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

Detect excessive RouteStop generation on incorrect stop_areas scheme at a station #83

Open
alexey-zakharenkov opened this issue Aug 19, 2019 · 0 comments

Comments

@alexey-zakharenkov
Copy link
Contributor

Lets consider an interchange subway station where two rails may lay at different
layers or may pass nearby:

--p-l-a-t-f-o-r-m--1--                 |     |     |
                                       pl    r     pl
                             __        |     a     |
--r-a-i-l-------st1---      |__|       at    i     at
                          station      |     l     |
                                       fo    |     fo
--p-l-a-t-f-o-r-m--2--                 |     |     |
                                       rm-3  st2   rm-4
                                       |     |     |

One of possible incorrect platform arrangement across stop_areas is:
stop_area1: station, st1, pl3, pl4
stop_area2: station, st2, pl1, pl2
route: ..., st1, pl1, ...

In this case the validator produces irrelevant error message or doesn't detect any error.

Normally consecutive stop and platform in a route belonging to the same station produce only one RouteStop as they belong to the same stop_area. But here st1 and pl1 mistakenly belong to different stop_areas, and they produce two RouteStops: RouteStop(stop_area1) and RouteStop(stop_area2). The first negative effect is that this results in excessive RouteStop in the route, the second - this also may produce confusing "angle too narrow"
error/warning or no message at all, depending on the positions of the elements.

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