 |
 |
Its an analysis of national museum of Australia in Canberra ,you can see attached plan, and i want to perform axial and VGA analysis to investigate accessibility in the museum, On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:56 PM Daniel Koch <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Mona, > > there is quite a lot of work done on this, so pointing you further to > studies and publications would be greatly helped by if you can tell what > the purpose of your analysis is, and what kind of building. > > Best wishes > Daniel > ____________ > Daniel Koch > KTH School of Architecture > [log in to unmask] > www.arch.kth.se | www.kth.se/profile/dkoch/ > +46 8 790 60 25 > > Editor, Journal of Space Syntax > joss.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk > > Architecture in the Making > Vice Director > www.architectureinthemaking.se > > Architectural Morphology > www.archmorphstockholm.se > > 7th International Space Syntax Symposium > www.sss7.org > > > > > On 19 Oct 2018, at 13:59, Mona Tarashi <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dear friends > Hello > > I have a problem in performing an analysis. we have void in a plan. > so we can see the first floor from the second floor, but we have no direct > access. ( just from staircases) > i want to perform axial analysis and VGA analysis, but i am not sure it is > correct not to consider void areas. > do you have any comments? or any similar project which i can see the > process? > > Thanks in advance > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:17 PM Jacob Dibble <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> Dear Kimon, Daniel, and Alan, >> >> Thank you all for the quick and thorough responses!! I am actually going >> to hold off on any further responses to you because I want to look more >> carefully at your answers, run a few different test, and revisit the >> formulas used of course in conjunction with what you have said. Also, Kimon >> I want to check out your publication and Daniel I would like to check out >> the reference you sent me as well. >> >> I will come back when I have a chance to look more calmly at your very >> thorough responses and go from there! >> >> Thanks again and hope everyone has a nice weekend, >> Jacob >> >> -- >> Dr. Jacob Leonard Dibble >> >> www.jacobdibble.com >> >> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> >> +358 (0) 45 7877 9956 >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:42 PM Krenz, Kimon-Vincent <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Jacob, >>> >>> I assume your are running an angular segment analysis with metric radius >>> for integration and are using a road centre line map as your base?. >>> >>> I have discussed this issue a while ago with Petros Koutsolampros. The >>> conclusion is that these outliers are caused by three factors: >>> >>> a) the length of the segment, >>> b) the fact that segments are leaf segments (at the end or near the end >>> of a graph), and >>> c) the use of a tulip analysis (which divides the angular difference >>> into tulip bins). >>> >>> This means the analysis only reaches the segment only once and this >>> leads to high square values. Petros wrote a simple example based on an >>> analysis back then, which I will copy below: >>> >>> Taking the example of the outlier Ref: 6001. That segment is only >>> connected to one other segment (Ref: 5999) and because you limit by metric >>> radius 1200, you only capture that for the analysis from 6001. You can see >>> this if you do metric-step-depth: only 5999 is less than 1200. >>> >>> The actual angle between the two segments is 178.44057 degrees but since >>> you're using tulip analysis with 1024 bins this falls within the 4th bin >>> (1st bin is at 180 if I understand correctly), making thus their angular >>> distance = bin/(tulips / 4) = 1/64 (0.015625). Again you can see this >>> with angular step depth from 6001: 5999 has that value. >>> >>> As there's only one other segment, this is also the final total depth >>> from 6001 >>> >>> The final integration calculation is nodes*nodes/totalDepth = 2*2/(1/64) >>> = 256 (the two nodes are 6001 and 5999) >>> >>> As one can see, this is an expected outcome, at least from a >>> computational point of view. >>> >>> You might, nevertheless, want to remove these outliers from your map. If >>> so, you could have a look at the appendix (page 74.23) of my SSS12 paper >>> 'regional morphology', where I describe a method to identify these outlier >>> by dividing through the log of integration by the log total depth: >>> >>> *CCTD_r = Log(CC_r+3)/Log(TD_r+3)* >>> >>> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322255338_Regional_Morphology_The_Emergence_of_Spatial_Scales_in_Urban_Regions >>> >>> Best, >>> Kimon >>> >>> >>> Dr Kimon Krenz >>> FHEA >>> >>> mail. [log in to unmask] >>> phone. 0044 7784 329089 >>> web. www.kimonkrenz.com >>> >>> The Bartlett School of Architecture >>> <https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/architecture/> >>> Faculty of the Built Environment >>> University College London UCL >>> 22 Gordon Street >>> London WC1H 0QB >>> >>> >>> On 19 Oct 2018, at 09:34, Jacob Dibble <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I had sent this query to the QGIS toolkit forum and Jorge advised me to >>> instead ask on the general forum: >>> >>> I have a question regarding Local Integration values on smaller radii. >>> On low radii, on even higher (up to 800m) I am seeing in my particular case >>> that the segments with the highest integration values are on the very very >>> ends of the graph. The attached picture shows the 400m integration for >>> segment analysis with metric radius type and only the top decile of highest >>> values shown in red, with the base network underneath. For example one of >>> the segments at the very edge of the graph has an integration value about 8 >>> times higher than the next highest. >>> >>> I am looking for an explanation and some help to understand why some of >>> the highest values are appearing at the ends of the graph, or in the middle >>> of the arterial routes coming towards the city and even in the centre. >>> These segments really only reach one or two segments within the 400m >>> cutoff, so logically these should have very low integration, right? >>> >>> It would be nice to discuss perhaps why this is happening (both >>> technically and perhaps from a perspective related to the urban structure) >>> and also to know if there are any suggestions, workarounds, ways to redraw >>> the graph, etc. >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> Jacob Dibble >>> >>> <image.png> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link: >>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1 >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link: >>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1 >>> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link: >> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1 >> > > > -- > Mona Tarashi. > Master of urban design > Tehran Art University > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1 > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1 > -- Mona Tarashi. Master of urban design Tehran Art University ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1