[HN Gopher] Harry Beck's 1933 London Tube Map ___________________________________________________________________ Harry Beck's 1933 London Tube Map Author : simonebrunozzi Score : 51 points Date : 2022-05-30 06:44 UTC (16 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.openculture.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.openculture.com) | kazinator wrote: | Unfortunately, these maps remove all intuitions about where the | heck you are, especially if you're a tourist. | | The more scope is included in the map, the less comprehensible it | becomes, as the layout bears no relation to how the places | relate, like how relatively far away they are and in what | direction. | | Topological maps conceal truths like you might be able to walk | faster between these two particular stations than if you take the | train. | | If all you have is a real map that doesn't have transit details, | and a schematic transit map, it can be hard to have a complete | picture. | | Some middle representation is helpful: a caricature of the | metropolitan area with the transit grid and stations shown at | least loosely in the right places. | | This article shows two maps of the NY subway system: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway_map | | The one on the left is like what I'm talking about. The one on | the right is more detailed. Both are better than a purely | topological diagram with no relation to the places. | | In contrast to something like this: | | https://www.tokyometro.jp/en/subwaymap/ | | In both the NY maps, if you find the station where you're | dcurrently located, you actually know from either map where in NY | you are, and about how far it is to other places. | ldjb wrote: | Although (to my knowledge) a new version hasn't been produced | since 2014, the London Connections map [0] does something along | these lines. | | It's primarily geographical, but isn't completely precise, and | it retains some topological features. | | I think most passengers would find it too confusing, but maybe | there are ways it could be simplified. | | See also the unofficial Carto Metro map [1], which is an actual | geographic map of London's rail network. And also the map of | key bus routes in Central London [2], which is largely | topological but represents major parks and attractions. | | [0] | http://web.archive.org/web/20181222165456/http://content.tfl... | | [1] https://cartometro.com/metro-london/ | | [2] https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/bus-route- | maps/k... | ghaff wrote: | The MBTA (Boston) map has long been mostly schematic. There | were a couple points when I was an undergrad that I took the T | (subway) and changed lines at least once only to discover I was | about 2 blocks from where I started. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | The latest tube maps include the time it takes to walk along a | line between stations in the central zones. It's not a to-scale | map, but it gives some useful hints. | | https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/tube | | The problem with making the London map topographic and to scale | is that the northwest extension of the Metropolitan line | stretches far out into the countryside. A to-scale map would | have to shrink the central area - the most useful part of the | map - which would make it cluttered and hard to read. | | The zone system on the map provides useful hints about absolute | distance without being perfectly to-scale. | | That aside, most people using a metro system need to know how | long it will take to get somewhere _on the system_ more than | they need to know exactly where they are. | | TFL's app includes journey time estimates. | kingcharles wrote: | 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 wrote: | Pedestrian 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 wrote: | Scale 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 | bombcar wrote: | You can compromise this by having the urban core (often the | main tourist area) done in a more "realistic" way and then the | rest of the outlying lines done schematically. | arketyp wrote: | ketzo wrote: | Why would baby birds be looking at a map? | [deleted] | arketyp wrote: | It was a joke. Jesus. | ant6n wrote: | New Yorkers say this stuff all the time to defend their unique | geographical subway map, ignoring that the map is still so far | zoomed out and inaccurate that it doesn't help a tourist at all | with any understanding that is relevant to walking distances. | At the same time, the nyc subway map is incredibly confusing | and idiosyncratic, tourists will keep getting confused and lost | thanks to it while trying to navigate the actual subway system | the map is primarily supposed to explain. How about making the | map simpler, removing essentially useless geographical | information but making sure ppl don't get lost on the way to | their destination stop. | Mordisquitos wrote: | To be fair, the NYC subway can be extra confusing for | tourists from cities with more "predictable" metro systems. | For example, in the Madrid and Barcelona Metros, all trains | departing from each given platform are guaranteed to belong | to the same line and will serve the same stations from A to B | --no need to think at all. That's also usually the case in | the London Underground, though some lines may split and there | are some exchange stations where you need to pay attention as | to what line the train arriving at the platform belongs to. | Now compare that to the NYC Subway, with its routes, lines, | express services, local services, etc. Anyone used to the | simplicity of Madrid or Barcelona style systems is bound to | find it confusing. | | Not that I have anything against the idea though, it's just a | different philosophy and it is connected somewhat to the NYC | Subway's rare 24/7 service. I have fun memories of when I | went to New York with my parents when I was 18, and they were | simply unable to understand the Subway in depth and relied on | me to make sense of it. | unyttigfjelltol wrote: | The system diagram drops important information such as how _far_ | a rider is traveling and how _long_ it will take. This | contributes to the interminable feeling of riding forever under | the streets of [city name]. It also makes it harder to integrate | with intermodal options, or walking, because riders are never | quite sure where they are. The system diagram is ubiquitous, and | there 's a point to it, but it ought to be just one tool in the | box. | kqr wrote: | In my city there was, for a brief time, a neat combination of | the two. It was visually stylized with simplified geometry for | easy reading, but it sorta-kinda indicated real distances and | directions. I really miss that one -- seemed like the best of | both worlds to me. | | ---- | | Found it: | https://people.kth.se/~e95_lra/tunnelbana/bild/linjekarta.gi... | | Which is to compare against the highly stylised one: | http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nSNE5wTaCGA/VDZiVonjldI/AAAAAAAAQ5... | | And, well, something more realistic: | https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BPoNTy6r7UI/VDZiXCe5oEI/AAAAAAAAQ... | MagnumOpus wrote: | Transport for London has a variant of the map annotated with | walking times between the stations too - of course at the cost | of being more crowded... | | https://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-tube-map.pdf | kingcharles wrote: | This is definitely hard to parse. Canada Water to Canary | Wharf is 144 minute walk on that map LOL. It's a couple of | minutes by Underground. It is about 2 miles walk, but it's | definitely not 2 hours and 24 minutes! | cassianoleal wrote: | It's about 1h if you take the Rotherhite tunnel, but if you | use lungs for breathing I wouldn't recommend that. | | Otherwise you need to take the Greenwich foot tunnel, which | adds a lot to the trip. It may not take 2h24min but it's | about 4.4 miles, not 2. | notahacker wrote: | The major shortcoming of that is it doesn't show walking | times for some fairly easy connections between different | lines and instead implies a much longer indirect route (e.g | Angel to Farringdon is a 15-20 minute direct walk which is | quite reasonable compared to an >11 minute journey involving | train and platform changes or the suggested 42 minutes | walking a very indirect route via a station interchange) | azza2110 wrote: | For anyone who finds this interesting, I recommend reading | Underground Maps Unravelled, by Robert J Maxwell: | http://www.tubemapcentral.com/writing/umu.html | | It covers the history of London Underground maps and signage, | analysis on how/why certain map elements help users, and contains | a number of painstakingly recreated historical and theoretical | transit maps to illustrate the points. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-30 23:00 UTC)