Talk:Composite traffic

Trips per hour

About the focus

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ⇤--The focus is ambiguous. It should be mentioned that the trips are only composite trips, not all. Rewording is needed.: . {{{2}}} {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--Focus should be short and easily understandable. Details about the essence of the variable should be in the scope, not in the focus.: . {{{2}}} {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--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".: . {{{2}}} {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Scope should not contain assumptions about composite fraction

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--Assumption of composite fraction is of a very detailed operational nature, and it should not be in the scope.: . {{{2}}} {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)