3 ms·

I really dislike the style of these maps, the lettering is so sparse and modern that it's hard to read compare his map http://www.inat.fr/metro/boston/ http://w

by munk-a 7y ago

I really dislike the style of these maps, the lettering is so sparse and modern that it's hard to read compare his map http://www.inat.fr/metro/boston/ http://www.inat.fr/metro/boston/ to https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/maps/2019-04-08-rapid-transit-key-bus-routes-map-v33.pdf https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/maps/2019-04-08-rap... is the latter a cluttered mess? Oh heck yea, but it sure is legible - the map he produced is unreadable at the zoom level required to view the full thing on 2550x1440... and legibility is like the whole point.

hbosch 7y ago
These would be printed, and large. I don't think legibility is a major issue with either map.
gherkinnn 7y ago
I much prefer the “new” map. I’ve never been to Boston. I know nothing about it’s layout. When I give myself to go from, say, Wonderland to Braintree, the new one performs better for a few reasons: - the names of the important nodes are more prominent - the lines are less prominent, there’s no need for them to be so overbearing - the multi-coloured train stations give me a reduced hint as to which lines stop there - for some reason, and I can’t put my finger on it, I find that I can more easily create a mental model of the city. While the actual map makes me feel like a mouse im a labyrinth, scurrying around, never knowing the overall picture.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Ref thinner lines in particular though, one of the trade offs is that information has been removed. For example, which Green Line trains make stops where. Also the connection between Park and Downtown Crossing is no longer labeled leaving us to wonder what it is. There are other examples as well.
MivLives 7y ago
I think the zoom level could be fixed by chopping off some of the newer map. The MBTA map you linked has way less of each regional rail line. My bigger complaint with the newer map is I'd rather a map do better at showing geographic landmarks, like rivers as they make it easier for me to locate where the station is in the larger city. For example: https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Geoawesomeness-Survey-Map-2.jpg https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Geoawe...

by munk-a 7y ago

hbosch 7y ago

These would be printed, and large. I don't think legibility is a major issue with either map.

gherkinnn 7y ago

I much prefer the “new” map. I’ve never been to Boston. I know nothing about it’s layout. When I give myself to go from, say, Wonderland to Braintree, the new one performs better for a few reasons: - the names of the important nodes are more prominent - the lines are less prominent, there’s no need for them to be so overbearing - the multi-coloured train stations give me a reduced hint as to which lines stop there - for some reason, and I can’t put my finger on it, I find that I can more easily create a mental model of the city. While the actual map makes me feel like a mouse im a labyrinth, scurrying around, never knowing the overall picture.

ghaff 7y ago
Ref thinner lines in particular though, one of the trade offs is that information has been removed. For example, which Green Line trains make stops where. Also the connection between Park and Downtown Crossing is no longer labeled leaving us to wonder what it is. There are other examples as well.

MivLives 7y ago

I think the zoom level could be fixed by chopping off some of the newer map. The MBTA map you linked has way less of each regional rail line. My bigger complaint with the newer map is I'd rather a map do better at showing geographic landmarks, like rivers as they make it easier for me to locate where the station is in the larger city. For example: https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Geoawesomeness-Survey-Map-2.jpg https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Geoawe...