>>1968065Not necessarily. If you have ever walked or ridden a bicycle through a "stroad" you know what it is and how it's different from a regular street or road.
I don't personally like the term because it carries pejorative connotations about what counts as valid functions ("it's neither a street or a road").
But I'm confident I could take 10-20 screenshots of roads and streets and identify "stroads" from everything else. The fact that there might be some debate over edge cases is not a problem. A movie might not be perfectly classifiable as suspense or action, that doesn't make the terms useless.
Frankly, OP's tweet barely meets the criteria for a stroad. It's just a wide thoroughfare with 5 car lanes and parking making it hostile to bikes. This was already a reasonably walkable area. It had broad sidewalks, lots of trees (deceptively downplayed by using a winter shot), curbs that jut into the street to reduce time in the crosswalk, and all the businesses abutted the sidewalks.
Again, it's not the fault of the term that propagandists like OP abuse it and appeal entirely to aesthetics. The original version of W Lancaster Boulevard is objectively more inconvenient and dangerous for bicycles and pedestrians than the redesign.
Picture is a google streetview from a random town in Ohio. You can see here a 4-lane road with no bike lanes, narrow sidewalks directly adjacent to the traffic, very long crosswalks, lots commercial and municipal locations with large parking lots. If I was cycling this area, I would ride the sidewalk because there would never be any pedestrians on it. I find it reasonable to call that a stroad if you want. Kind of faggy but I can process the term.
