4 ms·

Similar design story here for Londons tube. For those very familiar with a place, I think the geographically (more) accurate maps work well. https://www.dezeen

Similar design story here for Londons tube. For those very familiar with a place, I think the geographically (more) accurate maps work well. https://www.dezeen.com/2011/08/08/london-tube-map-by-mark-noad-design/ https://www.dezeen.com/2011/08/08/london-tube-map-by-mark-no...

masklinn 5y ago
It’s a difficult tradeoff but the new tube map seems like a huge improvement: one thing I remember from when I touristed through london is the missing sense of distance you’d get from the maps, so if you didn’t have a physical map you’d completely miss that you could easily get to your destination on foot in 5mn from one station, and instead would loop around for 10 more minutes and a change or two. Likewise Paris. Tokyo has a somewhat similar issue, except more so due to the presence of multiple networks and the cost from swapping networks on your journey (which you don’t notice until a few days in when you realise you’ve drained your suica surprisingly quickly).
- avianlyric 5y ago
  These aren’t new maps for the Tube. They’re just a artists interpretation of a possible tube map design. The London tube maps remains geographically inaccurate, and instead focuses on clarity around how the different lines interact with each other. Making it very easy to plan routes on the tube, but not necessarily understand where the stations are physically located. It’s interesting, as a Londoner I really don’t care about the location of the station. When talking about how to get places, people use tube stations as the landmarks. So you don’t need to know where they are, only how you get to them via the tube network. If needed their physical location, you would use a street map, not the tube map. As such I think making the tube map geographically accurate, at the cost of making it harder to plan routes, would be a net negative.
  - ddek 5y ago
    Somewhat cynically I think the zone system ties London to the current tube map layout. If you look at a geographical map, especially a recent one, you'll see how illogical the zoning is now. Recent developments such as the Battersea branch of the Northern line or the zone 1 enclave at Canary Wharf just make it worse. Also you're right about landmarks. In NY, you use the grid system to navigate. Therefore it makes sense to tie transport links to the grid. London has no logical road system and the landmarks are more spread out.
    - rst 5y ago
      New York has multiple grids, though. The one in Manhattan north of 14th street is the one most people are aware of. But Queens and Brooklyn are mostly a patchwork of separate grids, and even Manhattan gets messy south of 14th street. (West 4th Street and West 12th Street intersect; the financial district preserves the Colonial street layout and is as messy as anything in, say, Boston.)
    - avianlyric 5y ago
      The zoning thing is interesting. Although I think the idea the zones should be strictly geographic is out dated. The zones exist to increase pricing for travelling though congested parts of the network, and provide cheaper fares for people that avoid them. Historically the busiest part of London was just the centre. But the cites evolved quite a bit, and now has multiple busy spots like Canary Wharf, Shoreditch and soon Battersea. So it makes sense to put them in zone 1 from a traffic density perspective.

masklinn 5y ago

It’s a difficult tradeoff but the new tube map seems like a huge improvement: one thing I remember from when I touristed through london is the missing sense of distance you’d get from the maps, so if you didn’t have a physical map you’d completely miss that you could easily get to your destination on foot in 5mn from one station, and instead would loop around for 10 more minutes and a change or two. Likewise Paris. Tokyo has a somewhat similar issue, except more so due to the presence of multiple networks and the cost from swapping networks on your journey (which you don’t notice until a few days in when you realise you’ve drained your suica surprisingly quickly).

avianlyric 5y ago
These aren’t new maps for the Tube. They’re just a artists interpretation of a possible tube map design. The London tube maps remains geographically inaccurate, and instead focuses on clarity around how the different lines interact with each other. Making it very easy to plan routes on the tube, but not necessarily understand where the stations are physically located. It’s interesting, as a Londoner I really don’t care about the location of the station. When talking about how to get places, people use tube stations as the landmarks. So you don’t need to know where they are, only how you get to them via the tube network. If needed their physical location, you would use a street map, not the tube map. As such I think making the tube map geographically accurate, at the cost of making it harder to plan routes, would be a net negative.
- ddek 5y ago
  Somewhat cynically I think the zone system ties London to the current tube map layout. If you look at a geographical map, especially a recent one, you'll see how illogical the zoning is now. Recent developments such as the Battersea branch of the Northern line or the zone 1 enclave at Canary Wharf just make it worse. Also you're right about landmarks. In NY, you use the grid system to navigate. Therefore it makes sense to tie transport links to the grid. London has no logical road system and the landmarks are more spread out.
  - rst 5y ago
    New York has multiple grids, though. The one in Manhattan north of 14th street is the one most people are aware of. But Queens and Brooklyn are mostly a patchwork of separate grids, and even Manhattan gets messy south of 14th street. (West 4th Street and West 12th Street intersect; the financial district preserves the Colonial street layout and is as messy as anything in, say, Boston.)
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    The zoning thing is interesting. Although I think the idea the zones should be strictly geographic is out dated. The zones exist to increase pricing for travelling though congested parts of the network, and provide cheaper fares for people that avoid them. Historically the busiest part of London was just the centre. But the cites evolved quite a bit, and now has multiple busy spots like Canary Wharf, Shoreditch and soon Battersea. So it makes sense to put them in zone 1 from a traffic density perspective.