INDUSTRY FIELD GUIDE
Intercity bus connection records for AI evaluation
Two coaches can serve the same town within minutes of each other without offering a confirmed connection.
NAICS 485210 · Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation
Two coaches can serve the same town within minutes of each other without offering a confirmed connection. A trip planner needs to know the actual stop, service day, and whether a transfer is authorized. GTFS documents schedules, stops, and transfer information. A rural or intercity operator can create a sample focused on connecting records across services. GTFS schedule reference
Make a fictional timetable for two operators. Give one pair a documented transfer at the same stop. Give another a matching city name but a different stop and service day. Add a through-booking record only where it applies. Ask which journey the evidence supports and what a reviewer would need to confirm the other. Separate the published timetable from the actual booking record.
Keep names, private route terms, traveler details, and contract rates out of the sample. If using real timetable files, verify license, currency, and ownership for each operator.
Describe an intercity connection sample
Original Fiund exercise
Matching town names do not establish the same transfer stop or service day
Two fictitious operators use original timetable and transfer cards. No traveler, route contract, price or actual booking recommendation is represented.
| Record | Source | What it records |
|---|---|---|
| IB1 | Supported pair | Day D1: Operator A arrives stop S at 10:00; Operator B leaves S at 10:15. Original transfer card explicitly permits this pair; through-booking TB1 names both trips. |
| IB2 | Near-match pair | Operator A2 arrives Town T at stop S1 on D1 at 11:00. Operator B2 leaves Town T at S2 on D2 at 11:10. |
| IB3 | Missing relationship | No S1-to-S2 transfer, cross-day plan or A2/B2 through-booking supplied. Town labels are shared, full stop IDs differ. |
Question for the model
Which connection has matched schedule and booking evidence, and what prevents the near-match from being confirmed?
Show the reference answer and checks
IB1 aligns day D1, the exact stop S, a permitted trip-pair transfer and TB1's through-booking. IB2 differs in both stop and service day despite its shared town label and close-looking times. IB3 supplies no relationship resolving those differences. Report the first pair's documentary support and the second pair's missing transfer and booking evidence, without treating a timetable alone as proof of a reservation or a guaranteed journey.
- Joining services by town name while ignoring stop and date.
- Treating a published departure as a confirmed through-booking.
Fields to preserve
- Operator, trip and service day
- Defines each leg.
- Full stop ID and transfer rule
- Supports the interchange.
- Through-booking reference and missing link
- Separates schedule from reservation.
Test another case
Align the second pair's date but retain S1/S2 without a transfer map. Require only the date gap to close.
Use invented timetables and original records. Exclude travelers and private terms; verify terms and currency for any real public feed.
Discuss a contribution
Describe the sources you control, the task they could support and what has already been checked. Use the existing-data assessment for an archive or the collection brief for a new recording project. The contributor agreement defines Fiund’s licensing authority and compensation. A guide or fictional exercise does not establish an accepted collection or a sale.