How the grade maps to the standards
The scorecard's four categories are its own. This page shows how each one lines
up with the two standards California small agencies are actually held to, so the
grade is legible to someone who already knows those standards, and so a manager
can move from "scorecard says B" to "here is the official thing this relates to."
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
Three of these apply to every US agency; the fourth is the agency's own state
guideline, shown only where one exists. On an agency page, the "How this agency
maps to the standards" section shows the universal three plus the state guideline
for that agency's state.
- **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. This is the one standard that applies nationwide, and it tracks the
scorecard's Correctness and Freshness categories. Aligning the GTFS agency_id
with the agency's five-digit NTD ID lets a feed join cleanly to its NTD record.
The October 2024 proposal would have required that alignment in the feed; the
did not adopt it, collecting the agency_id-to-NTD-ID link on the P-50 form
instead. When the agency's NTD ID is on file, the NTD readiness section on its
scorecard checks the alignment and frames it as an optional convenience, never
a required feed change and not part of the grade.
- A state's own guideline or program, where it has one. California is
currently the only US state with a formal published GTFS quality *guideline*:
the California Transit Data 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; for agencies in those states the
program is shown as a support resource, not as a standard the score maps to.
The registry adds a state in one block.
a qualitative check that rider-facing values match the real world (route names
and colors, stop names and locations, trip headsigns). It deliberately does not
cover accessibility, fares, or feed validity, which is where this scorecard adds
to it.
- Google Transit (Google Maps). Not a published rubric, but the de-facto
gate beyond California: to appear and stay in Google Maps a feed has to pass
Google's own validation and stay current. A feed that does not validate, or
whose calendar has expired, is dropped. In practice this tracks the scorecard's
Correctness and Freshness categories. Apple Maps applies a similar bar.
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.
| Grading Scheme field | The scheme checks (by hand) | The scorecard's automated proxy |
|---|---|---|
route_short_name | matches on-street signage | Correctness: validator route-name notices |
route_long_name | matches official route documentation | Correctness: missing_route_long_name and related notices |
route_color | matches on-the-ground signage | Correctness: route_color_contrast (the published color is legible) |
route_text_color | legible against the route color | Correctness: route_color_contrast |
stop_name | matches the real stop (location_type=0) | Rider experience: readable (mixed-case) stop names; Correctness: name notices |
stop_lat / stop_lon | the coordinate is the real location | Correctness: stop-too-far-from-shape; Realtime: position plausibility |
trip_headsign | matches the destination the bus displays | Rider experience: headsign presence |
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
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: the GTFS-Realtime feed reachable and fresh, the share of
scheduled trips represented in TripUpdates, and plausible vehicle positions. 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 is automated and runs daily; 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.