Comments on: Walkaganda http://www.taraariano.com/walkaganda/ Personal Blog of the World's #1 Fan of Dairy Products Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:39:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Linda33 http://www.taraariano.com/walkaganda/comment-page-1/#comment-2668 Linda33 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:37:01 +0000 http://www.taraariano.com/?p=817#comment-2668 Yeah, their information is reeeeeally wacky. From my address, they list it as 1.3 miles to all the stuff in the nearby smallish downtown, while it's actually more like 2.1 miles, which, if you're talking about walking distance, is kind of a significant difference. One mile for shopping is an ordinary walk; two miles becomes kind of a hike to run an errand. Yeah, their information is reeeeeally wacky. From my address, they list it as 1.3 miles to all the stuff in the nearby smallish downtown, while it’s actually more like 2.1 miles, which, if you’re talking about walking distance, is kind of a significant difference. One mile for shopping is an ordinary walk; two miles becomes kind of a hike to run an errand.

]]> By: LTG http://www.taraariano.com/walkaganda/comment-page-1/#comment-2667 LTG Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:47:26 +0000 http://www.taraariano.com/?p=817#comment-2667 The information on businesses (at least for my D.C. neighborhood of Logan Circle) is also highly suspect. For example, it lists about 10 movie theaters in the neighborhood -- except almost all of them are theater theaters, and one of them is a phone number to order tickets. And it lists restaurants as grocery stores, and ignores actual grocery stores. (Notwithstanding that, I agree that my neighborhood is a walker's paradise.) The rankings would be greatly improved if they took into account terrain, sidewalk quality, pedestrian signals and signage, and even climate. And, maybe most importantly, the rate of pedestrian deaths. The information on businesses (at least for my D.C. neighborhood of Logan Circle) is also highly suspect. For example, it lists about 10 movie theaters in the neighborhood — except almost all of them are theater theaters, and one of them is a phone number to order tickets. And it lists restaurants as grocery stores, and ignores actual grocery stores. (Notwithstanding that, I agree that my neighborhood is a walker’s paradise.)

The rankings would be greatly improved if they took into account terrain, sidewalk quality, pedestrian signals and signage, and even climate. And, maybe most importantly, the rate of pedestrian deaths.

]]> By: Tara Ariano http://www.taraariano.com/walkaganda/comment-page-1/#comment-2663 Tara Ariano Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:17:18 +0000 http://www.taraariano.com/?p=817#comment-2663 Right -- that I knew. I'm just saying, it doesn't matter if there's a supermarket a block from your apartment if getting there means you have to walk up a 70% grade. Right — that I knew. I’m just saying, it doesn’t matter if there’s a supermarket a block from your apartment if getting there means you have to walk up a 70% grade.

]]> By: kab http://www.taraariano.com/walkaganda/comment-page-1/#comment-2662 kab Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:13:14 +0000 http://www.taraariano.com/?p=817#comment-2662 True, Linda. I did a little more digging at the site and plugged my address (in Ferndale, Michigan) into the program that rates a city's/neighborhood's "walkability." Ferndale has very flat terrain, and yet my house received a walkability rating of 50%. Why? It bases the "walkability" rating on how many businesses are within "walking distance" of said address. Doesn't base it on terrain, or quality of sidewalks, or number of tourist attractions, but number of businesses. Which ... ok. True, Linda. I did a little more digging at the site and plugged my address (in Ferndale, Michigan) into the program that rates a city’s/neighborhood’s “walkability.” Ferndale has very flat terrain, and yet my house received a walkability rating of 50%. Why? It bases the “walkability” rating on how many businesses are within “walking distance” of said address. Doesn’t base it on terrain, or quality of sidewalks, or number of tourist attractions, but number of businesses. Which … ok.

]]> By: Linda33 http://www.taraariano.com/walkaganda/comment-page-1/#comment-2661 Linda33 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:44:42 +0000 http://www.taraariano.com/?p=817#comment-2661 I think the answer comes in the fact that 783,000 people is the listed population of "San Francisco" as they classify it, while eight million people is the listed population of "New York" as they classify it. Had they chosen "Manhattan" or "Brooklyn," you might have had New York taking up all the top spots. They've taken in a huge swath by lumping together all the boroughs, and the edges (and the area around Kennedy Airport, and Staten Island) are dragging down the average. I think the answer comes in the fact that 783,000 people is the listed population of “San Francisco” as they classify it, while eight million people is the listed population of “New York” as they classify it. Had they chosen “Manhattan” or “Brooklyn,” you might have had New York taking up all the top spots. They’ve taken in a huge swath by lumping together all the boroughs, and the edges (and the area around Kennedy Airport, and Staten Island) are dragging down the average.

]]> By: kab http://www.taraariano.com/walkaganda/comment-page-1/#comment-2660 kab Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:18:07 +0000 http://www.taraariano.com/?p=817#comment-2660 Wait a sec ... How is it that NYC gets the top four spots on the Walk Score list, 14 of the top 20, (and 34 of the top 100!) and yet San Fran gets the overall #1 spot?!? I mean, I'm no math wiz (and have nothing against San Francisco) but, you're right - it doesn't make sense. Wait a sec … How is it that NYC gets the top four spots on the Walk Score list, 14 of the top 20, (and 34 of the top 100!) and yet San Fran gets the overall #1 spot?!? I mean, I’m no math wiz (and have nothing against San Francisco) but, you’re right – it doesn’t make sense.

]]>