Cdap #11
Cdap #11
Conversation
|
At some point it might be good to (since this is an example) write out exactly what is going on in the comments...in travel modeler ( not programmer shorthand ) terms. I.e. cdap took me a few minutes to figure out what it was. I had to look at the roadmap and then I was like AHA...why didn't you say so! ( or maybe this is bc we just have the less sophisticated DAPs instead of CDAPs) If it took me 5 min to figure out...my guess that somebody less familiar ( i.e. an intern!) will take longer. This isnt a high priority for now, but let's keep it mind when we use shorthand and acronyms. |
|
Just a quick reminder, for anyone following this repo - this is what I will be working on this week. I believe I have the CDAP (coordinate daily activity pattern) running for 1 person households and will now be proceeding to 2 person households. If you guys would prefer that I be working on something else (e.g. if you don't need the C of CDAP), feel free to let me know. Elizabeth, your comment about adding comments is important. I suggest we do a commenting and testing iteration after getting enough of a prototype going that we all think that the current approach is good. I don't to to do much polish on code that's still subject to significant revisions... |
Workplace size coeffs
jiffyclub
force-pushed
the
cdap
branch
3 times, most recently
from
0fdbcaf
to
ab5914a
Compare
And all the alternatives, model, and all the new columns that are required to support it. Only about halfway through at this point but hopefully gets a bit faster going forward. Also added proper newlines to the csv file so they look ok outside of excel. Also started keeping a todo list in markdown to keep track of anything that will need revisiting before the model is fully usable.
still need to polish one or two things before opening a PR though, but pretty close
for full time worker only at this point
only running for the full time worker person type at this time
…neration 140 lines or so to go!
there are a couple of issues - the window residual and the presence of X type not including chooser other than that this is looking pretty good
I didn't realize all the segments in the non mandatory model had the same spec - this made things much easier (i.e. I didn't have to definite 250 variables for every segment). Anyway this is now running and brings up a few questions which I will add to the readme.md.
a few caveats 1) this has no mode choice logsums 2) it uses fully random sampling 3) it's missing size terms 4) the escort trip type is not split into with and without child ... but basic workflow is completely there - every tour now has a destination
not working yet as far as model specifications and such
need to ask a few questions about the time windowing
no new functionality here - just splitting up the one large file into 8-10 smaller files. Now have a models directory and one file per model, as well as a tables directory and one file per table. Remember this is only a convention, so mixing in other aspects of the simulation framework where appropriate is expected.
Nonmandatory tour schedule
File reorg
Explicitly testing situations when there are no interactions.
[ci-skip]
It's nice to have the specs not mixed up with alternative names.
So they can be used for evaluating variables with DataFrame.eval.
The final rules really need to be applied after utilities have been calculated for an entire household so that a household can't choose a certain alternative at all.
These are rules that express things like "retired people can't do mandatory tours".
|
Closing this since the PR isn't targeting the master branch. |
remove deprecated method from trip scheduling
Updated Model Component Documentation
* School escorting estimation updates Most changes are needed to avoid crash if estimation run actually had no school escorting in the input data * blacken * updating to work with Pydantic and State object * adding missed columns necessary for no school escorting * blacken * handling zero escorting cases * removing duplicate code
This PR - which I won't be merging yet - contains the CDAP for number of persons in the households == 1
To the good: I had to dig out the definitions of some variables from the code and ended up finding everything I needed. Started a data dictionary on the wiki here: https://github.com/synthicity/activitysim/wiki/Data-Dictionary
Not as good: the multiple member households have some tricky logic in how they choose their CDAP. I got a good explanation from David Ory and will dig into multi-member households next.