Victor,
You are right in your guess - when in doubt map it both ways. I don’t fully
understand what you mean in terms of removal of the sidewalks and the use of
land as short cuts, but if my intuition is right, you need to express in the
pedestrian axial analysis the pattern of space as it appears to pedestrians.
If there is a patch of land which people actually walk across between
neighbourhoods then those paths need to be mapped. Conversely, if the
traffic engineers have widened the roads and taken over the sidewalks to
give additional vehicular road space this may have effectively removed these
routes from the space open to pedestrians to use. In the UK motorways are of
this class, and it is actually illegal to walk along them as a pedestrian.
In a pedestrian model we do not include them. In some situations I can
imagine that it is more difficult to make the distinction so your principle
ought to be to derive a rule that you can state and to apply this equally in
all situations. AND if there are a number of possible rules, map it all the
different ways and then see which mapping best explains the observation
data.
Alan
> 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.
> 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 aren´t acessible for
> pedestrians... but should we do it both ways (the car map, and the
> pedestrian map?
> Thanks for any input on the subject,
>
> Victor Ferreira
|