4 comments

Add a comment…

Sign in

prestine

Your email address

Check!

invalid email

(thinking…)

Reset

or sign in with

• 
• 

UserVoice password

Forgot password?

Create a password

Your name

I agree to the terms of service

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

Post comment Submitting...

• WoodbineHeights commented  ·  May 24, 2011 5:36 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I think this is the obvious way to start. It would be ridiculous not to use this as the base. To be clear, I mean to apply the walk score criteria to a larger area that reflects the increased speed of cycling.

• Ville M commented  ·  February 3, 2011 4:29 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  This is a good idea, u can get rought idea by turning on "bike lanes" in google maps, where u see larger area of green should improve scores in that area. Because what good is a tiny area of good bikability surrounded in a sea of bike hating cities/areas.

• Lyle commented  ·  December 2, 2010 5:08 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I think what he means is that most of the things that give a neighborhood a high WalkScore are the exact same things that give it a high BikeScore. In fact, BikeScore might be almost as simple as WalkScore with a larger radius.

• keithmo commented  ·  September 30, 2010 10:22 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I think you're saying:

  1. Calculate a base bike score for a given location.
  2. Calculate the walk score for any commerce center (strip mall, etc) within the biking radius.
  3. Compute a final bike score using the results of #1 and #2 (and possibly others).

  If this is what you meant, then yes, I agree with this 100%