Places and Meeting Points
There seems to be a distinction between 'Places' (where someone actually wants to go) and 'Meeting Points' (where patch cross). The former have public transport, accommodation and facilities but the latter may have none of these. Should they be distinguished on the map in case someone walks to somewhere where there is no public transport to get out of?
I think that the concept of 'Meeting Places' has come from the fact that routes cannot cross each other without one. Is this correct?
-
Official comment
Yes, that's correct.
The meeting point is a very specific location within a place - where all the Slow Ways meet.
On the Place pages we ask people to survey what's within 1km of the meeting point so that those facilities are immediately useful to people.
Are you thinking that we should be providing information about facilities over a larger area? We've ambitions for that, but the 1km survey is meant to be a strong start.
What would you like to know about places? What could we do that would be useful and is not done elsewhere?
Thanks.
- Dan
-
My thoughts on this refer to places like the Sun Inn and Stainburn which would never be chosen as places in their own right but which are really just intersections where two or more routes between more major places cross. In case anyone made the mistake of going to the Sun Inn or Stainburn without reading that neither had any nearby public transport to get home again, I was suggesting that these and similar places with no public transport and few facilities should not be given the same prominence on the maps as places such as Harrogate, Otley, Ripon etc which are centres of population which deserve to be places in their own right. Instead of giving them purple circles maybe they could be a different colour or different size? Flagging no public transport would seem to be an important issue in choosing the destination for a walk.
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
2 comments