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

Sumo-Option WalkingArea intermediate points #8797

Closed
Domsall opened this issue Jun 29, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed

Sumo-Option WalkingArea intermediate points #8797

Domsall opened this issue Jun 29, 2021 · 3 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@Domsall
Copy link
Contributor

Domsall commented Jun 29, 2021

When loading a SUMO configuration/simulation WalkingAreas get a predefined number of intermediate points.

It would be great to have an option similar to netconverts --junctions.internal-link-detail to smooth out WalkingLanes within the intersection. With the current implementation, the angle difference between the start/ending of WalkingLanes and Edges can be extremly high.

@namdre
Copy link
Contributor

namdre commented Jun 29, 2021

@behrisch behrisch added this to the 2.0.0 milestone Jul 20, 2021
@Domsall
Copy link
Contributor Author

Domsall commented Oct 6, 2022

After testing different implementations, I recognized that adding a few lines of Code like the following should solve the problem:

const OptionsCont& oc = OptionsCont::getOptions();
const int numPoints = oc.getInt("junctions.internal-link-detail");
shape = shape.bezier(numPoints);

Am I missing something?! Do you have any suggestions for the naming?!

@namdre
Copy link
Contributor

namdre commented Oct 6, 2022

since the shapes are specific to the striping model, I would name the option --pedestrian.striping.walkingarea-detail

The current implementation has shapes with either 4 or 2 points. The bezier function should only be applied to the 4-point shapes but should then lead to reasonably smooth shapes in most cases.
The shapes will become longer though and I'm not sure whether that will increase realism.
But since it's optional, I see no problem with this.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants