To everybody acting like the desire path is the problem:
- If the problem for you is that it’s ‘bad’ or ‘illegal’, grow a spine so that when you need to break the law, for something that matters, you can do it with dry pants.
- If the design doesn’t take into account how people will interact with it, it’s bad and lazy. Only time it would be acceptable to ‘force’ a way to interact with something is when there are safety concerns, and there are none here.
- You are traped in a cage of your own making, break free or perish like the dog you are.
Today, I’m astonished to learn about the existence of anti-desire path people based on the comments here
I wanted to say that surely nobody is complaining about desire paths and then I scrolled just a little bit… yikes!
But why is it human nature to put a bench right where people are walking. It’s like people in charge get off on creating obstacles for the common man just to feel powerful.
This specific case would be super predictable, notice how the desire path becomes wider at the end. Pedestrian path should always do that because that’s how people walk.
I love how almost every comment talks as if the pedestrians were the problem, and not designers.
Just made the footpath in box 2 the actual path, and slap additional stuff anywhere not-on-top-of-where-peiople-walk.
The Internet is populated by people who think English grammar is cosmic law, so it doesn’t surprise me that they think you should bend over for dogshit urban planning.
Ironically, none of them follow the rule of shutting up if they don’t know shit about shit.
I love how the third and second to last panel are the same, as if nature paused briefly before it decided to open another path.
