Skip to content
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

Congestion Network 2: Modify Daily aggregations to exclude filter #68

Open
chmnata opened this issue Oct 25, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

Congestion Network 2: Modify Daily aggregations to exclude filter #68

chmnata opened this issue Oct 25, 2022 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@chmnata
Copy link
Collaborator

chmnata commented Oct 25, 2022

No description provided.

@chmnata
Copy link
Collaborator Author

chmnata commented Oct 25, 2022

Removed the filter for 80% length, and added a column length_w_data with summed length of link_dir with data, also added a column valid which is boolean with whether the hr bin data has 80% or more link with data. I think adding this additional column is gonna make aggregation easier and more straight forward in the latter stages, so we don't forget to filter this column if we need to aggregate by segments in the future (also don't need to join to the segments table again to get segment length).
But valid seems to be an sql command (?) since the text turns into red 🤔 , not sure what else to name it however, @radumas ?

@chmnata
Copy link
Collaborator Author

chmnata commented Oct 25, 2022

Actually should the daily table's tt be just a sum of tt from link_dir? In the previous commit I converted that tt with segment's length but I feel this is not helpful for when we calculate corridor's tt 🤔 since technically we just want to use the sum of link_dir's tt and then convert that to corridor's tt based on corridor's length 🤔 🤔

@radumas
Copy link
Member

radumas commented Oct 26, 2022

you could call it is_valid.

Concerned about people misinterpreting the tt column if it's unadjusted but also makes sense for ease of aggregation to not be converting back and forth.

maybe link_dir_tt or partial_tt or unadjusted_tt

@chmnata
Copy link
Collaborator Author

chmnata commented Oct 26, 2022

Do you think we should keep one for adjusted tt and one for unadjusted unadjusted_tt ? 🤔

@radumas
Copy link
Member

radumas commented Oct 26, 2022

Was about to write suggesting that. :thinking-sunglasses: Great minds :meow_think:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants