5 ms·

Thank you for your work on CityMapper. However may I respectfully suggest you stop developing for a bit, and go out and actually use it for real, 'in the field'

by scoot 12y ago

Thank you for your work on CityMapper. However may I respectfully suggest you stop developing for a bit, and go out and actually use it for real, 'in the field'? Head out the office, pick a spot to get to (say a meeting in another part of town) and see if you can figure out which route is actually quickest. It's seldom the one suggested. Trying to figure out the real trip length for upcoming departures for a number of travel options is a head-wrecker. I use CityMapper frequently, and I love it. But this 'feature' is infuriating!

Brakenshire 12y ago
> see if you can figure out which route is actually quickest On this question, there's a balance between possible maximum speed, and reliability. If I want to go to point B, the quickest possible route will often be made by stringing together a serious of improbable connections. For instance, the route could rely on taking three infrequent buses, with little leeway for transfer between one and another, on the assumption that they won't be slowed down by traffic (or just slow customers, stopping more than normal, etc). But if an app sends me along this route, and one of the buses is behind schedule, and I miss the connection, that then becomes a big problem. So there definitely is good sense in prioritizing frequent bus routes to some degree.
- wrikl 12y ago
  When dealing with (London) tubes and train lines, most of the time it should be possible to indeed work out which route is actually quickest. I agree that buses do complicate things.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Brakenshire 12y ago
    Yeah, I agree it doesn't make sense for train times, where there is a meaningful, rigid timetable (all jokes about British Rail aside).
- tomp 12y ago
  But this just means that you should include a margin of error in arrival times when calculating which changes are possible. Doesn't excuse them from using the average time of arrival instead of the actual time of arrival each leg of the journey.

by scoot 12y ago

Brakenshire 12y ago

> see if you can figure out which route is actually quickest On this question, there's a balance between possible maximum speed, and reliability. If I want to go to point B, the quickest possible route will often be made by stringing together a serious of improbable connections. For instance, the route could rely on taking three infrequent buses, with little leeway for transfer between one and another, on the assumption that they won't be slowed down by traffic (or just slow customers, stopping more than normal, etc). But if an app sends me along this route, and one of the buses is behind schedule, and I miss the connection, that then becomes a big problem. So there definitely is good sense in prioritizing frequent bus routes to some degree.

wrikl 12y ago
When dealing with (London) tubes and train lines, most of the time it should be possible to indeed work out which route is actually quickest. I agree that buses do complicate things.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Brakenshire 12y ago
  Yeah, I agree it doesn't make sense for train times, where there is a meaningful, rigid timetable (all jokes about British Rail aside).
tomp 12y ago
But this just means that you should include a margin of error in arrival times when calculating which changes are possible. Doesn't excuse them from using the average time of arrival instead of the actual time of arrival each leg of the journey.