6174 with the exception of the legacy REST API.