A Novel Method for Extracting and Analyzing the Geometry Properties of the Shortest Pedestrian Paths Focusing on Open Geospatial Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike car navigation, where almost all vehicles can traverse every route, one route might not be optimal or even suitable for all pedestrians. Route geometry information, including tortuosity, twists and turns along roads, junctions, and road slopes, among others, matters a great deal for specific types of pedestrians, particularly those with limited mobility, such as wheelchair users and older adults. Offering practical routing services to these users requires that pedestrian navigation systems provide further information on route geometry. Therefore, this article proposes a novel method for extracting and analyzing the geometry properties of the shortest pedestrian paths, with a focus on open geospatial data across four aspects: (a) similarity, (b) route curviness, (c) road turns and intersections, and (d) road gradients. Deriving from the Hausdorff distance, a metric called the “dissimilarity ratio” was developed, allowing us to determine whether pairs of routes show any tendencies to be similar to each other. Using the “sinuosity index”, a segment-based technique quantified the route curviness based on the number and degree of the road turns along the route. Moreover, relying upon open elevation data, the road gradients were extracted to identify routes offering smoother motion and better accessibility. Lastly, the road turns and intersections were investigated as pedestrian convenience and safety indicators. A local government area of Greater Sydney in Australia was chosen as the case study. The analysis was implemented on OpenStreetMap (OSM) shortest pedestrian paths against Google Maps as a benchmark for real-world commercial applications. The similarity analysis indicated that over 90% of OSM routes were identical or roughly similar to Google Maps. In addition, while Spearman’s rank correlation showed a direct relationship between route curviness and route length, rS(758) = 0.92, p < 0.001, OSM, on average, witnessed more tortuous routes and, consequently, shorter straight roads between turns. However, OSM routes could be more suitable for pedestrians when the frequency of intersections and road slopes are at the center of attention. Finally, the devised metrics in this study, including the dissimilarity ratio and sinuosity index, showed their practicability in translating raw values into meaningful indicators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".