Talk:Trip rate on a workday in the Helsinki metropolitan area

About the focus

How to read discussions

Statements: Total number of trips travelled per hour in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. Resolution: Total number of composite trips travelled per hour in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation: ⇤1: The focus is ambiguous. It should be mentioned that the trips are only composite trips, not all. Rewording is needed. Juha ←2 Focus should be short and easily understandable. Details about the essence of the variable should be in the scope, not in the focus. --Jouni 22:33, 17 September 2006 (EEST) ⇤3: This alternative is almost as short, so the argument does not hold: "Total number of composite trips travelled per hour in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area". Juha

Scope should not contain assumptions about composite fraction

How to read discussions

Statements: Scope: "Trips of one working day, based on year 2000 data. Private car trips as the starting point; 50% of them were assumed to switch to composite traffic." Scope should not contain assumptions about composite fraction. Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation: ←1: Assumption of composite fraction is of a very detailed operational nature, and it should not be in the scope. Juha