> Hello all,
> sorry to make a silly question, but we sometimes have basic questions:
> We are making a axial line map, from the point of view of the
> pedestrian.
> What to do with highways that cross the city, bridges only
> for cars, and high traffic roads without sidewalks.
Unless you are seeing social paths on them then leave them out of the
axial map.
> One of them used to have sidewalks, but in the last years was enlarged,
> and the city removed 90% of the sidewalks. Wat remains are narrow
> pieces of land that are used as "shortcuts" between neighborhoods that
> surround the road. We think we should let them out, since they arenīt
> acessible for
So here you are seeing social paths, so include them. You may well notice
that doing so makes the local pedestiran space more 'intelligible'. Ruth
and I have found that the hevely used golfcart paths in Peachtree city (
Georgia USA) make the local configuration much more 'intelligible'.
> pedestrians... but should we do it both ways (the car map, and the
> pedestrian map?
You definitly need two maps one for pedestirans and one for vehicals.
Unfortunatly you cannot handle one way systems in axial maps (shame), but
you do have to include car carming measures.
If you think about it if you processed a shopping mall you would clearly
need a seperate map for pedestrians and vehicals.
If you check out John Peponis's work on Atlanta you also have to include
overhead walk ways (pedestrian only bridges ) and the shopping mall
public/private pedestrian spaces.
> Thanks for any input on the subject,
>
> Victor Ferreira
|