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

Less active travel in Go Active scenario than in baseline #100

Open
joeytalbot opened this issue Feb 23, 2021 · 11 comments
Open

Less active travel in Go Active scenario than in baseline #100

joeytalbot opened this issue Feb 23, 2021 · 11 comments
Assignees

Comments

@joeytalbot
Copy link
Contributor

In Tresham (a remote rural site) the Go Active scenario is giving negative numbers of people walking to work.

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor

Well spotted. Can you share a link to the data file showing it? I'm just looking at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cyipt/actdev/main/data-small/tresham/desire-lines-few.geojson and cannot see any negative numbers associated with Go Active.

@joeytalbot
Copy link
Contributor Author

In https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cyipt/actdev/main/data-small/all-sites.geojson percent_drive_convertable and percent_mapped_drive_convertable are both negative numbers, and percent_commute_active_scenario is lower than percent_commute_active_base.

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor

Interesting. Do you know the cause of that? My understanding was that the percent_* columns in all-sites.geojson was derived from the data in desire-lines-few.geojson, wondering if there's a bug in the code that generates those percentages.

Or do the percent columns start from a different input dataset, not desire-lines-few.geojson?

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor

Another question, if the issue is about the percent_ columns and not negative walking values, should the title of this issue be updated accordingly?

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor

I've found the offending line:

"percent_drive_convertable": -8.0

I don't think this is a priority, worth getting to the bottom of it after the workshop I think.

@Robinlovelace Robinlovelace added this to the Post workshop fixes milestone Feb 23, 2021
@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor

Heads-up @joeytalbot I've just created a new milestone for tracking fairly minor issues like this that we can fix after the workshop: https://github.com/cyipt/actdev/milestone/4

You up for taking a look at the issue at some point? Please assign yourself if so. Otherwise I'm happy to take a look and make further updates to the scenario generation code.

@joeytalbot joeytalbot self-assigned this Feb 23, 2021
@joeytalbot joeytalbot changed the title Negative walking numbers Less active travel in Go Active scenario than in baseline Feb 23, 2021
@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor

Is this fixed now? I haven't made any major changes, just fixed Bath, so guess not...

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor

In case it helps @joeytalbot, I now see this, strange to have negative convertible numbers:

all_sites %>% filter(site_name == "tresham") %>% 
+   select(percent_commute_active_base:percent_drive_convertable)
Simple feature collection with 1 feature and 2 fields
geometry type:  POLYGON
dimension:      XY
bbox:           xmin: -0.600986 ymin: 52.49511 xmax: -0.575237 ymax: 52.51319
geographic CRS: WGS 84
# A tibble: 1 x 3
  percent_commute_active_base percent_drive_convertable                                                                                     geometry
                        <dbl>                     <dbl>                                                                                <POLYGON [°]>
1                          12                        -8 ((-0.583048 52.49511, -0.575237 52.50044, -0.581245 52.50327, -0.582275 52.50912, -0.5813...

@joeytalbot
Copy link
Contributor Author

No it's not fixed.

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor

No it's not fixed.

You up for taking a look to diagnose the source of the issue? The desire line scenarios looked OK to me when I checked them.

@joeytalbot
Copy link
Contributor Author

We agreed before that it wasn't a top priority. I'll have a look when I get a chance.

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