Routing for accessibility

[trurlurl]

This is an alternative proposal to PR #254, keeping BaseTripMobilityFilterGroup (almost) unchanged but nevertheless allowing for specifying low level accessibility needs and preferences. It replaces PR #273 - the code is identical but was previously in another, cloned repository.

• AccessibilityPreferences have been introduced to allow for minimizing obstacles like stairs even when there is no route with zero stairs (i.e., when NoStairs=true does not find any result).
  • It is possible to do a search for a user with both visual and mobility impairment.

The discussion in Köln has been taken into account to my best understanding.

[ue71603]

@trurlurl The PR is fine for me. My suggestion: You clear the open points with @JonaVBB and then I create it directly from changes_1.1 for the final approval.

[sgrossberndt]

Merged branch 'changes_for_v1.1' into routing_for_accessibility to make it mergeable.

[sgrossberndt]

@skinkie I integrated those etc typo fixes already in https://github.com/VDVde/OJP/commit/a96652093b00df6ed2dbcad41c65da16eec7f023

[ue71603]

André: Jona wants to check it again.

[trurlurl]

I added AccessibilityRoutingWeight in the latest commit. This is the improvement mentioned towards the end of section 5.4.1 (Multiple optimisation methods). The PR now contains the complete solution as discussed in section 5.4.1. I hope this makes things sufficiently explicit and clear.

Note that the planning algorithm of a system may not support such a more general cost function defined by the AccessibilityRoutingWeights. This is not a problem, in that case it could fall back to the simpler solution without the weights.

The idea is to make the interface sufficiently general to be ready for more sophisticated algorithms that may be used in the future.

[ue71603]

@normanoffel @herlitze I disucssed with André that he should provide the concrete example. It is now available in tihs commit. During the next meeting I suggest we schedule a meeting for a discussion with whoever wants to participate to settle this one. I hope this is ok.

[herlitze]

@ue71603 Yes, I think we need this discussion.

[ue71603]

From Malte to @trurlurl today I had an internal discussion about accessibility routing and found real world examples to be helpful for the discussion. Here are two examples for accessibility routing.

"Normal" vs. stepfree routing:

"Normal" vs. limited vision routing: Could you please provide examples as the above for the meeting next week so we have specific use cases to find solutions for?

[ue71603]

• Remove multiple criteria
• Additional criteria for accessibility, but only single ones, with LeastNumberOfSteps, ....
• Describe behaviour that is expected.
• Declare which criteria that are core

[ue71603]

see https://github.com/VDVde/OJP/pull/353

[ue71603]

will be done here: https://github.com/VDVde/OJP/pull/353 some documentations points may be copied to the specifciation