Not sure I enjoy it. It's aesthetically pleasing at first, but then it just annoys me.<p>All maps have problems with representing distance and space in a 2D form, but this become a little absurd. As an artistic experiment I'd give him a pass except he explicitly said:<p>"Let's get the geography as well because, with maps, shapes and geography are important. Let's try to make my map better than TfL in every way".<p>He then absolutely butchers the geography in terms of relative or absolute position, changes the shape of the Thames in weird and unfamiliar ways and makes it hard to reason about distances in many cases (Note: don't try and walk from Richmond to East Putney, as it's a lot further than it looks on that map: about half the distance (4.9mi) from Richmond to Farringdon (10.3mi).<p>I understand why maps get redesigned into different forms, and generally I love it if you're communicating a new idea about distance, space, or some other data point. But I don't really get what the idea behind this is other than "circles".
Because I cant find an actual link to the map or the post in the article, here's the page that the author seems to run <a href="http://www.tubemapcentral.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.tubemapcentral.com/</a>
> He added: "I also thought, 'Let's get the geography as well because, with maps, shapes and geography are important.<p>Funny. I remember watching a design documentary years ago where they made the exact opposite point: subway maps were trying to get the geography right but that became unwieldy and confusing, so the epiphany was that <i>connections</i> mattered more than the geography. That the way people were using the maps was to get from place A to place B and what mattered was quickly navigating the intersections.
Ever after watching Jay Foreman's videos on Harry Beck's tube map (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTLCfl01zuE" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTLCfl01zuE</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaEhvWXmLyk" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaEhvWXmLyk</a>), a reply from TfL like this one hits differently:<p>> A TfL spokesperson said the original Tube map was "an iconic piece of world-renowned design" and there were no plans to change it.
This is far more difficult to follow than the normal one. Some lines, particularly London Overground on the North side of the city, are all over the place.
I liked the anagram map. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_anagram_map" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_anagram_map</a><p>finding a high quality SVG version in 2006 before it got taken down was a point of some pride for me at the time. I probably have it laying around somewhere still..
Interesting that Oxford Circus is the pivotal point. I use the tube regularly and it's the place I would least want to get to.<p>Also all distances to London are measured to Charing Cross (the actual stone cross I think), so maybe that should be the centre to be consistent.
I find london tube maps depressing. Having lived in a few modern cities, none of which have decent public transport, I envy the tube concept. It was implemented when such things were possible. Today, building even a short point-to-point overland rail link through a city regularly costs billions. Such a system as the london tube, built from scratch, would cost not just billions over a couple decades, but maybe a literal trillion over a century.
An underappreciated thing transport maps have to do: on arriving at a station I need to figure out what platform to get on my train at to go in the right direction. Simplified grid-oriented maps like the classic tube map help disambiguate northbound/southbound eastbound/westbound.<p>Unless the station wayfinding is all going to be relabeled hubwards/rimwards/turnwise/widdershins then this circularized map is just confusing.<p>Also, how do you make a circular tube map and not make the circle line into a circle?
I really like it. I am not sure if it's any easier or more difficult than the current map, and I was able to trace a route from Waterloo to Walthamstow Central easily.<p>Possibly because I grew up taking the tube at least once a week and became used to the original map, but this one was straightforward to follow. I find it much more aesthetically pleasing than the original.<p>I wouldn't use this or the original to plan any kind of walking around London. I'd use a real A-Z or whatever to do that.
Someone re-designed the Berlin map and every day I hope it becomes the official one: <a href="https://www.berlintransitmap.de/" rel="nofollow">https://www.berlintransitmap.de/</a>
This is like the Vignelli map for the NYC subway. It's been renowned for a while and efforts lobbying for it to be the official map are slowly working.
This map would be instantly improved by swapping out Gill Sans, which is only used due to tradition and matching the external signage. Its too wide, and has too much flourish to be useful on a map this data dense. Something a little more condensed and more geometric and less humanist would work so much better here.
I just watched videos of vigilantes fixing potholes and creating flyers for local businesses that look better (for free). any other similar stories of people taking matters into their own hands?
"The London Underground map is one of the most recognisable in the world"<p>Why? How is it more recognizable that, say, the Paris one? Or New York?<p>EDIT: Since there are down votes, I will clarify my question do that we do not jump into underground nationalism: I was looking for unique features that make it recognizable.
As I mentioned in a comment: the ~~Peru~~ (EDIT: Nepal) flag is unique, this recognizable for instance.<p>If the map was round then yes, it is recognizable. Does it have any such features?<p>Or is it just recognizable because London is well known, so some stations are too?<p>EDIT 2: Please see PaulRobinson's answer for details