I like the idea that you don’t need to look up the stop_ids any more and you’re looking it up by stop name, better not have a typo or put accents in the name then, I guess.
What about user errors, for example stop_name : “De Brouckere” with line_id : 18, just log an error or return a warning in the sensor that this line isn’t passing at this stop?
With config flow I think we can check this during setup, maybe even show a list of all the possible lines per stop. Once I figure out how to get config flow working that is.
While having a card with all details of the stop (like the display at the stop) is very nice, it’s also very useful to have the waiting times for a particular line, as I trigger some automations when it’s time to leave the house to catch the next bus. I’m using for now a quick and dirty script that takes the passing times and pushes the remaining minutes with mqtt as@Emilv2 's sensor is returning this info only in an attribute. Maybe a sensor for the the stop and a sensor for every single line passing would be more useful, but in this case I thing you need to parse stops.txt to fin out what line passes at which stop…
You can use attributes in automations or make template sensors, wouldn’t that solve your problem? There are arguments for and against putting things in attributes or in separate sensors, I think keeping it the same as most other transport sensors, one sensor per stop, is the way to go.
Fin de service: would there be a way to check the timetable to have the first foreseen passing time in the next morning, that would avoid an empty state?
I think that should be possible, but the information seems to be quite scattered around in the gtfs file.
May I suggest to prefix the sensor name for easier filtering in the developer tools?
Sounds good to me, I’ll see if they accept it. Most components don’t do that but I don’t know if that is a requirement or just up to the developer.