In message . com, at
14:21:36 on Sat, 5 May 2007, Stu remarked:
Does the little line on the stations (like between the bakerloo and
Jubilee at Bakers Street) indicate a same level interchange? If so,
Bakerloo - Victoria lines at Oxford Circus is same level, rather than
central - Vic.

And in terms of spacing, the Bakerloo and Victoria are clearly very
close, and parallel at Oxford Circus.

Spacing is all wrong in Euston/KX area where the vertical scale is about
5x the horizontal (and the Northern is virtually underneath the Circle,
at KX, iirc)

Similar comments in many places - but is this map trying to be any more
than "join the dots"?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:57:10 on
Sat, 5 May 2007, Peter Masson remarked:
The Waterloo & City crosses under the District and Circle just west of
Blackfriars.

It also leaves Waterloo heading north*west* before doing a sharp right
hand turn.

http://www.perry.co.uk/maps
--
Roland Perry

alex_t wrote:
South Wimbledon and Wimbledon are much closer together and Wimbledon and
Morden are close too.

Updated (and fixed south District and Northern in general):

Very nice, I'd move Gunnersbury up a bit to nestle more between Chiswick
Park and Acton Town, perhaps by moving Acton Town up the curve a bit
more, given that you have the district wiggle into Ealing Broadway
pretty much accurate it seems sensible to make the district better
reflect reality, where the lines to Richmond separate just outside
Turnham Green but run right past the back of Chiswick Park and then run
into a station barely more than a few hundred meters from the lines
running up to Acton Town.

Which is, of course, what the wikipedia version does. Though on it the
Thames ends mysteriously at Kew Bridge.

On a side note - are there any alternative geographical versions of the
london connections map? (a quick Google finds none)

Alex Ingram (who uses Chiswick Park regularly if he can't get a
Gunnersbury train)

On 5 May, 19:38, alex_t wrote:
South Wimbledon and Wimbledon are much closer together and Wimbledon and
Morden are close too.

Updated (and fixed south District and Northern in general):http://www.fxfp.com/get/tube/2007/05/m_001.png

Also I made a special version of the map with tomorrow's disruptions
included (or excluded, to be exact):http://www.fxfp.com/get/tube/2007/05/w_001.png

Interesting; I've always been interested in maps. There are several
points I'd like to raise, but it's almost half pas midnight, so I'll
leave it until tomorrow.

In the meantime, if you haven't already seen them you might be
interested in two maps of the New York Subway. The official MTA one
is almost a graphical map, but not quite; Staten Island, which has no
Subway, but does have the Staten Island Railway, is much closer to
Manhattan than it should be for example. You can download it he
http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/submap.htm What you see isn't the
proper map; click on the link near the top to download the PDF
version.

Some years ago, in the late '70s or early '80s I think, the MTA
published a Beck style diagramatic map, but the New Yorkers didn't
like it, and it was soon withdrawn. Somebody has done the reverse of
what you have done; he has made an unoffical diagram, contrasting with
the offical map. It's available he http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/subway/

He hasn't been able to bring himself to abandon the graphical layout
of the city to the extent that Beck did, and this has caused him some
obvious problems in certain areas.

I was going to criticise your use of 'critique' as a verb in the
title of this thread, but
http://www.answers.com/critique&r=67 ,
although referring to it as 'pretentious jargon', then seems to
suggest that it's becoming an acceptable usage... so I'll shut up and
go to bed.

On Sat, 05 May 2007 23:29:28 GMT, Alex Ingram
wrote:

alex_t wrote:
South Wimbledon and Wimbledon are much closer together and Wimbledon and
Morden are close too.

Updated (and fixed south District and Northern in general):

Very nice, I'd move Gunnersbury up a bit to nestle more between Chiswick
Park and Acton Town, perhaps by moving Acton Town up the curve a bit
more, given that you have the district wiggle into Ealing Broadway
pretty much accurate it seems sensible to make the district better
reflect reality, where the lines to Richmond separate just outside
Turnham Green but run right past the back of Chiswick Park and then run
into a station barely more than a few hundred meters from the lines
running up to Acton Town.

Which is, of course, what the wikipedia version does. Though on it the
Thames ends mysteriously at Kew Bridge.

On a side note - are there any alternative geographical versions of the
london connections map? (a quick Google finds none)

London Transport used to issue a "proper" railway map (Underground
lines in usual colours, all BR lines black, main roads shown) the same
size as the bus map until the 1970s but it tended to be of variable
availability from other than the few information booths/offices.

Alex Ingram (who uses Chiswick Park regularly if he can't get a
Gunnersbury train)

Alex Ingram wrote:

On a side note - are there any alternative geographical versions of
the london connections map? (a quick Google finds none)

The OAG monthly railway guide has a maps section, but I can't remember how
they portray the London area.

Stephen Furley writes:
In the meantime, if you haven't already seen them you might be
interested in two maps of the New York Subway. The official MTA one
is almost a graphical map, but not quite;

I presume you mean "geographical".

It's one of those maps that only looks geographical; although it
shows streets and landmarks as well as the subway lines, it has
significant scale distortions.

Some years ago, in the late '70s or early '80s I think, the MTA
published a Beck style diagramatic map, but the New Yorkers didn't
like it, and it was soon withdrawn.

1972 to 1979. The designer was Massimo Vignelli. In one important
respect this map out-Becked Beck: there were no diagonal lines.
Everything was drawn as either vertical or horizontal. Which meant
that in the more complex areas, a lot of lines had to zigzag to get
all the interchanges right.

The Vignelli map had touching parallel lines, up to 5 or 6 of them,
for each lettered or numbered train route following the same set of
tracks -- it's like the way the present Underground diagram shows
the Circle, Metropolitan, and Hammersmith & City Lines -- but the
stations were shown as dots *within* each parallel line, allowing
the same symbology to be used on sections like the Jubilee and
Metropolitan Lines where one route provides an express to the other's
local service (which is, of course, very common in New York).

One problem with this map was that it required a separate color for
every route, which is too many colors. They were labeled within
the stripes as well -- one advantage of having route names like "A"
instead of "Hammersmith & City" -- so you didn't have to consult a
legend to see that which train the blue stripe was. But the map used
since 1979 has used colors for *groups* of routes, allowing single
or double stripes to be used in many areas where the Vignelli map had
triples or more. It simplifies a complex system in a different way.
I like both designs.
--
Mark Brader | I passed a sign that said "you are here",
Toronto | but I didn't entirely believe it.
| --Michael Levine

My text in this article is in the public domain.

In message , at 01:50:33 on
Sun, 6 May 2007, Charles Ellson remarked:
London Transport used to issue a "proper" railway map (Underground
lines in usual colours, all BR lines black, main roads shown) the same
size as the bus map until the 1970s but it tended to be of variable
availability from other than the few information booths/offices.

I've seen a large (about 4ft square) geographical map that meets this
description, at the LT Shop in Covent Garden. Would have been about
eight years ago - not looked recently.
--
Roland Perry

On May 6, 12:41 am, "John Salmon" wrote:
I was going to criticise your use of 'critique' as a verb in the
title of this thread, buthttp://www.answers.com/critique&r=67,
although referring to it as 'pretentious jargon', then seems to
suggest that it's becoming an acceptable usage... so I'll shut up and
go to bed.



People have been verbing more and more nouns in recent years.