Critique my tube map
 

On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:28:14 -0700, MIG wrote:

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

To quote Calvin (the small boy, not the theologian)

"Verbing weirds language"

Ian

Critique my tube map
 

On May 6, 9:40 am, Ian Johnston wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:28:14 -0700, MIG wrote:
People have been verbing more and more nouns in recent years.

To quote Calvin (the small boy, not the theologian)

"Verbing weirds language"



I should have said "... and verbaling nouns ...".

Critique my tube map
 

Mark Brader wrote:

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like it, and it was soon withdrawn.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.

In Beck's last maps used by LT, he was heading in the direction of no
diagonals.... I can't remember if he quite reached it.

Critique my tube map
 

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Alex Ingram wrote:

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

Under construction:

http://urchin.earth.li/~twic/tmp/all-tracks.pdf

This is currently missing the branches the West Anglia line, and
everything south of the river bar the SWML and the tubes. There are a few
oddities in there - mostly due to me going "Why on earth isn't there a
station there? I'll put one in!" as i was entering the data!

And, of course, it currently looks rubbish. I need to sort out the label
overlapping, draw in the actual lines (using a spline fit - i'm not going
for true accuracy yet), apply some colour, and then draw in the rivers and
major areas of uninhabited land.

I should mention that the tube data was lifted wholesale from CULG; i
really should have asked Clive permission before posting this. Apologies
Clive. I'll ask you properly, and add whatever attribution you like,
before i post it properly.

tom

--
4 8 15 16 23 42

Critique my tube map
 

On Sun, 6 May 2007, Roland Perry wrote:

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.

A friend has one of these.

To the OP - if you're in Oxford at any point, it's Jo.

tom

--
4 8 15 16 23 42

Critique my tube map
 

On May 6, 12:29 am, 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)

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

Googling for 'geographical tube map' turns up quite a few!

This was my take on such a map...

http://www.simonclarke.org/lul/maps/lul.gif

The stations are placed correctly (taken from a street map), the
routes for the lines in-between are taken from published maps where
available and where not they are taken from research (e.g. pottering
round London with an A-Z looking for vent shafts etc.) and best guess.
There are plenty of inaccuracies that I know of, most of which I have
fixed in my working version.

Regards,
Simon.

Critique my tube map
 

"alex_t" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

Not a bad effort. Could show proposed extensions to Heathrow T5 and DLR
extensions to Dagenham and Woolwich Arsenal. Hillingdon spelt wrong. Perhaps
a double-arrow symbol to pick out NR interchanges?

Critique my tube map
 

On Sun, 6 May 2007, wrote:

On May 6, 12:29 am, Alex Ingram
wrote:

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

That means this one:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/lon_con.pdf

Which, unlike the results you get from ...

Googling for 'geographical tube map'

Includes National Rail lines.

http://www.simonclarke.org/lul/maps/lul.gif

Still an excellent map!

tom

--
Not all legislation can be eye-catching, and it is important that the
desire to achieve the headlines does not mean that small but useful
measures are crowded out of the legislative programme. -- Select Committee
on Transport

Critique my tube map
 

On May 6, 10:29 am, MIG wrote:
On May 6, 9:40 am, Ian Johnston wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:28:14 -0700, MIG wrote:
People have been verbing more and more nouns in recent years.

To quote Calvin (the small boy, not the theologian)

"Verbing weirds language"

I should have said "... and verbaling nouns ...".



Duh. I meant to mean "verbaling adjectives". Not with it today. I
did a terrible thing with an apostrophe elsewhere, for which I ought
to fall on my sword.

Critique my tube map
 

On May 6, 4:29 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007, wrote:
On May 6, 12:29 am, Alex Ingram
wrote:

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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That means this one:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/lon_con.pdf

Which, unlike the results you get from ...

Googling for 'geographical tube map'

Includes National Rail lines.

http://www.simonclarke.org/lul/maps/lul.gif

Still an excellent map!

tom



The thing about these geographical maps is that, like the way that the
bus maps show the railway routes, they show the geographical locations
of the stations, which are of interest to real publics, but then draw
any old line they like between them which, in the case of the bus map,
avoids conflict with other features.

For enthusiasts who want to know where the lines actually go, they are
worse than diagrams, because they imply geographical accuracy which
isn't there.