Trying to gather my thoughts on this.
Obviously it would be better if it weren’t needed.
I can’t help but feel this is open to exploitation somehow, or idk, it could be used by men to find “trusted streets”
I do think knowing generally an area to avoid is very useful information though.
Not really in the same realm but it feels like, should this become massive or say a feature of google for instance, that it could be used by others for manipulation too - property developers to identify places to gentrify perhaps, or more likely just in solidifying “bad” neighbourhoods as places to keep poor people.
Should this be serious matters btw?
Havent put it there straight away as quite interested in a broad “mapping” point of view on this
It shouldn’t be needed, but I can think of more than a few places where what looks like the obvious route on Google maps to a person new to a place, uses the sort of streets you wouldn’t advise anyone to go down on their own.
These sorts of things always make me briefly consider the cycling I do… I’ve never ever let being scared be a barrier to going out on my bike but actually when I think about it I should probably be terrified.
Thursday nights, 11pm,middle of Epping Forest
And again I know of a few suggested cycle routes that ignore the fact they send people down sparsely used roads, through industrial areas where they’re badly lit, etc. And, again, if you don’t know the area you could quite happily take the route unaware of the risks of 40 footers speeding, pot holes etc. As well as the risks of attack.
Yeah, at kickety brook it sends walkers under the swamp beneath the road which is actually impenetrable for a start but also just pitch black (on the plus side i like that these off road routes are mapped but would be good to have some more context)
Interesting idea. I wonder how workable it will be in practice. Like it would be useful to have an idea of which routes are safest when going somewhere unfamiliar but if all it’s going to do is direct you 2 miles out of your way then it may not be much help.
I guess the trusted streets probably have reasons they’re trusted that make them less suitable for attacks, so the information might be of limited use to a man trying to exploit it.
I think one limitation of this is that one woman’s safe is another woman’s unsafe, like an area might be relatively safe for white women but not women of colour, or relatively safe for cishet women but not LGBT+ women. Hard to avoid that problem though without segmenting it up into separate services, which you then have to collect X times more data for…
I remember having a conversation along those lines once with a colleague who’d been for a job interview in a location that to me, a young white woman, was a bit rough but not much worse than where we worked, but to her, an older black woman, was so threatening that she said she’d turn down the job if offered it.
Think I’m really interested in how this data/these tools can be used to improve or keep a place in statis too. Wish i knew more about data/maps
Absolute classic British case of who owns the licenses for the maps and data.
And its inevitably never the same people, and never the people who may have doing something like this as an interest.
On the face of it, this sounds like a great idea. It would be good if you could filter it by local/tourist too but I guess it’d probably mainly be used by people unfamiliar with an area anyway