This is not a map of Tokyo’s subway system, but main line trains. The subway lines are the blue crossed lines contained mostly within the circle of routes at the center right of the map. Just 14 years after World War II’s conclusion, the sheer amount of tracks in just the Tokyo/Yokohama area is astounding. Not the greatest cartography ever, however: the map is a bit of a mess.
Source: Rob Ketcherside/Flickr
After my previous post about this old track layout diagram from Berlin, reader Rolando Peñate brought this awesome project to my attention – a beautiful track layout diagram of the London Underground, DLR and Overground, complete with platform layouts, disused platforms, yards and sidings. What’s really amazing about this diagram, however, is that its creator, Andrew Godwin, has essentially automated its production. He explains on his website:
The map is created with an automated tool which takes a textual description of the lines and platforms (as a series of points), and which then automatically draws the lines, station names and labels, saving the tedious process of moving lots of lines around and ensuring all the angles and curves match. Placement of the stations and waypoints is done with a custom GUI tool which draws the map in realtime, as we found that it took too long to edit coordinates in the text file, create the image, and then look for problems.
As a graphic designer who spends way too long tweaking maps to get them looking just right, I’m both astounded and dismayed by this. Amazed that such tools can be written to produce a map this aesthetically appealing, and dismayed in that I may soon be redundant to the process!
Have we been there? Yes, and looking at the track layout around Earls Court brings back memories of waiting there for District Line trains to East Putney.
What we like: Beautiful-looking map full of intricate details and information. Here, in all its glory is the Northern Line junctions between Euston and Camden Town that frustrated Harry Beck so much (take a look at how many different ways that section of track has been rendered over the years), and countless other details.
What we don’t like: Nothing… this map is incredible, and I love it to bits! You might quibble that there are some omissions on the Overground lines, but that would be churlish.
Our rating: Mind-blowing. Five stars!
Source: Andrew Godwin’s Aeracode website
We’ve already covered the official Oslo T-Bane map, so it’s interesting to have a look at a completely different take on it; one that takes the “Circle Line” concept to its logical extreme. This piece is the work of Francisco Dans, a design student in London.
Have we been there? No.
What we like: Interesting experiment using arcs and circles, while still maintaining some level of relative placement.
What we don’t like: Adobe Illustrator is pretty unforgiving when it comes to tangential lines, and there’s a few wonky curves and joins in this map, mainly on the pink “5” line. The widening of the interchange stations in the city centre to accommodate the visual conceit of the arcs makes it look like a heck of a walk from one line to another. The line work and type size is probably a little too spindly for use in a real world application.
Our rating: An interesting experiment that looks fun and breezy. Two-and-a-half-stars.
Source: Francisco’s Minefield Junction website
Not a transit diagram for public use, but a track layout of the system for operational planning. The original post on Flickr dates it between 1929-1934, based on visible names.
Source: Forest Pines/Flickr
Time for another entry in the Worst Map Contest, and this one, from Tulsa, Oklahoma, is right up there with the very worst.
Have we been there? No, and on the evidence of this map, I’m not sure I want to.
What we like: I will say that the labelling of the street grid along the edges is actually a very clever idea that frees up the centre of the map for the routes.
What we don’t like: First off, the quality of the map is simply terrible: JPG artefacts from over-compression, resulting in blurry type and route lines. The typography, both of the map title and the transit agency logo, is appalling and seems to have escaped from 1984 or thereabouts.
Poorly conceived, generic icons, some of which scale terribly down to the size used on the map. Look at the icon for Universities/Colleges: what is that? A palm tree?* The bus station icon fills in so badly that it’s almost impossible to work out what it actually represents.
The downtown area is terribly cramped and poorly drawn. There are dotted lines for some routes with no explanation of what that means in the key.
There’s a freakin’ rainbow gradient in the north pointer.
Our rating: Embarrassing. One star, and that’s only because I’m reserving half a star for something truly heinous. Already, after just two blog posts, Michael Champlin’s alternative map looks far more promising and definitely a project worth following as it unfolds.
*PS: Yes, I know it’s a mortarboard cap and tassel, but it shouldn’t be such hard work to see that. At the size it’s used on the map, it becomes a blobby mess and could be just about anything.
Source: Official Tulsa Transit website
Apparently, you’re at the Cardinal Lemoine Metro station in Paris… just a guess!
Source: Ed…../Flickr
From Lauren Manning’s highly amusing 100 Ways to Serve Pizza Tumblr.
Here’s a pair of maps that transcend my normal method of reviewing maps and demand a more serious approach, as well as a commentary on the power of design to shape and influence our thoughts.
These two maps show exactly the same thing – bus services out of Jerusalem and into Palestine. The route lines are identical on each map. The first map presents the services from an Israeli perspective, while the second map presents them from a Palestinian point of view. The differences are striking.
The Israeli map has a calming grey background, and the text presents the bus services as a way of linking and benefiting Jewish-Israeli communities on both sides of the prosaically named “Security Fence” (an understatement reminiscent of the Berlin Wall being simply referred to as the Sektorengrenze, or “sector boundary”). The Security Fence itself is de-emphasised by being shown as white against the grey background, while the 1949 Armistice Line is barely visible at all.
In contrast, the Palestinian version of the map has a dramatic black background, and the text uses words like “illegal” to describe the bus routes shown. The Security Fence is renamed as the “Separation Wall” and is emphasised strongly by thickening it and colouring it yellow, contrasting strongly against the black background. The land between the Separation Wall and the 1967 Green Line is hatched, bringing into relief the land that Palestinians believe have been stolen from them by Israel over the years.
Place names on both the maps reflect their backgrounds – Judea and Samaria on the Israeli map become the politically-charged “The West Bank” on the Palestinian map. Subtle differences in the size and position of Israeli settlements reflect the two opposing views on their legality.
Our rating: Extraordinary example of how design decisions can completely alter the tone and bias of a map. In isolation, each map would present a compelling argument for each position – by comparing them, we can see how we are influenced by what the map designer chooses to show, and by how they choose to show it. Five stars.
While not strictly speaking a transit map, this awesome cutaway diagram of the Hudson River Tubes featured in our last post is just too cool not to share with you. Contemporaneous with that map, this cutaway shows the junction to the northern (or Uptown) cross-Hudson tubes which leave the image to the right. Of particular interest is how the lines stack and twist around each other, almost certainly done to minimise the width of any excavation work.
Source: Wikipedia
