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

Consider tighter limit on car linking #535

Closed
ansoncfit opened this issue Jul 1, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

Consider tighter limit on car linking #535

ansoncfit opened this issue Jul 1, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@ansoncfit
Copy link
Member

The construction of stopToPointLinkageCostTables now uses mode-specific limits, rather than the constant 2km distance table limit.

In LinkedPointSet, CAR_TIME_LINKING_LIMIT_SECONDS = 30 * 60 and MAX_CAR_SPEED_METERS_PER_SECOND = 44 (~160 km / hr). The time should be an upper bound on a user-definable maxCarTime parameter in the UI, and the speed should be an upper limit on car speeds from OSM.

But an ~80 km distance table radius may be excessive -- for Los Angeles, building car linkage cost tables for this radius takes ~2.5 hours. Once we serialize non-walk linkages, a long build time will be less onerous (as it will only be done once). But in the meantime, and maybe even long-term, we may want a lower limit.

@ansoncfit
Copy link
Member Author

Another reason for lowering the limit: times for the initial access leg come from a street router, not pre-computed tables, so the initial access leg can exceed the hard-coded R5 limits.

@ansoncfit
Copy link
Member Author

For the example we discussed in Switzerland, in which the time to build stop to point linkage cost tables was not excessive, weren't the stops limited to a couple thousand rail stations?

To allow building stop to point linkage cost tables for car egress and many thousands of transit stops, I think a distance limit of 45 km (30 min at 90 km/hr) would be sufficient for the vast majority of use cases. If anyone needed a higher limit, we could make a custom R5 version.

@abyrd abyrd closed this as completed in 7c9450b Aug 19, 2019
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

1 participant