provider: Fix a contradiction about the route localization

[vperron]

Explain pull request
I understand that choosing which option is still an ongoing discussion, in #491 for instance.

Nevertheless, for now the current specification is contradictory:

• routes must be within city limits at some point
• route may not be within city limits 10 lines further

This PR enforces the most restrictive access for now: the route should be within a city boundary, as stated higher up in the document.

Is this a breaking change
Not really, since the specification is currently contradictory, it can't be implemented.

Which spec(s) will this pull request impact?
Provider

[thekaveman]

It's not clear where you are reading the contradiction? Are you referring to this line:

Unless stated otherwise by the municipality, the trips endpoint must return all trips with a route which intersects with the municipality boundary.

This line speaks to which routes must be included (all routes that have any intersection with the municipality boundary). The line changed in this PR speaks to which points must be included in a route (all points, both inside and outside the boundary).

This change does not look correct to me.

[vperron]

I think you're right, the change is incorrect. Some colleagues and myself did indeed misread it.

I'll try and add some clarification to better reflect this point.

[schnuerle]

@vperron is there a different change you'd like to propose here, or is it OK to close this PR in favor of a future PR aligned with the latest MDS release code?

[vperron]

As I stated in my latest comment this PR is actually invalid, I'll close it immediately.