01 / Site and question
What needs checking
before design advances?
Which existing conditions shape preliminary pedestrian/program consideration, and what needs verification before design advances?
The selected study uses the recorded administrative park polygon. It does not establish a legal boundary or select a program area or route.
02 / Traceable evidence
Two inputs.
Different responsibilities.
City park polygon
City Developed Parks layer 3, OBJECTID 279; administrative, not surveyed. The outline scopes the computation; its physical alignment still needs checking.
City source serviceRecorded elevation tiles
CA_SanDiegoCo_2_D24; 0.5 m DEM. Recorded acquisition: Work Unit 2: 2024-11-09–2024-11-21; not per-cell time. The model is not a present-day site survey.
Project metadataThese links identify the original sources. The example describes the archived internal run, not a fresh retrieval or a permission to redistribute those inputs.
03 / Method and analysis
Keep the calculation
with the finding.
A01 calculated native-grid slope using the recorded Horn 3×3 slope; percent rise/run; selected cell centres. The study selected raster cell centres within the transformed outline, with a computational collar for the neighbourhood calculation.
- Selected cells
- 57,999
- Horizontal reference
- EPSG:6340; metres
- Recorded heights
- NAVD88 / Geoid18; metres
- Existing checks
- Plane / NoData / sample cells / local rerun
The original record documents these computational checks and local reproduction. They do not independently establish site accuracy. No analysis script was rerun to make this website.
04 / Graphic communication
A summary needs
its denominator.
A01 / Distribution of selected raster cells
Median mapped slope is 5.4%; the 95th percentile is 53.5%. A whole-site median can conceal concentrated high-gradient terrain. Neither number measures a pedestrian route or identifies usable program acreage.
05 / Field verification and interpretation
A pattern becomes
a question to test.
Terrain contrast merits closer review.
Investigate the physical features behind the mapped contrast, alongside current connections and use. Slope alone cannot select a program location or certify an access route.
- Pending / FV01
Confirm identity and physical extent against the administrative outline.
- Pending / FV02–FV03
Identify current entries, continuous connections, activities and conflicts.
- Pending / FV04–FV05
Observe terrain breaks, steps, walls and obscured features from permissible locations.
- Pending / FV06
Challenge the graphic and interpretation with actual observations and reviewer rationale.
The historical 1991 plan supplied additional field questions, not current circulation. No current route, field observation or engineering conclusion is claimed.
06 / QA, decision and handoff
The next action
travels with the work.
The internal handoff links evidence IDs, the accepted analysis revision, figures, computational checks and pending field actions. Its local integrity was checked; independent recipient comprehension and professional acceptance remain pending.
Decision state: open.
No zone, route or design recommendation is made. Complete the relevant field checks and professional review before advancing a site decision.
That is the workflow the kit supports: a useful graphic accompanied by its evidence, limits and next action.