Comment by kmoser

Comment by kmoser 2 days ago

I can see the advantages of both styles. Scale and proximity are very important to people traveling to destinations they don't usually travel to (often tourists), but the schematic nature of this new map definitely makes it easier to tell how the system interconnects.

It would be great if, in addition to providing realtime bus and train info, the MTA provided realtime station info so third parties could create maps in any style that were guaranteed to be correct because they would pull from live station data.

mmooss 2 days ago

For purposes of a subway trip in Manhatten, for example, scale isn't that important - a train will quickly take you a long way if you can get on the right one.

Reply View 2 replies

kmoser 2 days ago

It's not just about how far the train can take you; it's also about how far you have to walk to your destination once you exit. For example, the squashed height of the new map makes it look like if you exit at Central Park South, you can walk to Central Park North in a relatively short amount of time, when in fact it's about 2.5 miles.
Being able to determine relative distances also helps you decide whether it's worth waiting for the next train, or whether to switch from an express to a local or vice-versa.

Reply View | 1 reply
- tekla 2 days ago
  
  The old map makes prospect park look like a jaunt when its quite a hike. It's not useful in the way you claim.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

tekla 2 days ago

They do, for as many lines that have the ability to do it.

That's what the Google maps data is based on.

Reply View 0 replies