Main Page
From PathDescriptions
We are using this 'system' to collaborate on ideas for how to describe paths - It is our own WikiPedia for Paths (WikiPathia?).You are welcome to make a contribution - you will need to log in (and create an account if you haven't already). All changes are recorded so we can 'roll-back' to previous versions as necessary. If you haven't contributed to a 'Wiki' before, you might want to visit the help page - really it is very simple so please try it out.
Please note: If you register with a username that we (Walking-the-Talk) cannot attribute, your account may be blocked - this is to avoid abuse of this system by malicious people. Please bear that in mind when choosing your username.
Contents |
Rationale for path descriptions
The objective of providing a path description is to encourage people to use paths. The target audience is primarily those who do not currently participate in informal outdoor access, but the 'protocols' or schemes that are adopted should be as widely applicable as possible. This means that people should not require specialist or technical knowledge to understand the description, but there needs to be enough information to satisfy provide people with specific requirements. A single approach that is relevant to a wide range of paths and users / activities is likely to have more value than one that is only useful for encouraging a particular sector of society to use paths.
Linked to the objective of encouraging more people to using paths, there is a need for the information provided to be positive and encouraging rather than prescriptive (e.g. who should use a path) or off-putting (e.g. a list of hazards or difficulties). Therefore the information needs to help people to make a decision whether the path is suitable and potentially give them reasons to use it (e.g. highlights along the way).
Options for describing paths
These are the three options that are being considered as part of this research project: (each link takes to you an exploration of the issues for the options and provides an example of how the information could be presented):
Overall grading with a summary (a single 'score' or grade - e.g. easy, moderate, hard or 1 to 5)
Grading of different aspects, with a summary (a 'score' for gradient, surface, obstacles etc.)
Descriptions (using open text to give an impression of the path)
The difference between the two grading schemes is also considered in the classification of paths
Application of path descriptions
The way in which path information is provided will depend on where a person is at the time - some methods are more appropriate than others in different locations. This is explored further in the application of path descriptions
Networks or routes
A predefined route can be described, whereas a network of paths cannot, except in very general terms. This makes it difficult to describe a core path network. However, 'key routes' within a network could be selected for description. If each path link or section has a set of characteristics, then it would be possible to compile a description 'on-the-fly' to produce a 'route card' for a selected route based on the set of path links.
National consistency
In order to ensure consistency in description, certain ‘standards’ (or common understandings) are required - this is the only way to ensure that the same meaning is given in different places.
Feedback gathered as part of this research suggests that the description must include the following aspects to provide the ‘richness’ of information required for it to have real value to users:
- length of route
- surface type and conditions
- gradients (including any cross slopes)
- barriers or obstacles on the route
- width / height restrictions
The importance of each of these aspects will vary between users (and within user groups), making it difficult to remove any single attribute and retain broad applicability.The detail required will also vary and it might be necessary to set up a 'compromise'.
About the Research
Walking-the-Talk has been engaged by Scottish Natural Heritage to investigate what types of information are required by path users in order to encourage greater use of paths in Scotland.
We have interviewed a wide range of people who use paths in different ways, and some people who don't use paths. We need to decide which are the most appropriate ways of presenting the information that people have told us they need.
All the research undertaken as part of this research is considered to be 'qualitative' - this means that we have gathered a range of views, but it is not possible to define how representative any one opinion is for the respective activity (or non-activity).
