Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm not sure... calling one "Trafalgar Square" when the other isn't
(i.e. as it was pre-Jubilee) might result in a Covent Garden scenario
where tourists want to go to Trafalgar Square and so make an unnecessary
change to the Bakerloo line from the Northern.

Indeed. This is where a diagrammatic map breaks down, along with the idea
that an interchange is universal (all ways to all ways).

It might be better to show these sort of station groups in a non-diagrammatic
way, to make it clear that:

a) You don't have to travel to the named LUL station to get to a particular
same-named place or NR station.

b) You *can* interchange, but it involves significant walking.

Richard [in PE12]

In message
eranews.com, Endymion
Ponsonby-Withermoor III writes
Indeed. This is where a diagrammatic map breaks down, along with the idea
that an interchange is universal (all ways to all ways).

It might be better to show these sort of station groups in a non-diagrammatic
way, to make it clear that:

a) You don't have to travel to the named LUL station to get to a particular
same-named place or NR station.

b) You *can* interchange, but it involves significant walking.
Any of those names going spare? Seriously, one of the things the maps
do, is stop visitors from exiting the stations into the traffic, but
keep them underground for their own safety, however long the walk.
--
Clive

Endymion Ponsonby-Withermoor III wrote in
news:1133783808.36224ed3447e1f0aa933f9b4b50a6a57@f e5.teranews.com:

Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm not sure... calling one "Trafalgar Square" when the other isn't
(i.e. as it was pre-Jubilee) might result in a Covent Garden scenario
where tourists want to go to Trafalgar Square and so make an
unnecessary change to the Bakerloo line from the Northern.

Indeed. This is where a diagrammatic map breaks down, along with the
idea that an interchange is universal (all ways to all ways).

It might be better to show these sort of station groups in a
non-diagrammatic way, to make it clear that:

a) You don't have to travel to the named LUL station to get to a
particular same-named place or NR station.

b) You *can* interchange, but it involves significant walking.

Richard [in PE12]

This is already the case at Paddington where the H&C station has not been
shown as an interchange with Circle/District/Bakerloo for a few years now.

David

Endymion Ponsonby-Withermoor III wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm not sure... calling one "Trafalgar Square" when the other isn't
(i.e. as it was pre-Jubilee) might result in a Covent Garden scenario
where tourists want to go to Trafalgar Square and so make an unnecessary
change to the Bakerloo line from the Northern.

Indeed. This is where a diagrammatic map breaks down, along with the idea
that an interchange is universal (all ways to all ways).

It might be better to show these sort of station groups in a non-diagrammatic
way, to make it clear that:

a) You don't have to travel to the named LUL station to get to a particular
same-named place or NR station.

b) You *can* interchange, but it involves significant walking.

Richard [in PE12]


If there was room on the diagrams, you'd need

1) interchanges

2) a kind of link for long interchanges where you don't have to go
through the exit (eg Bank - Monument, Trafalgar Square - Charing Cross,
Waterloo - Waterloo)

3) a kind of link for walkable changes involving the exit (eg Bank -
Cannon Street [actually nearer than Monument], Great Portland Street -
Regents Park, Euston - Euston Square)

In message .com,
writes
3) a kind of link for walkable changes involving the exit (eg Bank -
Cannon Street [actually nearer than Monument], Great Portland Street -
Regents Park, Euston - Euston Square)

The RATP Paris Metro map has exactly such a device: a dotted line.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

wrote in message
oups.com...


If there was room on the diagrams, you'd need


3) a kind of link for walkable changes involving the exit (eg Bank -
Cannon Street [actually nearer than Monument], Great Portland Street -
Regents Park, Euston - Euston Square)


Someone has tried this, see this and others at

http://www.geofftech.co.uk/tube/sillymaps/walkmap.gif

http://www.geofftech.co.uk/tube/sillymaps

Paul

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 wrote:


Endymion Ponsonby-Withermoor III wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm not sure... calling one "Trafalgar Square" when the other isn't
(i.e. as it was pre-Jubilee) might result in a Covent Garden scenario
where tourists want to go to Trafalgar Square and so make an
unnecessary change to the Bakerloo line from the Northern.

Indeed. This is where a diagrammatic map breaks down, along with the idea
that an interchange is universal (all ways to all ways).

It might be better to show these sort of station groups in a
non-diagrammatic way, to make it clear that:

a) You don't have to travel to the named LUL station to get to a particular
same-named place or NR station.

b) You *can* interchange, but it involves significant walking.

