In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

but please don't give the guy a plaudit for badly ripping-off someone
else's work.

Oh come off it - it's hardly like he's claiming he's invented that
layout,
is it? It's a deliberate homage to the mother of all metro maps, and
it's both usable and nice-looking.

It's *less* usable than their original map.

Look at his map, and tell me where I94 is. (Between Franklin Avenue and
Cedar). Where is VA Medical Centre Station? (Near E54th).

Now, look at their map of the test area for the answers:
http://www.metrocouncil.org/transit/...rea-mapbig.gif

A map is there to make life easier, not harder. The Beck diagram distorts
geography to make a complicated interchange system easier to see, follow,
and understand. There is no point for a one-line system like this - which
even follows straight roads for much of its distance! - to be subject to a
Beckian treatment.

The author says what it is - a little bit of fun. That's a fine reason to
do something. However, to claim that the Metro Council's Transit
department should junk their maps for this one, as you did, is both naive
and unrealistic.

(The author should note that there are no angles on the Beck map - changes
of line direction are achieved with a rounded corner, not a sharp turn;
and that, by and large, distances between stations are equal both
horizontally and vertically. In particular, the gap between Fort Snelling
and the Medical Center is disproportionately large - as are most on the
vertical section.)