-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
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
Definition Improvement of Trip Durations_NEW #74
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Definition Improvement of Trip Durations_NEW #74
Conversation
Replace "travel" durations (rider-oriented) by "trip" durations (vehicle/service-oriented)
For mean_duration: - Better definition of the "mean" and "safe" concepts - Define when the trip durations start and end
For safe_duration - Better definition of the "safe" concept - Define when the trip durations start and end - Replace "SafeTravelDuration" by "SafeTripDuration"
lgtm! |
This looks like an improvement but I think that we should remove "based on historical data" from both definitions. I can see basing these factors/offsets on historical data as a best practice, but historical data won't always be available (e.g., new service, but also due to lack of data for existing services), so we shouldn't imply that it is required. |
Removed "based on historical data" |
@tzujenchanmbd Are you going to transfer this over to google/transit before we close this repository? |
Context
PR#48 was created by @timMillet 2 years ago, and there seemed to be a consensus on the changes. However, the discussion stopped and the changes have not been merged yet. Since the old branch is 45 commits behind the current master(current flex proposal), I am creating this new PR to include [all previous proposed changes + typo revision + a tiny change based on a suggestion from comment] to the current proposal.
(side note: this PR doesn't include what we discussed on issue#73, plan to create another PR for that)
Changes in this PR include:
-Quote from PR#48
-New changes
For previous discussion, please see PR#48.
@timMillet @westontrillium @tsherlockcraig could you please have another look at this PR? If this looks ok we can merge to current proposal.