Park path light: even, low and close together
A path is read at walking speed and from close range, so the fixture has to be low glare and closely spaced. A bright pole every thirty metres gives pools of light and dark gaps, which is the opposite of what a footway needs.
Specification
What the sheet states for this build, and what is confirmed per project.
| Topic | What the sheet states |
|---|---|
| Light level | From the use of the path, on the calculation |
| Uniformity | Along the path, between the poles |
| Glare | Controlled at eye level, which is the point of the scheme |
| Mounting | Low pole, bollard, wall or post top |
| Spacing | Paired with the mounting height, not chosen separately |
| Optic | Asymmetric along the path, with back light control |
| Control | Timers, dimming, or a reduced level after a set hour |
| Access | Cleaning and lamp change, from where |
| Data sheet | Current revision, naming the delivered model |
The spacing to height ratio is what makes a path read as even. Halving the spacing at the same height does more for the experience than raising the output.
Why paths fail
The usual failing path has tall poles spaced far apart. Each pole makes a pool, the gaps between pools are dark, and the eye adapts to the bright pool so the gaps look blacker than they are. That is worse for a pedestrian than a uniformly lower level.
The correction is spacing and glare, not output. Shorter poles closer together, aimed along the path rather than across it, produce an even ribbon without a source at eye level. Bollards do the same at a lower height, with a smaller footprint and a higher vandalism risk.
- The spacing to height ratio, before the pole positions are fixed.
- Whether a bollard suits the location, and its impact rating.
- Where the eye is, which is what the glare control is designed around.
Trees, and the years after planting
A path through trees is lit by poles that were clear when they were installed. Ten years later the canopy has closed and the path is in shade from its own lighting, which is the single most common failure in park schemes.
The design should allow for the mature canopy, not the sapling. That means a layout that survives a canopy, a maintenance plan that includes pruning, or a bollard scheme that lights the path from below the branches.
- The canopy at maturity, and who prunes.
- Whether the pole positions can move when the trees grow.
- A bollard alternative, modelled before the choice.
Dark sky and the neighbours
Park lighting is often the lighting closest to houses, and it runs all night in many schemes. Up light is the complaint, and the shielded optic plus a level reduction after a set hour is the usual answer.
A timer that drops the level after midnight satisfies most nuisance rules and halves the energy. It needs a control that a park keeper can adjust without a laptop, which is a practical requirement worth writing into the order.
- The nuisance rule, and whether a curfew or dimming satisfies it.
- A control the site staff can adjust.
- The nearest windows, and the direction the light faces.
Before the order
- Spacing and height together, with the ratio stated in the design.
- Canopy at maturity, which decides the layout more than the fixture.
- Dimming or curfew, with a control the staff can use.
- Build
- Park path light
- Line
- Street lights
- Ask for
- Specification sheet, photometric file, aiming drawing
Send the space, get the sheet.
Build, specification sheet and the option list for each line item, in one reply.