In article ,
Robin9 wrote:
I suggest you are approaching this from the wrong angle.
The key requirement is not to mislead people who are physically
disadvantaged.

Agreed. I don't believe that folk with impairments are mislead by
the current tube map; in my experience they are very much aware
that the "normal" tube map assumes average mobility.

Therefore any connection can be shown as long
as the map makes clear the distances involved.

And the distance for a route that has escalators but not stairs;
the distance for a route that is step free; the type of surfaces
traversed; the gap between platform and train, and so on and on and
on and on.

Everyone's needs are different; some people would be happy to have
a longer route if it meant 100 yards of poor surface was replaced
by nice, smooth tiles; some people would rather it the other way
round.

This information needs to be available for all possible interchanges
- at KXStP, for example, that's perhaps 6 interchanges just between
the underground lines,[1] never mind the three or four mainline
stations and the street.

If all possible infomation is on the map, then it becomes too complex
to actaully use. There's a difficult balance to get right - and
multiple publications are probably the only sensible way of doing
it. Hence the step-free guide and the information available via
the online journey planner and so on.

As an example, a middle-aged woman with heavy luggage
travelling from Bedford to Walthamstow needs to know that
trudging from St. Pancras International to the Victoria Line
platforms is quite a hike. Does this mean that a map should
not show a connection at St. Pancras? Of course not. It means
that additional information needs to be given. (It also means
that a travelator should have been installed when they re-built
that station)

[1] Vic-Northern; Vic-Pic; Vic-SSL; Northern-Pic; Northern-SSL;
Pic-SSL. Assuming that they're all symetrical (which they won't
be).


--
Mike Bristow