4 ms·
No skin in the game. Looking at the old one https://www.mta.info/map/36946 https://www.mta.info/map/36946 vs. the new one https://www.mta.info/map/5256 https:/
by llsf 2y ago
No skin in the game. Looking at the old one https://www.mta.info/map/36946 https://www.mta.info/map/36946 vs. the new one https://www.mta.info/map/5256 https://www.mta.info/map/5256, and not being a New Yorker, I would prefer the old map as it allows me to appreciate the distances and contextualize more.
But I can see a New Yorker preferring the new map to get just the subway lines and connections.
- wan23 2y agoCompare the subway map with a real map of New York and you'll find that it leads you to all kinds of wrong ideas about directions, distances and relative positions of things.
- TimK65 2y agoIt's a diagram, not a map. The old "map" isn't geographically accurate, either.
- NoToP 2y agoNew Yorkers actually agreed with you quite vocally the last time someone tried to introduce a schematic map.
- altairprime 2y agoI think they both deserve to exist, and need to. The one map is invaluable when I’m navigating somewhere specific by my own hand; the other map is critical to comprehend the system and how the different lines parallel and overlap.
- jinushaun 2y agoI prefer the old map and I would argue it’s better. The old geographically accurate map is better for tourists, but the streamlined map is easier for locals to read. IMO, locals don’t really look at transit maps since they have them memorized and only travel the same few lines regularly. It’s tourists that are unfamiliar with the lines that need to read these maps. They also want to know the distance between stations. So it becomes the question: who is the transit map made for?