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

vehicles_ft fields are "optional" #65

Closed
e-lo opened this issue May 3, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

vehicles_ft fields are "optional" #65

e-lo opened this issue May 3, 2017 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@e-lo
Copy link
Member

e-lo commented May 3, 2017

But for vehicle name.
Explicitly say what default was used if none provided.

@e-lo e-lo added this to the Appcon Tutorial milestone May 3, 2017
@e-lo e-lo assigned lmz May 3, 2017
@lmz
Copy link
Member

lmz commented May 4, 2017

What should defaults be if non provided for accel, decel and max speed?
I'm looking at TQSM I see in Exhibit 6-2 (on page 6-4) accel rates but by vehicle type and for two different speeds. Page 6-3 lists "typical values" of 25 mi/h max speed.

I could use 3.4 ft/s^2 accel, 4.0 decel ft/s^2 decel and 50 mi/h (or 20 mi/h bus) but that seems pretty crappy for rail?

@e-lo
Copy link
Member Author

e-lo commented May 4, 2017

https://www.sacrt.com/lightrail.stm has some values that we could use for rail?

@lmz
Copy link
Member

lmz commented May 8, 2017

I think it's more straightforward to not alter the travel time if these aren't specified, which is what we originally decided when this was implemented. The vehicles_ft file doesn't have a mode, so to do mode-specific defaults, we'd have to rely on how it joins to trips (which specify modes) and routes (which specify vehicle types) which gets confusing fast.

lmz pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 8, 2017
@e-lo
Copy link
Member Author

e-lo commented May 8, 2017

I think I'm okay with this. We will need to document it somewhere [ thinking on this ]
Are we good to go with all of the fields being optional now?

@lmz
Copy link
Member

lmz commented May 8, 2017

I think so. I tested blanking fields and removing the columns.

@e-lo e-lo closed this as completed May 9, 2017
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