TfL tries to remove the Thames from London

[Charlotte Ryberg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8260943.stm

No consultation, no debate, no room for protest... Transport for London decided to airbrush out the famous Thames from the famous London Undergruond Map, resulting in a huge outcry. Even Mayor Boris demanded them to reinstate the river in the tube map too. Since Harry Beck started his mission to tidy up the diagram of railways into a neat electrical diagram the Thames had been the only geographical guide. Was it one of TfL's biggest mistake? Absolutely, in my opinion; but since they added wheelchair blobs right on where the interchanges or ticks used to be it had become even more less useful because of information congestion: for example, I see those airport icons, but have no idea which airport it is.

Mind you, the Central Line appears even more tidier in the north east.

[Frozopia]

The river thames was on the tube map? Somehow I've never seen that .

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I never noticed it went.
I didn't go did it.

Meh.

[Thethunderdome]

What's the big deal here? Why does the river need to be on the map?

[Louis Van Boxel Woolf]

[Farnhamia]

What's the big deal here? Why does the river need to be on the map?

What's the big deal? Why ... why, it's simply not done, I mean, really, remove the Thames from the map and you might as well start driving on the right-hand side of the road, don't you know.

[GetBert]

Well you know what cockneys are like: every year they gather to protest in the east end, bodies bent with rickets and coughing blood into stolen handkerchiefs from their TB scarred lungs, and all because the clocks have changed and they think someone has stolen an hour of their lives.

[Minnas]

Aren't changes like that supposed to be consulted with the people first?

[Farnhamia]

Aren't changes like that supposed to be consulted with the people first?

You want to vote or have public hearings on changes to a subway map?

[Minnas]

Aren't changes like that supposed to be consulted with the people first?

You want to vote or have public hearings on changes to a subway map?

Seeing as the Thames is such an important landmark in London, yes.

[Farnhamia]

Aren't changes like that supposed to be consulted with the people first?

You want to vote or have public hearings on changes to a subway map?

Seeing as the Thames is such an important landmark in London, yes.

I'll grant you that taking it off was kind of silly, but after all, it's the Underground. The trains go under the river, not through it, so who cares if the river is marked on the map? Realistically, when trying to go from Point A north of the river to Point B south of it, when you're entire trip will be below the ground, do you really care if you go under a river?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Aren't changes like that supposed to be consulted with the people first?

You want to vote or have public hearings on changes to a subway map?

Seeing as the Thames is such an important landmark in London, yes.

I'll grant you that taking it off was kind of silly, but after all, it's the Underground. The trains go under the river, not through it, so who cares if the river is marked on the map? Realistically, when trying to go from Point A north of the river to Point B south of it, when you're entire trip will be below the ground, do you really care if you go under a river?

The Wimbledon Branch of the District Line actually goes over a bridge but the Thames does help distinguish north and south. The zones also help tourists avoid penalty fares by accident. Of course, it is possible to simplify the Thames as Back did in the 50s, but then he made as if Upminster on the District Line was by the river.

[UNIverseVERSE]

I'll grant you that taking it off was kind of silly, but after all, it's the Underground. The trains go under the river, not through it, so who cares if the river is marked on the map? Realistically, when trying to go from Point A north of the river to Point B south of it, when you're entire trip will be below the ground, do you really care if you go under a river?

However, there are quite a few circumstances where walking between Tube stations is either required or faster than changing trains, and knowing about major obstacles might be useful there.

Still, you're essentially right -- the beauty of the Underground is that the geographic locations are totally irrelevant. All that's necessary is the connections.

[Nodinia]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8260943.stm

No consultation, no debate, no room for protest... Transport for London decided to airbrush out the famous Thames from the famous London Undergruond Map, resulting in a huge outcry. Even Mayor Boris demanded them to reinstate the river in the tube map too. Since Harry Beck started his mission to tidy up the diagram of railways into a neat electrical diagram the Thames had been the only geographical guide. Was it one of TfL's biggest mistake? Absolutely, in my opinion; but since they added wheelchair blobs right on where the interchanges or ticks used to be it had become even more less useful because of information congestion: for example, I see those airport icons, but have no idea which airport it is.

Mind you, the Central Line appears even more tidier in the north east.

Dear christ what next? polite staff?

[Farnhamia]

Aren't changes like that supposed to be consulted with the people first?

You want to vote or have public hearings on changes to a subway map?

Seeing as the Thames is such an important landmark in London, yes.

I'll grant you that taking it off was kind of silly, but after all, it's the Underground. The trains go under the river, not through it, so who cares if the river is marked on the map? Realistically, when trying to go from Point A north of the river to Point B south of it, when you're entire trip will be below the ground, do you really care if you go under a river?

The Wimbledon Branch of the District Line actually goes over a bridge but the Thames does help distinguish north and south. The zones also help tourists avoid penalty fares by accident. Of course, it is possible to simplify the Thames as Back did in the 50s, but then he made as if Upminster on the District Line was by the river.

I'm not really defending the idea of removing the River. I was really trying to get Minnas - who asked if public approval of changes to the Undergroup map shouldn't be gotten ahead of time - to see that it isn't technically relevant. The zones could be marked clearly enough, I should think, that even tourists could figure it out.

[Minnas]

Aren't changes like that supposed to be consulted with the people first?

You want to vote or have public hearings on changes to a subway map?

Seeing as the Thames is such an important landmark in London, yes.

I'll grant you that taking it off was kind of silly, but after all, it's the Underground. The trains go under the river, not through it, so who cares if the river is marked on the map? Realistically, when trying to go from Point A north of the river to Point B south of it, when you're entire trip will be below the ground, do you really care if you go under a river?

The Wimbledon Branch of the District Line actually goes over a bridge but the Thames does help distinguish north and south. The zones also help tourists avoid penalty fares by accident. Of course, it is possible to simplify the Thames as Back did in the 50s, but then he made as if Upminster on the District Line was by the river.

I'm not really defending the idea of removing the River. I was really trying to get Minnas - who asked if public approval of changes to the Undergroup map shouldn't be gotten ahead of time - to see that it isn't technically relevant. The zones could be marked clearly enough, I should think, that even tourists could figure it out.

Still, the subway map removed the Thames so, how exactly is that ''zones could be clearly marked enough''?

[Farnhamia]

Aren't changes like that supposed to be consulted with the people first?

You want to vote or have public hearings on changes to a subway map?

Seeing as the Thames is such an important landmark in London, yes.

I'll grant you that taking it off was kind of silly, but after all, it's the Underground. The trains go under the river, not through it, so who cares if the river is marked on the map? Realistically, when trying to go from Point A north of the river to Point B south of it, when you're entire trip will be below the ground, do you really care if you go under a river?

The Wimbledon Branch of the District Line actually goes over a bridge but the Thames does help distinguish north and south. The zones also help tourists avoid penalty fares by accident. Of course, it is possible to simplify the Thames as Back did in the 50s, but then he made as if Upminster on the District Line was by the river.

I'm not really defending the idea of removing the River. I was really trying to get Minnas - who asked if public approval of changes to the Undergroup map shouldn't be gotten ahead of time - to see that it isn't technically relevant. The zones could be marked clearly enough, I should think, that even tourists could figure it out.

Still, the subway map removed the Thames so, how exactly is that ''zones could be clearly marked enough''?

Heck, I dunno, I'm not that intimate with the map. If the River is the only dividing line between zones in the system - which I suspect is not true - then yes, drawing a zone dividing line is essentially drawing in the River. However, I don't see the City of London going to the expense of holding public hearings or a vote when they want to change the map's design. That doesn't happen in any city I know of with a mass transit system.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Heck, I dunno, I'm not that intimate with the map. If the River is the only dividing line between zones in the system - which I suspect is not true - then yes, drawing a zone dividing line is essentially drawing in the River. However, I don't see the City of London going to the expense of holding public hearings or a vote when they want to change the map's design. That doesn't happen in any city I know of with a mass transit system.

Here is a previous version of the map. As you will quickly note, the river has nothing to do with the zone system -- they're quite independent.

[Farnhamia]

Heck, I dunno, I'm not that intimate with the map. If the River is the only dividing line between zones in the system - which I suspect is not true - then yes, drawing a zone dividing line is essentially drawing in the River. However, I don't see the City of London going to the expense of holding public hearings or a vote when they want to change the map's design. That doesn't happen in any city I know of with a mass transit system.

Here is a previous version of the map. As you will quickly note, the river has nothing to do with the zone system -- they're quite independent.

Here's an idea, why not dredge the course of the Thames to match the zone lines?

Speaking of moving rivers, there was a serious proposal in Italy once to move the Tiber to the other side of Rome so as to keep it from flooding the city so much.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Heck, I dunno, I'm not that intimate with the map. If the River is the only dividing line between zones in the system - which I suspect is not true - then yes, drawing a zone dividing line is essentially drawing in the River. However, I don't see the City of London going to the expense of holding public hearings or a vote when they want to change the map's design. That doesn't happen in any city I know of with a mass transit system.

Here is a previous version of the map. As you will quickly note, the river has nothing to do with the zone system -- they're quite independent.

Here's an idea, why not dredge the course of the Thames to match the zone lines?

Speaking of moving rivers, there was a serious proposal in Italy once to move the Tiber to the other side of Rome so as to keep it from flooding the city so much.

The boundaries of Zone 1 does roughly follow the often-congested inner Ring Road (although a bit more towards the former West Cross Route in the west), but it would be costly anyway. It would be simpler if TfL simply said: "okay, we're going to redesign the map, what do you like to see?"

[Tekania]

Yes, I can see how this can have a serious impact upon tourists unfamiliar with London... Because now they will no longer be able to rely on a river they are unfamiliar with as a landmark to reference destinations they are unfamiliar with, while traveling on a medium which will not allow them to see it...

How was this newsworthy again?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Maps are srs bsns in England.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Maps are srs bsns in England.

Londoners like their transport system. Boris Johnson was elected in part due to promising to bring back Routemaster buses and eliminate bendy buses - which have been used across England and Europe for years now. And the tube map is rather iconic, so people are annoyed it changed.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Maps are srs bsns in England.

Actually, worldwide as well; and it is indeed serious when it comes to graphic design. From the GLC days to the introduction of the Overground, there was a huge debate in regards to the inclusion of the semi-circular North London Line, and until recently, Thameslink had to be included too, under pressure from the pre-privatization Network SouthEast. Now, it's a fine line between getting people around easily and sending people to the wrong place as more lines get built (The East London Railway and Crossrail are the next candidates).

[Czardas]

Keep the river. Sure, it's not particularly useful in any respect, but the map looks better with it in there.