Talk:Spatial network

Untitled

The Wikipidea entries for space syntax are extremely odd: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Spatial_network

This is highly biased and needs correction. Spatial networks include transportation networks (roads, airline links, rail, etc.), drainage networks, river networks, land parcels, and even the network of internet routers -not just "urban or building space".

See, e.g. the Wikipidea entry for geostatistics which mentions spatial networks: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Geostatistics

And there is no proved relationship between the "social usage of space" (whatever that may be) and these networks.

The same is true for the entry on 'spatial network analysis software' http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Spatial_network_analysis_software

Spatial analysis is a broader field than space syntax. It is nonsense to claim otherwise. No one is asking space syntax to remove their Wikipidea entries, BUT it's about time for people to realize that these claims are getting too odd.

---

It strikes me that the two are talking about different things: the Wikipedia article seems to define "spatial networks" as networks of "spatial elements", whilst the Boccaletti et al paper appears to define "spatial networks" as being those which are spatially-located.

I think, like you, I would tend to assume the latter rather than the former if someone said "spatial network" to me. However, I can also understand the Wikipedia definition: as "social networks" are networks of people, "spatial networks" might be networks of spaces.

I suppose the thing to do is to edit the Wikipedia article!

If youre interested you should check the article Geospatial topology; its just in the beginning stages, but i plan on adding extensive GIS related information. Im sure I could use your help. Also see Geostatistics, as this is related to the study of spatial networks within GIS.SCmurky 06:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

--- Largely this article appears to reflect the edits of the Space Syntax community. While their method of analysis is interesting, it also has some very specific and disputed ideas about what defines space, social interaction, network, and so on. I strongly urge editing!

Recent merge

The recent merge from Geometric graph theory‎ conflated two different concepts:

1. graphs in which the vertices are points in a geometric space and the edges are line segments connecting them, sometimes called "geometric graphs" and clearly on-topic for this article, and
2. graphs defined by geometric constructions but whose vertices are not points: intersection graphs, flip graphs, rectangle visibility graphs, etc. These may or may not individually be called "geometric graphs" but the study of these + spatial graphs can be identified as "geometric graph theory" (i.e. the "geometric" modifies "graph theory" not "graph"). I don't think this material is on-topic for this article.

Based on this inappropriate conflation I think the merge was a mistake, and should be undone. Any discussion? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree with that points (in a given space) and nodes (of a network) are two different things, I disagree with what David wrote that's why I invested time in editing. As Geometry is about objects in space and spatial networks or spatial graphs are graphs constructed by abstracting the points as nodes. It might well make sense to distinguish both terms in the very specific research area and I would suggest a paragraph on that. However, I do think that both articles should be merged to highlight the undeniable relationship between both topic. I really believe the wider audience would profit from that. Hou710 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What about putting geometric graph theory back into place, but adding a paragraph saying what David wrote here on this very page? Hou710 (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that. But much of geometric graph theory is about graphs whose nodes are *not* points, so it does not fit here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I will then just undo my forwarding at Geometric Graph Theory, ok? Hou710 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spatial network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061125112119/http://www.lif-sud.univ-mrs.fr/~chepoi/survey_cm_bis.pdf to http://www.lif-sud.univ-mrs.fr/%7Echepoi/survey_cm_bis.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192355/http://www.ijp.si/ftp/pub/preprints/ps/98/pp595.ps to http://www.ijp.si/ftp/pub/preprints/ps/98/pp595.ps

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)