4 ms·
All good points. Sadly, there is no perfect solution. Which ever way you draw the map you are making a compromise. The London map is by far the easiest I have
by kingcharles 4y ago
All good points. Sadly, there is no perfect solution. Which ever way you draw the map you are making a compromise.
The London map is by far the easiest I have ever encountered for figuring out how to get from station A to station B. On the other hand, as you say, there are sections where the distance is radically deceptive.
With the maps that show the stations in their real locations, they are much harder to read, but you get a sense of distance.
My personal preference is for the London style, because by the time I get on the train I generally don't care how long it takes, I just want to settle back and get where I'm going. Hopefully most tourists to London will get the message beforehand, through guides or advice, that nearly every tourist destination is easily walkable for able-bodied persons.
- ghaff 4y agoPedestrian walking signage on the streets of London is pretty good as well. One of the challenges with "real locations" is differences in scale. In the case of Boston for example, a bunch of lines come together in a rather dense area of downtown. But then a number of lines (even excluding commuter rail) head off to terra incognito--OK, I exaggerate but into the suburbs or even small cities outside Boston.
- notahacker 4y agoScale is one of the main reasons Harry Beck's map worked. Central London on an accurate map isn't that confusingly laid out at a large enough scale. But the outlying suburbs are just so far away, and the schematic is a lot less confusing for the intended purpose of getting the correct train connection than flipping back and forth between different maps and insets at different scale levels