On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:40:14 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
Just naming lines after numbers or letters would be easier for all
concerned,
but you usually only get that if an entire system is planned from the start.

It's also extremely boring, which is why I'd oppose it.

Less confusing though.

Some places name their lines after the 2 termini at each end though I've
never liked that since its long winded and not much use unless you actually
need to go to one of them.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:40:14 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
Just naming lines after numbers or letters would be easier for all
concerned,
but you usually only get that if an entire system is planned from the start.

It's also extremely boring, which is why I'd oppose it.

Less confusing though.

I *completely* disagree. Names are much easier to memorise and form
associations with than apparently random letter/number combinations.


If you'll forgive the reductio ad absurdum (which I know you won't,) by
your theory we should drop station names and just give them reference
numbers...

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:54 +0000 (UTC)
Clank wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:40:14 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
Just naming lines after numbers or letters would be easier for all
concerned,
but you usually only get that if an entire system is planned from the
start.

It's also extremely boring, which is why I'd oppose it.

Less confusing though.

I *completely* disagree. Names are much easier to memorise and form
associations with than apparently random letter/number combinations.

Perhaps it depends on the person. I never had a problem getting around
new york for example.

If you'll forgive the reductio ad absurdum (which I know you won't,) by
your theory we should drop station names and just give them reference
numbers...

I hate to tell you - but this is exactly what they did on the Kiev Metro
when the world cup - or some inflated pigs bladder event - was there in 2012.
Ok, they didn't drop the names but they did given them all numbers.

http://www.metro.kiev.ua/node/101

--
Spud

On 04/06/2013 12:55, Clank wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:40:14 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
Just naming lines after numbers or letters would be easier for all
concerned,
but you usually only get that if an entire system is planned from the start.

It's also extremely boring, which is why I'd oppose it.

Less confusing though.

I *completely* disagree. Names are much easier to memorise and form
associations with than apparently random letter/number combinations.


If you'll forgive the reductio ad absurdum (which I know you won't,) by
your theory we should drop station names and just give them reference
numbers...

I've seen that done on maps of networks which use non-Roman alphabets
for the native names, or on new lines where the station name hasn't yet
been finalised (they've not decided whether station A5 is "Bloggs
Square" or "MegaBank Inc station".

I found the Moscow metro harder to navigate than expected, as while I
can manage a bit of Cyrillic it was hard if there are places with
similar names, or upper/lower case issues.

Some places apparently use colours or shapes to help illiterate people.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In message ,
d writes

Some places name their lines after the 2 termini at each end though I've
never liked that since its long winded and not much use unless you actually
need to go to one of them.

In practice they often get shortened: the Bakerloo was originally the
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, and the Piccadilly started life as
the Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway (all four being termini when
first planned).

The Waterloo and City is almost a case of a name still reflecting the
two termini.

--
Paul Terry

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:51:39 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
The Waterloo and City is almost a case of a name still reflecting the
two termini.

I'd forgotten about that!

--
Spud