Same route with multiple route_ids


Just a reminder that single things in the real world should have a single identifier.

I am seeing this:

T4 City Circle to Cronulla route_id: I_1e
T4 City Circle to Cronulla route_id: I_1f
T4 City Circle to Waterfall route_id: I_1b
T4 City Circle to Waterfall route_id: I_1c

This combination of names and identifiers is sure to confuse software users who will simply see duplicate names and will wonder whose responsible for this nonsense.

Fortunately, the solution is simple. Disambiguate the name so it describes to the user what the identifier represents in the real world.

I don’t mean to be short, but it is a serious matter and should be high on your TODO list.


Or, you could abstract out customer facing routes by grouping routes with the same route_short_name on your end :slight_smile:

There are pros and cons to the way the data is structured. You could, for example, easily identify a Cronulla service vs a Waterfall service simply by looking at the route_id. They all share the same route designation T4, but are distinctly different routes.

1 Like

Well, they’d simply be confused. I don’t mean to be too harsh.

Th obvious solution is the route_short_name and route_long_name if it ever becomes a simple matter.


Isn’t that what’s implemented right now? route_short_name used to identify customer facing route identifiers. route_long_name and route_desc used to disembiguate between the different variations in the route.

The same routes cannot have different identifiers.

I will not discuss this further.