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
In walk links logic, do no exempt - include nodes to consider #77
Comments
Now I think about it more, it does not seem an issue of choosing using For the use case like what you mentioned, (actually a concrete case could be assembling different transit operators' cost-based networks, and I also wonder, instead of cherrypicking nodes to build/not build connectors, does it have more benefits to build all connectors, and after that assign high cost to specified edges so it is similar to building no connector since it will never be used. I guess that may depend on the application. |
Thanks @yiyange. I think the generation of walk paths should be limited, in either case. The reason is that these are straight line paths. While there is indeed a distance cut off, it seems unnecessary / improper to accurately modeling aspects such as accessibility to add new straight-line paths between lines where there should not be them. Edges are flagged by type. Perhaps, the best way to do this would be to also limit newly developed edges to nodes that are attached to walk networks and node directly with nodes that are along existing transit networks. Modeling cross operator transfers is an entirely different feature, in my mind, but definitely one worth developing. |
Code at issue:
peartree/peartree/graph.py
Lines 198 to 209 in 8ef113b
Creating an
exempt_nodes
list causes problems when stacking multiple graphs. Let's say I want to stack one graph on another, and do not want walk networks there. Then, I want to add a 3rd graph, but, this time, I do want to add walk connectors - but just from that new graph to the existing. I have no way of knowing which of the "old" graph nodes to not connect.So, in this case, it would make more sense to specify which nodes a walk edge should be considered for - not which nodes should not be considered.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: