Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 24th, 2005 12:49 pm (UTC)
Looks like he's just plotted the stations and then joined them up with straight lines, hence there;s stuff like the District/Circle passing under the Thames, when what actually happens is that it runs under Victoria Embankment.
(Deleted comment)
Nov. 24th, 2005 03:07 pm (UTC)
A good indicator of how clued-up someone is is what they think is happening around Mornington Crescent. This bloke seems to follow the common notion that between Euston and Camden the Charing Cross branch of the Northern Line passes to the west of the City branch, because that's how it's shown on the current version of the Beck map. But the reality is the exact opposite. Mind you, if you zoom into to where the lines emerge above ground and you can trace the rails, his map doesn't follow them.
Nov. 25th, 2005 04:49 pm (UTC)
It's only naive!

I'm the author of this page - I know full well that the the stations are only joined up with straight lines. The mashup comes from a research project where I only needed to know the locations of stations and the connections between them - it took me about 5 minutes to adapt my database for this mashup!

Sadly, to show all the lines following their correct paths, it would probably go beyond what is possible with Google maps. I know I could increase the resolution of the lines, but it would then take ages to render! I was only doing it to play around with polylines ;)

Jonathan Stott
Nov. 24th, 2005 05:37 pm (UTC)
It looks okay from a distance, it's only when you zoom in and nitpick that it all goes horribly wrong*. Not bad for a few minutes work with the latitudes and longitudes of the stations.

*with the exception of the Heathrow termini, where the trains would have to be radically articulated to get round that triangle.
Nov. 24th, 2005 05:49 pm (UTC)
He's only about a quarter of a mile off with the Victoria Line in Brixton.

Could try harder.
Nov. 24th, 2005 07:10 pm (UTC)
You know, the guy said he had a database of latitudes and longitudes of the stations, and spent a little bit of time joining them up. What do you want, blood?
Nov. 26th, 2005 05:17 pm (UTC)
once a map moves from being a graphical approximation and starts to involce geodata, lat and long and catrographic representation, I think we do expect a fair amount of accuracy, yes. No disrespect to the chap who created it, but I'm a bit CP Snow on the accuracy of information ;-)
Dec. 8th, 2005 08:50 am (UTC)
How are you getting along with your improved version?
Dec. 8th, 2005 11:07 am (UTC)
So if you were planning to travel across the US using a 1970 Amtrack timetable you wouldn't want me to suggest that it might not be accurate if I wasn't going to go look up all the current train times for you instead? Personally I find it useful if people annotate things as being fun, useful, accurate or definitive even if they can't improve on them, because it helps me gauge how much to rely on them. Your mileage, especially around Mornington Crescent, may vary.
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )