How the grade maps to the standards

Published: 3 July 2026. Last reviewed: 14 July 2026.

The scorecard's four categories are its own. The grade and thresholds do not change by country. This page separates the universal GTFS references behind the quality lens from jurisdiction guidance that applies only in a particular place.

This is a crosswalk, not a compliance determination. A category being strong here does not certify a feed against any guideline, and a weak one does not fail it. For the official assessment, use the sources linked below.

The standards

The agency page builds its guidance in layers. Every agency receives the universal GTFS layer. A US agency also receives the FTA National Transit Database layer. California receives its published state guideline, while selected state programs are labelled as support resources rather than scoring authorities.

Universal GTFS layer

• GTFS Schedule Best Practices and GTFS-Realtime Best Practices describe useful, interoperable rider information. They apply regardless of country.
• The MobilityData GTFS Grading Scheme is a qualitative check of rider-facing values against the real world. The scorecard automates narrower presence and plausibility proxies; it does not replace that human review.
• Trip-planner publication expectations explain why validation and current calendars matter to riders. They are operational context, not a legal standard.

United States overlay

• The FTA National Transit Database GTFS requirement. Since Report Year 2023, every NTD reporter with fixed-route service must publish and maintain a valid, public GTFS feed and certify it annually. For RY2026, every submission must also provide a stable agency_id value for each represented reporter, unique among those reporters, and crosswalk it to the reporter's NTD ID on P-50. The value does not have to equal the five-digit NTD ID. The scorecard treats presence as a readiness check and shows equality only as a neutral, zero-deduction comparison. This nationwide layer tracks the scorecard's Correctness and Freshness categories but does not change their grades.

State and provincial overlays

• A jurisdiction's own guideline, where one has been mapped. California is currently the only US state with a formal published GTFS quality guideline: the California Transit Data Guidelines and Minimum GTFS Guidelines, which define "Features" under GTFS Schedule, Realtime, and Data Availability and a ten-point checklist. This scorecard's rubric is anchored to them, so for California agencies it is shown as the guideline the score maps to. Other states (Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington) run GTFS programs rather than a quality rubric. Their links are shown as support resources, explicitly not as authorities that set or certify the score.
• No Canadian federal or provincial compliance overlay is claimed yet. Canadian agencies receive the universal GTFS layer, and never the US NTD layer. A future Canadian overlay must cite the responsible authority before it is added.

The source-of-truth records live in pipeline/src/scorecard_pipeline/jurisdiction_guidance.py. The browser constants are generated from that Python module, so static and interactive pages use the same applicability rules.

The Grading Scheme's seven fields, mapped

The MobilityData GTFS Grading Scheme (v1.0.0) grades seven rider-facing fields by hand, comparing each against a source of truth (the agency website, street imagery). The scorecard automates a proxy for every one of them. The methods differ on purpose: the scheme verifies that a value is accurate against the real world, which needs a human; the scorecard checks that a value is present, legible, and internally plausible, which a machine can do daily. The scorecard is the automated complement to the scheme, not a replacement for its accuracy checks.

Beyond these seven, the scorecard also grades accessibility, fares, feed freshness, and realtime, which the scheme does not address. So it covers every field the scheme does (automatically, as a proxy) and four dimensions it does not.

Category by category

Correctness (35%)

What it measures: structural and semantic problems from the MobilityData GTFS validator, weighted by severity.

• California Guidelines: the GTFS Schedule expectation that the feed implements the specification per industry best practices. Validator-clean is the floor for most Schedule Features.
• Grading Scheme: carries the automated proxy for most of the scheme's fields (see the seven-field table above): stop_lat/stop_lon via stop-far-from-street-location notices, and route_color/route_text_color and the route names via the validator's color-contrast and route-name notices.
• Google Transit: a feed has to pass validation to be accepted and kept in Maps, so validator errors here are the same ones that risk the listing.

Freshness (20%)

What it measures: a present and current feed_info validity window, calendar coverage for the weeks ahead, and days until the service data expires.

• California Guidelines: "keep GTFS Schedule up to date and consistent," and the Data Availability expectation of a stable, current feed at a fixed URL. This is the category closest to the compliance threshold: an expired feed drops the agency off the map, which is the failure the Guidelines exist to prevent.
• Grading Scheme: not covered (the scheme assesses accuracy, not currency), so this category is additive to it.
• Google Transit: an expired calendar is one of the clearest ways to fall out of Maps, so this is the category that most directly protects the listing.

Rider experience (25%)

What it measures: accessibility fields populated (wheelchair_boarding), fares present, human-readable stop names, headsigns, and valid agency contact details.

• California Guidelines: the expectation that riders get complete and accurate information including fare, pathway, accessibility, and geographic data, so anyone can plan a trip regardless of familiarity or access needs.
• Grading Scheme: directly overlaps the rider-facing-accuracy dimensions — stop_name, route_short_name/route_long_name, and trip_headsign. Note the difference in method: the scheme compares values against real-world signage by hand; the scorecard checks presence and plausibility automatically. The accessibility and fare parts of this category go beyond the grading scheme, which does not assess them.

Realtime quality (20%)

What it measures: each configured GTFS-Realtime feed reachable, header freshness for configured TripUpdates and VehiclePositions feeds, the share of scheduled trips represented when TripUpdates is configured, and plausible vehicle positions when VehiclePositions is configured. Unpublished feed kinds are neutral. Shown neutrally as "Not yet published" when an agency has no realtime feed.

• California Guidelines: the GTFS Realtime Features — standard formats at a stable URL, with high uptime and update frequency.
• Grading Scheme: not covered (Schedule only).

Where the scorecard and the standards differ

• The scorecard's automated run is scheduled daily, and its public status page records when each run actually completes. The Grading Scheme's accuracy checks are manual by design. The scorecard approximates them, it does not replace them.
• The scorecard weights and grades; the California Guidelines are pass/fail per Feature. A good grade is encouragement toward the Features, not a substitute for the official checklist.
• Accessibility and fares are first-class in the scorecard's Rider-experience category and absent from the Grading Scheme, which is a deliberate emphasis.

Last verified: 2026-07-17. The cited gtfs.org, MobilityData grading-scheme, and Caltrans guideline links resolve; transit.dot.gov answers automated checks with 403, so the NTD pages were not re-verifiable from this pass. The layer descriptions above match the source-of-truth records in pipeline/src/scorecard_pipeline/jurisdiction_guidance.py. Recheck cadence: on any California Transit Data Guidelines revision, NTD reporting-year policy change, or gtfs-validator major release, and at minimum quarterly.