Map 2011

An interesting effort. To my mind, the western side of the Circle line (and connecting lines) looks a bit too lop-sided - it's almost as though the north-western corner needs to be pumped-up a bit - but I like a lot of the other features of this map.

The odd angles make it look quite disgusting to me, although the NR symbol being inside the blob is a good idea. Also, I think the colours are perfectly distinguishable (apart from bank, that could get confusing), and at Euston it shows that the lines cross but do not meet. But again, easily confused..

I couldn't help noticing the spelling/typing error on the map though. I thought it was 'Cannon Street' not 'Canon Street'.

I think this map quite successfully combines worst bits of both diagrammatic and geographic maps while abandoning their best features. Typographical quality is good though.

And 'Terminals 1, 2, c 3'

I notice that the double-arrow symbol donates: "interchange with network rail services" whoever they are?

1) Why is Uxbridge considered an interchange station?
2) Why no interchange shown between White City and Wood Lane?

Looks like it is a "publicity" exercise for a design house.

In my view having a geographic River Thames, but a more diagramatic lines diagram doesn't work - especially when longer lines are truncated, as per the Metropolitan on the map.

Also, nitpicking, I see the "spiral" is still shown as a "circle"

Apart from the errors and the unfamiliarity, both of which can be resolved with time, I think the problem with this map is that it isn't quite sure what it's for, and ends up being an unsatisfactory compromise, as

The purpose of H C Beck's map (or diagram - and its successors) was to give an answer to the question 'How do I use the tube to get from this tube station to that one' (where use of tube has already been decided): for this a diagram - the 'map' we know and love - is perfectly adequate.

Adding other rail lines, to 'extend the tube', is no problem, as long as we're just looking to the 'extended tube' (i.e. what is on the map) to get around.

The problem is when the question is 'how do I get from here to there', without the presumption that 'the (extended) tube' will be used: for this a true geographical map showing everything is really required - you can only get the answers that are on the map: if the sensible options aren't there, you only have silly ones...

I agree. The topographic map is good because it shows how the network is connected in as visually comfortable way as possible. A geographic map shows the actual spatial relationships between stations.

This map, while trying to remove some geographic distortion of the topographic map, they've map the map less visually comfortable, while not actually providing the full accuracy of information from a geographic map.

Is a walk from Chalfont & Latimer to Amersham really going to be as easy as a walk from Euston Square to KXSP?

It's a bit like the disabled blobs. At the expense of cluttering the map, they try to tell you something extra, but don't do it very well.

Interesting concept. Being geographically accurate has more value in the centre where the distances are shorter and knowing the actual relative positions of stations can become quite useful eg Bayswater/Queensbury. Such situation don't really apply to, say, Croxley/Ricky.

Still, I'd think it would look too weird.

I think that's the same map as here and there's the option to download it as a PDF as well. I quite like it too

I'm not so sure about this one. The purpose of the Beck map was to simplify the map to make it easy to understand. He did this by expanding the central area and compressing the outer parts of the system. Mark Noad complains about the geographical inaccuracies on the current map forgetting that this is the very thing that contributed to its success by making the central area much larger. The main reason for the difficulty in people understanding the map is that the system has grown larger and more complicated since Frank Beck designed the original map. I think it would be better if the central area was further enlarged or the enlarged area extended but still retaining the original concept (without all the slants and odd angles).

The comment I appreciated most in the Independant:

"My Berlin transit diagram owes a lot to Beck," Spiekermann says. "It works very well for the Tube. It never pretends to work for other types of journeys. The only reason people are using it for everything else is that is appears to be so simple, hiding the whole complexity of London underneath those few lines and angles.

"Most German transport systems imitate Berlin. But they all suffer from information overload."

which I think about sums it up: the problem people have with the current map/diagram is that they use it for more than it was intended for (i.e. to find their way around London, rather than just the tube).

A geographically accurate map makes it hard to understand the tube; the simple diagram we have misleads over geography; Mark Noad's design is an unhappy medium, with the disadvantages of both, the advantages of neither.