But our goal isn't to get to a different station- it's to get from our origin to our destination. Previous studies of how people try to navigate have shown that

But our goal isn't to get to a different station- it's to get from our origin to our destination. Previous studies of how people try to navigate have shown that people make heavy use of landmarks like parks which is why the MTAs map shows parks and major streets. Passengers also take into account how the train feels to be moving which this map doesn't convey. If the train obviously feels to turn left but the map doesn't show it, passengers get anxious. His current map version: https://www.inat.fr/metro/new-york/ https://www.inat.fr/metro/new-york/ There are other problems with this map that demonstrate to me at least that the designer simply hasn't put as much thought into the design as the MTA. Some examples: - Suppose I am on the Lexington Ave line and I want to know if my train (a 4 train) will stop at Astor place. I see a dot but no labels. So I start searching down the map for what the dot means. Eventually two green lines becomes one green line. What does that mean? I give up and start scanning upward and see that one line is for the 4/5 and the other line is for the 6. I finally have my answer. The MTAs map just tells me what trains stop at Astor place. - This map implies that there are free transfers to the Path train when in fact there is not. - This map implies that I can transfer between the 8th and 7th ave lines at Penn Station when in fact I can not. - Is my Q train going to stop at 49th st in Manhattan? No one knows. That's just a minor design problem that was caused by a lack of space. The lack of space was caused by the designer's decision to illustrate lines individually.