and, third, it presented a method for calculating the connectivity evaluation index. The connectivity of guiding points on road signs in cities was defined as the ;;degree to which guiding points on road signs are connected from the guidance starting point to facilities.” Based on this, a connectivity evaluation index for road signs and a connectivity evaluation index for facilities were developed inconsideration of the presence or absence of connectivity regarding whether it was possible to reach facilities by using only road sign information from the guidance starting point of road signs and the path ratio with the shortest path regarding whether rational paths were presented. This study presented in three stages a methodology for calculating the connectivity evaluation index. The first stage consisted of selecting and searching for the paths of the road signs to be evaluated. After extracting road signs including facility information, a path set from the installation locations of the road signs extracted to facilities was established. With the exclusion of overlapping paths, the road sign paths to be evaluated were finally selected. The second stage consisted of the calculation of connectivity indices for road signs. The connectivity index for each road sign was calculated by calculating the length of the path selected and the length of the shortest path from the guidance starting point to facilities. The third stage consisted of the calculation of connectivity indices for facilities. By using the connectivity indices for road signs thus calculated, the connectivity indices for facilities were finally calculated. The methodology presented in the present study was applied to five gu (ward) offices in Changwon (Masan Happo-gu Office, Masan Hoewon-gu Office, Jinhae-gu Office, Seongsan-gu Office, and Euichang-gu Office). It was difficult to perform absolute evaluation of the connectivity of the facilities in question by using the connectivity indices of the facilities calculated. Consequently, relative evaluation of the five gu offices was performed. First, the number of paths not connected was taken into consideration, and, second, the facilities’ connectivity evaluation index values were taken into consideration. As a result, connectivity was the highest for Masan Happo-gu Office and the lowest for Masan Hoewon-gu Office. The methodology presented in this study is limited in that it does not take into consideration users’ characteristics and the number of road signs on paths in terms of path search using road sign information that can affect the connectivity index of road signs. In addition, the connectivity evaluation index calculated is limited in that it cannot be used for absolute analysis and that relative evaluation of connectivity is possible by classifying facilities with the same characteristics. Nevertheless, it is significant as a study that, by presenting a methodology for evaluating the connectivity of road signs, diagnoses the connectivity of currently installed road signs and serves as a basis for the establishment of standards for securing connectivity.
PDF
download
878987797
028-85220240
