Urban spatial order: street network orientation, configuration, and entropy(appliednetsci.springeropen.com)
appliednetsci.springeropen.com
Urban spatial order: street network orientation, configuration, and entropy
https://appliednetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s41109-019-0189-1
7 comments
The definition of the extents of a city is completely arbitrary. For example Manhattan is only part of a city, yet the authors don't even blink at treating it alongside cities that are located all around a hilly harbor with extensive sprawl (Sydney) or that constitute an entire country (Singapore).
This paper is more than anything a showcase for the method they created. I think the point of their visualisations is to make them as appealing as possible, and people want to see how Manhattan looks, but they might now want to see how a certain neighbourhood in Singapore looks. And that choice definitely did help create virality for their research a few years back.
The extent is also culturally specific. In America, Sydney could be regarded as multiple cities. Likewise in Australia, Dallas-Fort Worth would be regarded as a single city.
The author of the paper is also the author of a really useful python package for processing OSM data:
https://github.com/gboeing/osmnx
Weird. I just bumped into this paper when I was trying to learn why Charlotte has such a confusing layout. I've never felt more lost.
A quick look in a mapping app shows pretty much a rectangular grid.
Charlotte is specifically called out as one of the worst offenders in this article mate.