Dear Bill,
Thanks for your prompt reply. Data in Fig 10 of Hillier et al. (93) seems
to be in a strange format: whereas the figure caption says ‘numbers of
moving adults per 100m’, the numbers in the figure are fractional. Did I
miss something obvious?
As for the data in the 1998 and 2005 studies, why hasn’t it been shared
yet? As you point out, these are larger studies which would allow the
research community to test the findings of space syntax.
Kind regards,
Rui
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:48 +0000, Professor Bill Hillier
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Rui, what on earth are you talking about ? The two main sets of
>movement data on the 1993 study are published in full detail within
>the paper - see the map of the Kings Cross area on p 43 and the table
>for the City of London on p 54.
>
>The same could not be done for the 1998 paper as the data base was so
>large. But we used some of this data for Shinichi's and my 2005
>paper, and this is now being made available to whoever wants it.
>
>Of course Space Syntax Limited has to take care with its movement
>data base. Nearly all of it is collected as part of commercial
>projects, many of them highly sensitive. - Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>I am very concerned with the fact that space syntax has not yet shared
data
>>from studies published in 1993 and 1998. In particular, we do not have
the
>>data used in
>>
>>Hillier B et al (1993) - Natural movement (.), Environment & Planning B,
>>Vol. 19 38pp
>>
>>I am also concerned with the suggestion that Space Syntax Lab is
currently
>>sharing data at spacesyntax.org:
>>http://www.spacesyntax.org/datadownloads/index.asp
>>
>>Let's go through the procedure that a user wanting to access the data
would
>>have to follow:
>>First, users have to register.
>>Second, users have to agree with the 9 points in the terms and
conditions:
>>http://www.spacesyntax.org/terms.htm
>>Third, users are told that "The verification process may take 2-3 weeks."
>>
>>Points 6 to 9 of the terms and conditions make it impossible to work
>>independently on the data, as they forbid publication of findings without
>>prior permission of space syntax.
>>
>>The research community has no interest in observations from 1999, or in
>>Ordnance Survey maps that may come with these. We were promised data from
>>the above study by Hillier et al. (1993) and from a study published in
1998.
>>All that is needed is the data in the format used in the studies
published
>>in the literature, i.e. street names for the gates and their respective
>>counts -the maps are available in the original papers.
>>
>>We are talking about data which is between 8 and 13 years old.
>>
>>Why are we cutting through red tape to access it?
>>Why aren't the observations from Hillier et al. (1993) being shared for
>>independent scrutiny?
>>and why is this process taking years?
>>
>>
>>Kind regards,
>>Rui
>>
>>_____________________________
>>Dr. Rui Carvalho
>>
>>http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/people/Rui.htm
>>Senior Research Fellow
>>Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis
>>1-19 Torrington Place
>>University College London
>>Gower Street
>>London WC1E 6BT
>>United Kingdom
>
|