If there was room on the diagrams, you'd need

Some things which we've actually got already, but aren't applying
consistently ...

1) interchanges

Single discs with multiple lines passing through.

2) a kind of link for long interchanges where you don't have to go
through the exit (eg Bank - Monument, Trafalgar Square - Charing Cross,
Waterloo - Waterloo)

Multiple discs joined by rods (like the clusters of discs at larger
stations now).

3) a kind of link for walkable changes involving the exit (eg Bank -
Cannon Street [actually nearer than Monument], Great Portland Street -
Regents Park, Euston - Euston Square)

Multiple discs joined by lines (like Bank/Monument on the old maps).

The main problem would be representing multiple-line short-interchange
stations with a single disc. Neither of Baker Street and King's Cross are
really long interchanges (although moving between deep and shallow lines
at KX is pushing it, perhaps - and tube to Thameslink even more so), but
fitting all those lines through once disc would be pretty tricky. Perhaps
we could allow multiple discs, but say that for short interchanges, they
should be touching, whereas for long ones, there would be a rod connecting
them.

Oh, hang on - is that what the existing maps are trying to do? Looking at
the London Connections map dated 1.04 (down by the line key), the main
termini are handled more or less like that:

Baker Street - one disc on Circle and H&C, short rod to one on Jubilee,
Bakerloo and Met. Good, if not quite right: gets the proximity of Circle
and H&C, and Jubilee and Bakerloo, but places the Met with the deep lines,
when really, it's sort of halfway between the shallow and deep.

Euston - separate discs for mainline, Charing Cross branch of the
Northern, and City branch of the Northern plus Victoria, all connected by
short rods. Good, although again, it doesn't capture the fact that the CX
branch is pretty much on the way from the surface to the other two deep
lines.

King's Cross - one disc for mainline, one for Victoria, one for Northern,
one for shallow lines, Thameslink and Picc; the layout puts the first
three equidistant, with the latter linked only to the Northern. Not so
hot. In fact, fairly hopeless.

Farringdon - if you look closely, doesn't seem to be a stop on the Met at
all!

Moorgate - groups the Great Northern with the shallow lines, and the
Northern with Thameslink. Madness!

Liverpool Street - one disc for mainline, one for shallow, one for
central, connected by short rods in that order. Not bad.

The Fenchurch Street complex - one disc for mainline, connected by a short
rod to a disc for the DLR, connected by a long rod to one for the shallow
lines. It's showing out-of-station interchange with rods, but apart from
that, aren't the distances roughly right?

Bank - one disc for Central and Drain, one for Northern and DLR, one for
the shallow lines at Monument; short bar from Central/Drain to
Northern/DLR, long bar from there to Monument. Actually pretty good.

Cannon Street, Blackfriars - single discs. Not convinced.

Charing Cross - one disc for mainline, short rod to a disc for Northern
and Bakerloo. Total rubbish.

Embankment - one disc for Bakerloo, short rod to one for shallow lines
_and_ Northern. Madness. I think.

Waterloo - i don't know Waterloo, and i don't really know how to describe
the diagram, but i'm pretty sure it's not right.

Victoria - the only terminus to use kissing discs rather than a rod, and
it does that to link a disc covering all the tube lines to one for the
mainline. Good, although given the usage elsewhere on the map, this should
perhaps be a short rod after all.

Paddington - one disc for the Circle and District, long rods from there to
both mainline and Bakerloo, short rods from both of those to H&C. Not that
bad - the relationship of the H&C to the others is the only really
troubling bit. The length of the rods isn't good, though.

Okay, so it looks like the maps aren't trying that hard to indicate
distances. I do think it would be doable, though.

tom

--
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 wrote:


Endymion Ponsonby-Withermoor III wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm not sure... calling one "Trafalgar Square" when the other isn't
(i.e. as it was pre-Jubilee) might result in a Covent Garden scenario
where tourists want to go to Trafalgar Square and so make an
unnecessary change to the Bakerloo line from the Northern.

Indeed. This is where a diagrammatic map breaks down, along with the idea
that an interchange is universal (all ways to all ways).

It might be better to show these sort of station groups in a
non-diagrammatic way, to make it clear that:

a) You don't have to travel to the named LUL station to get to a particular
same-named place or NR station.

b) You *can* interchange, but it involves significant walking.

If there was room on the diagrams, you'd need

Some things which we've actually got already, but aren't applying
consistently ...

