Hello, the problematic behavior is caused by an invalid pedestrian route. The edge sequence 633 -629 leads to junction 476 which is not connected with next route edge -813 This causes the person to walk contrary to the expected direction and thus reach the arrival position earlier than expected. In the latest development version of SUMO additional warnings have been implemented to make the faulty behavior more obvious. A possible fix would be to either use the sequence 633 -629 -629 -813 or 633 -813
The network itself is problematic insofer that it deviates from the two possible styles for pedestrian network modelling: 1) with crossings and walkingAreas. This makes it explicit where pedestrians may cross the road and is the recommended style for detailed pedestrian simulation ( http://sumo.dlr.de/wiki/Simulation/Pedestrians#Building_a_network_for_pedestrian_simulation ) 2) without crossing and walkingAreas but with sidewalks that have no connections. In this case, pedestrians will assume a fully connected topology at each intersection but their paths are not modelled (they "jump" across). This type of network is generated automatically by netconvert when not generating crossings or walkingareas. Note, that "jumping" potentially causes negative timeLoss in the current version but this will only be noticable if the dwadling option is disabled. In your case the network contains sidewalks that are connected but this forces awkward detours because there are no connections that allow changing the walking direction. regards, Jakob 2018-07-25 15:15 GMT+02:00 Albiston, Gregory 2012 (PGR) < [email protected]>: > Hello, > > > I have a scenario where there are numerous pedestrians undertaking walking > stages. > > Some of these stages are resulting in negative time losses meaning the > pedestrian is arriving faster than the maximum speed. > > All the vehicle stages have positive time losses. > > > Attached is an example scenario for one pedestrian which shows the issue. > The first and final stages are completed with a time loss of -79.75 and > -188.83. This equates to speeds of 1.84 and 2.41 when the max speed is set > to 1.79. > > > Is there a modelling reason for the negative time losses? > > Apologies if I've missed something. > > > Thanks, > > > Greg > DISCLAIMER: This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may > contain private and confidential information. If you are not the intended > addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. In > this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error. Opinions and > information in this email that do not relate to the official business of > Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor > endorsed by the University. Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to > ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise > that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are > actually virus free. This is in keeping with good computing practice. > > _______________________________________________ > sumo-user mailing list > [email protected] > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe > from this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/sumo-user > >
_______________________________________________ sumo-user mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/sumo-user
