Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2011 16:02:46 GMT
So the purpose of this map is because people want a map that's more geographically accurate.
So, we've undone nearly a century of work by turning the map back into a mess. Alright, so it's not as messy as the heritage map outside Temple tube station, but I don't like it.
|
|
Rich32
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 1,506 
|
Post by Rich32 on Aug 15, 2011 17:23:19 GMT
Mod Note
Thank you Ben, as you can see Map 2011 and Reinventing the LU Map... again! threads are now merged.To answer etr220's point - having a more geographically accurate map makes things easier when trying to explain to people that certain OSI stations are quite near each other. Some, when looking at the current map, cannot believe me when I tell them that, for example, Brondesbury is one minute away from Kilburn, or that Camden Road is five minutes walk to Camden Town and a valid interchange to boot. I would say that Noad's design is a happy medium, but this is one of those things that is subjective, I guess. I suppose you could keep the Beck design as a strictly Tube map only and use the Noad version as a TfL Rail Map?
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 16, 2011 16:13:40 GMT
We're speaking from the perspective though of people that are aware beforehand of which stations are near each other, so can see how this is reflected in the map. If you don't know about the underground though, how do you know which bits of the map are representative of proximity and which aren't?
It might just be better to have bits which are proximate as geographic and the connecting bits with larger distances between them as diagrammatic, such as on the bus spider maps.
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Aug 16, 2011 17:35:38 GMT
If HEX is included, then so should HS1 be.
Tram Link should be Tramlink.
Southwark merits NR interchange status.
The NR double arrow at the larger stations (e.g. King's Cross) sort of implies interchange only appears to specific LU lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Aug 22, 2011 22:55:15 GMT
There is no doubt Beck's map faces some real challenges. More and more lines, information (symbol) clutter, a complicated network in East London, and generally lots of addition to Inner London.
I find this geographic map messy and discordant and it doesn't do enough to address the problems of a diagrammatic map.
This map is still warped - the centre is far bigger than the periphery and the outer London lines are quite short (the Northern and Eastern extensions especially truncated), reminds me of some of the pre-Beck maps. It doesn't help with journey times because different services and route sections equate to different speeds and it shows nothing else but the Thames in more or less geographic form.
Let's see how it would look folded up the size of an existing tube map with all the confusing signs and symbols, grid and fare zones, and with a chunk in the south east kept clear...
Is there anything wrong with the latest Beck tube map that wouldn't also apply to this one? Not really. If anything, the Beck map could be better designed in a way that a geographic one can't.
The biggest problem with the current tube map is the poor design away from the centre. IMO the outer area should be redesigned around the circular Overground route forming an oblong with curved corners.
Balance the clutter of Docklands with the clutter west of Kensington. Make the lines thicker or more prominent. Make more space from the west clockwise to the east by spreading out the lines better into the southern areas.
One possible idea which would work well for a diagrammatic tube map and a geographic one would be one showing the central area only coupled with another focussing on the area beyond the centre (with the central area deliberately small).
I think the real challenge is incorporating Crossrail, and what about Thameslink?
|
|