1) interchanges

Single discs with multiple lines passing through.

2) a kind of link for long interchanges where you don't have to go
through the exit (eg Bank - Monument, Trafalgar Square - Charing Cross,
Waterloo - Waterloo)

Multiple discs joined by rods (like the clusters of discs at larger
stations now).

3) a kind of link for walkable changes involving the exit (eg Bank -
Cannon Street [actually nearer than Monument], Great Portland Street -
Regents Park, Euston - Euston Square)

Multiple discs joined by lines (like Bank/Monument on the old maps).

The main problem would be representing multiple-line short-interchange
stations with a single disc. Neither of Baker Street and King's Cross are
really long interchanges (although moving between deep and shallow lines
at KX is pushing it, perhaps - and tube to Thameslink even more so), but
fitting all those lines through once disc would be pretty tricky. Perhaps
we could allow multiple discs, but say that for short interchanges, they
should be touching, whereas for long ones, there would be a rod connecting
them.

Oh, hang on - is that what the existing maps are trying to do? Looking at
the London Connections map dated 1.04 (down by the line key), the main
termini are handled more or less like that:

Baker Street - one disc on Circle and H&C, short rod to one on Jubilee,
Bakerloo and Met. Good, if not quite right: gets the proximity of Circle
and H&C, and Jubilee and Bakerloo, but places the Met with the deep lines,
when really, it's sort of halfway between the shallow and deep.

Euston - separate discs for mainline, Charing Cross branch of the
Northern, and City branch of the Northern plus Victoria, all connected by
short rods. Good, although again, it doesn't capture the fact that the CX
branch is pretty much on the way from the surface to the other two deep
lines.

King's Cross - one disc for mainline, one for Victoria, one for Northern,
one for shallow lines, Thameslink and Picc; the layout puts the first
three equidistant, with the latter linked only to the Northern. Not so
hot. In fact, fairly hopeless.

Farringdon - if you look closely, doesn't seem to be a stop on the Met at
all!

Moorgate - groups the Great Northern with the shallow lines, and the
Northern with Thameslink. Madness!

Liverpool Street - one disc for mainline, one for shallow, one for
central, connected by short rods in that order. Not bad.

The Fenchurch Street complex - one disc for mainline, connected by a short
rod to a disc for the DLR, connected by a long rod to one for the shallow
lines. It's showing out-of-station interchange with rods, but apart from
that, aren't the distances roughly right?

Bank - one disc for Central and Drain, one for Northern and DLR, one for
the shallow lines at Monument; short bar from Central/Drain to
Northern/DLR, long bar from there to Monument. Actually pretty good.

Cannon Street, Blackfriars - single discs. Not convinced.

Charing Cross - one disc for mainline, short rod to a disc for Northern
and Bakerloo. Total rubbish.

Embankment - one disc for Bakerloo, short rod to one for shallow lines
_and_ Northern. Madness. I think.

Waterloo - i don't know Waterloo, and i don't really know how to describe
the diagram, but i'm pretty sure it's not right.

Victoria - the only terminus to use kissing discs rather than a rod, and
it does that to link a disc covering all the tube lines to one for the
mainline. Good, although given the usage elsewhere on the map, this should
perhaps be a short rod after all.

Paddington - one disc for the Circle and District, long rods from there to
both mainline and Bakerloo, short rods from both of those to H&C. Not that
bad - the relationship of the H&C to the others is the only really
troubling bit. The length of the rods isn't good, though.

Okay, so it looks like the maps aren't trying that hard to indicate
distances. I do think it would be doable, though.

tom



I have never perceived the single discs and joined discs as being
different types of interchange. I thought it was just a practical
diagramatic issue.

That is, if the lines cross, you can put a single disc where they
cross. But if they are in any way parallel, but you have to show the
lines separately, you have to put two (or more) linked discs.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 wrote:
Endymion Ponsonby-Withermoor III wrote:

Indeed. This is where a diagrammatic map breaks down, along with the idea
that an interchange is universal (all ways to all ways).

If there was room on the diagrams, you'd need

Oh, hang on - is that what the existing maps are trying to do?

I have never perceived the single discs and joined discs as being
different types of interchange. I thought it was just a practical
diagramatic issue.

I think you're right. I'd always assumed that too, but suddenly wondered
if there was more to it than that. There doesn't seem to be.

tom

--
Don't anthropomorphize computers: they don't like that.