Standardising Underground Maps To Make Them Easily Understood

[6Foot2]

Link: : INAT metro maps

 

ABOUT INAT METRO MAPS

 

INAT is a mapping standard developed by French Serbian architect Jug Cerovic offering easy to read, easy to memorize and easy to use subway network maps.

 

EASY TO READ

 

The croweded central area of most cities is enlarged to make room for the multiplicity of lines and connecting stations.

 

A standard set of symbol is applied to all maps : line colors, stations, connections, line and station labeling.

 

Line angles are gently curved for a smooth familiar look.

 

EASY TO MEMORIZE

 

All lines are represented vertical, horizontal, or 45° inclined.

Most lines feature no more than 5 bends on their entire length.

Highly symbolic shapes are used for specific features:

Rings: circle (Moscow, Paris), rectangle (Beijing, Shanghai), stadium shaped (Berlin, Seoul), parallelogram (London)

Regularly spaced straight parallel lines in gridded street pattern cities (New York, Mexico)

Symmetry (Moscow)

Specific shapes (Madrid)

 

EASY TO USE

 

All text is labelled in both local and Latin characters.

The maps are design so as to be legible on small sized prints for pocket use and suitable for display on a wide array of supports.

 

All contents of this website are protected by copyright.

 

Using these rules as a guide his London Underground map looks like this:

 

http://www.inat.fr/files/london-metro-subway-tube-map.png

[chrisateen]

I think that map is harder to understand than the current one they use in london

[6Foot2]

I think that map is harder to understand than the current one they use in london

 

It does seem busier, somehow, but is that just familiarity with Harry Beck's LU map?

 

This is an attempt to create a standard format for all underground maps so that visitors to cities with underground transit systems will not be thrown when presented with a local map.

[mjs_mjs]

I think we should keep our old LU map - it's almost a defining feature, also the zoning on a LU map atm is very easy - it's not so easy on this.

[spacebar]

Then you could argue all the signs in the underground should be standardised, like those in an airport.

 

I can never understand tube maps in other country's, ours is the best.

[dhicks]

I think that's the first time I've seen the overground loop actually look like a loop, where you can see how it circles London. It still manges to miss most of south London's train network, though - with an Oyster card it's pretty much interchangeable with the tube these days, and from the above map you'd never guess Clapham Junction or Wimbledon are major stations with trains into central London every few minutes.

[Oaktech]

I really like that map. It makes far more sense to me than the standard one.

[CAM]

That bottom right corner is awful. The existing Tube map is vaguely geographically accurate (hence the uproar when they removed the Thames) as you look at a station and know roughly where they are in London. According to this map, Beckton is in the South and the Thames takes a steep curve downward. It's terrible!

[Homer]

Watford isn't east of Uxbridge, it's north! Not the best, however it makes some kind of sense?

[6Foot2]

Watford isn't east of Uxbridge, it's north! Not the best, however it makes some kind of sense?

 

These types of maps are intended to be helpful getting you from Station A to Station B. When you are using the system where you are geographically does not matter only how to get to your intended station. I can see that if these maps were also geographically accurate that might help at either end of the journey but that would also add to the visual complexity of the maps when simplicity is a main objective.

[Garacesh]

Heh.. Hehehe.. Cockfosters

 

Personally I'd just prefer a geographically-accurate map, given that half the time, on a network of this scale - I've no clue what station I'm supposed to be at anyway (I'm not so good with planning journeys..)