Repository navigation
Update min_transfer_time requirement for transfers #668
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
skalexch
wants to merge
2
commits into
google:master
Choose a base branch
from
MobilityData:fix_min_transfer_time_req
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a scenario when this field might be useful when
transfer_typeis5? If not, should we forbid it as well?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jfabi a
transfer_type= 5 is one where thew riders have to re-board. Even if it's the same vehicle, there might be a case where amin_transfer_timeis helpful. Maybe a train carriage being decoupled or coupled and it takes a specific amount of time. I think the major benefit is to forbid for cases that are clear contradictions.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that's not what we want?
If you set the
min_transfer_timeof atransfer_type=5transfer to the time it takes to couple and decouple, a real-time update that moves arrival and departure closer to each other will break the transfer. A routing engine would not produce the transfer despite it being viable.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@felixguendling I guess the only reason to add it is to describe a minimum theoretical time it takes to do the coupling and decoupling. But for now I don't see all the possible situations (that are guaranteed to happen in real-life) that make us allow
min_transfer_timefortransfer_type=5. So I'm afraid that I might forget one and end up restricting the spec.That's why I am okay with keeping it for now (as optional) just because I don't want to prematurely forbid it. I know that for cases 3 and 4 there's absolutely no possibility for changing the vehicle (because the transfer is either impossible or in-seat) so there's no
min_transfer_timeto bound that transfer with.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's an operational process and not rider-facing though? What implications do you see from "coupling / decoupling takes at least N minutes" to "which connections should be shown to the user"? Anyhow, it's currently completely undefined what
min_transfer_timemeans fortransfer_type=5, so forbidding it can only improve the situation.What might be more interesting: how long does a trip wait for a timed transfer?
In case of a delay the connecting trip won't wait forever but knowing how long it will wait helps riders make decisions in case of disruptions. But probably this would require another column to not create confusion.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@felixguendling you're right for the first one. I think if we take both your points together, we probably need another column for "the vehicle waits N minutes". Because
min_transfer_timedoes not point to that whatsoever.Also, from the definition of
min_transfer_time, it says "The min_transfer_time should be sufficient to permit a typical rider to move between the two stops, including buffer time to allow for schedule variance on each route." So not applicable for type 5. I think I'm going to stop the vote, add type 5 and restart after a while.cc @jfabi