Axial analysis was developed to analyse urban
grids, and the rule is that you should use the
smallest number of lines consistent with covering
all the space and making all connections.
However, recently several people have developed
ways of using axial maps to represent and analyse
whole regions, including the unurbanised parts.
The most experienced researcher in this area is
Loon Wai Chau ([log in to unmask]) and I believe I
am correct in saying that he has found that the
best method is to draw the smallest number of
lines consistent with the actual sinuous
structure of routes. He might be the best person
to talk to about this and you can find papers by
him in the last two Symposia. But in general in
cities where you also find steep mountainous
areas (Los Angeles is a striking example) you
just continue to apply the rule of the fewest
lines what cover the system and make all
connection. But this does not mean following
every bend in the road. You will often find that
slight bends in the road do allow a straight line
to be drawn through, and in this case this line
should be drawn. It should be quite
straightforward to find the smallest number of
lines that cover a sinuous route, and don't worry
of you sometime have to overlap lines to ensure
all direct connections are made. - Bill
>Dear all,
>
>Thanks all for your good comments.
>
>When I draw axial map of Hong Kong, I find many sinuous paths located in
>sparse areas (mountain). I am confused how to draw axial lines representing
>those sinuous paths. Please see the attached figure, the highlighted path,
>should I use many short straight axial lines or a few long lines even one
>long axial line to digitize it? I want to analyze the vehicular movement
>pattern using the axial map representation, and correctly representing those
>sinuous paths should influence the final result, right?
>
>I hope to hear from you again, many thanks.
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:DemoFig4.jpg (JPEG/«IC») (001194B2)
|