User talk:Useddenim

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
alt= link=
Archive 1 Archive 2
Archive 4


Moved to Talk:BSicon/Categorization.

Neath and Tennant again[edit]

Moved to Talk:BSicon/Renaming#Similar looks


Moved to Talk:BSicon/Renaming#vSTR

Standard Icons[edit]

Moved to Talk:BSicon/Icon geometry and SVG code neatness#Standard Icons


moved to Talk:BSicon/Renaming/SPL#vKRWs

Please stop![edit]

moved to Talk:BSicon/Renaming#Diagonal + curve

Diagrammatic London rail transit SVG map[edit]

As you know there is no diagrammatic (aka 'Beck' style) map of London rail transits on Commons yet. There was such SVG map but it appears to have been deleted under author's request. So I want to start a collaborated project of creating such map from scratch licensed under Creative Commons (3 or 4 are both fine). A seriously competitive good one. It will include Underground obviously, Overground, DLR and the upcoming Crossrail. It is possible to include National Rail too but I have the concern of the SVG rendering cap of 2048 px on Wikimedia so the map layout should be as compact as possible and never exceed that cap. Do you wanna join me? Or you have any idea in your mind already? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Of course, due to the actual physical layout of the lines, there will be some resemblance to the official maps that have been published. Do you think that there will be copyright issues? Transport for London is very protective of its intellectual property. Useddenim (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand that concern. To my knowledge, the only things we can't copy are the relative positions of the lines and the turning points of line joint. These are the prime elements that would constitute as derivative work of the original. The "sticker" station label is simple geometry so wouldn't be a problem. Same goes for the "barbell" or "capsule" interchange symbol, but for irregularly shaped IC symbol, we must make sure it is shaped differently than the official version. You can check or even base upon the SVG doc format of my Overground map which not yet receives any complaint from TfL, one could argue it's not yet popular to get any attention though. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
To make our map even more different than the TfL version, we may consider using 37° and 53° instead of the traditional 45° for diagonal lines. These 2 angles are from the 3:4:5 right triangle which makes calculation of rounded line joint much easier and station layout more flexible than 45°. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Back in 2000 I created a vector version of the UndergrounD diagram in the style of Beck’s 1957 map. See UndergrounD 1957_2000.jpg, UndergrounD 1957_2000.pdf, UndergrounD 1957_2000.fha or UndergrounD 1957_2000.eps. Would this make a good starting point? Useddenim (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the links don't work properly... Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
OOps! Forgot to escape out the spaces (%20) in the file names. Useddenim (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I compared your map with TfL's and overall it's sufficiently different to avoid any trouble from TfL. Although it takes time, it's very straightforward to redo your map in plain SVG format. So we can start discussing how to refine our map. First, do you want to add or reserve space for accessibility symbol? I do know the ACC symbol for TfL maps has some political consideration to avoid unnecessary law suit from disabled communities. Obviously it's none of my concern but I wanna know your opinion on that. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Lose the ACC symbol–it just adds clutter and has nothing to do with the physical relationship of the lines. Is there any software that can convert Freehand, eps or pdf to svg? If so, it would save a lot of time. Useddenim (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Trust me, it would take more time to cleanup the SVG code than writing it from scratch. Because we still need to add Overground and Crossrail to the map, that can be lot of work to reposition the existing lines in your map. It is always better to have the XML layout that is readable to human brain than working on the codes that are randomly generated by software. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm now sketching the new map. Could you please point out in the official TfL map that where I should reserve some reasonable space for any likely extension plan? Thank you. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

See en:London Underground#Proposed improvements and expansions. Useddenim (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your map doesn't include fare zones. Are most Londoners not bothered with calculating tube fare in your opinion? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn’t included because TƒL didn’t add the zones until 2001. And AFAIK, it doesn’t make a difference (but does add further complication and clutter) because people are going to travel where they need or want to go.
When I took a look at your sketch, I couldn’t help but notice more than a passing similarity to this. Were you aware of it? Useddenim (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know anything about, but it's quite interesting and I am tempted to steal the idea of placing the National Rail logo right inside the interchange ring instead of next to the station node or name tag. Either way I intend to stick to 37 and 53 degrees diagonal lines only instead of mixing any more gradient like did on the Central line. Also I won't bend the lines too much for adhering to their alignments in reality, although I understand the website did that for a good reason of better demonstrating unofficial OSIs like Paddington-Lancaster Gate. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

From the Crossrail official site, it's said that a new station and new pedestrian connection for H&C-Circle line will be built. Does that remove the necessity of OSI with other tube platforms? Otherwise I will use dash line to indicate OSI. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My interpretation is that Crossrail will have a direct connection to (the unpaid area of) a new H&C station, which will in turn retain it’s fare-paid connection to the existing Circle/District station. Also, I don’t want you to think that I’m being aloof: I’m happy to provide general comments, but I just don’t think that you are far enough into the design stage that I should be making spefici edit suggestions yet. Useddenim (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually I have already begun working on the SVG file by preparing station nodes and name tags which will give me better motivation to begin aligning every needed elements of the map. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the SVG file I'm working on. I would say it's about 40% complete by the time I leave this message. I don't upload to Wikimedia yet become I don't wanna waste its resource for generating PNG preview. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

An excellent start. Definitely recognizable as the London network, but with your own unique interpretation. However, I do have a few comments:
  • Gloucester Road: I think should also have an interchange symbol✓ Done
  • South Kensington–Knightsbridge: standard radius (as Crossrail does between Paddington and Bond Street)✓ Done
  • Euston–King's Cross: NOR/VIC & MET/CIR/H&C are co-linnear (but shouldn't be)
  • Finchley Road–Wembley Park: JUB/MET not co-linnear (but then how will you handle the West Hampstead interchange symbol?)
  • Camden Town: the City to Edgware & Charing † to Barnet routings are not apparent
  • Bond Street & Tottenham Ct Rd: INTs should be aligned to JUB/NOR lines, rather than perpendicular to CEN/Crossrail
  • Paddington–Edgware Road: kink in CIR/DIS/H&C lines? I think should be straight (Sameboat: CIR/DIS straightened. CIR/H&C still shifts in order to distance from the other pair at Paddington.)
  • Earl's Court: INT symbol encroaches on the curve (i.e. move it left 1/2 INT radius)✓ Done
Useddenim (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I think I will have some major rework to the interior ring because it's quite disproportionate to the eastern and western sectors. I don't think I will preserve the circular arc for the north-east section which makes Crossrail crooked at Farrington ridiculously.
  • Finchley Road–Wembley Park: I don't quite understand this because the official and your versions literally do the same to that section. So what do you expect that to look like?
  • Bond Street & Tottenham Ct Rd: I use the capsular INT for these 2 stations because I don't want to bend Crossrail just for avoiding Oxford Circus. Would that be solved If I place the capsules vertically or horizontally so they aren't perpendicular to either line?
-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I regularly upload the SVG to Google Drive for backup and double-check on mobile device. If you're in the mood, you can also open it in your mobile device and refresh the SVG to check any revision. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • After checking individual station articles I've realized that you mean interchange station with same/cross-platform interchange layout. TBH, the capsular INT icon is suggesting neither the platform layout nor track linearity. I use them just to make sure they cover all the lines which stop by the interchange. However, I did make some attempt to imply the layout at Euston (in the newest revision) which could be cluttering to someone. If the official version doesn't bother with that, neither do I. (The official version does imply that for Baker Street and Euston, but they're far too subtle for anyone without prior knowledge of the system.)
  • Even though Finchley Road and Finchley Road & Frognal are officially OSI, I'm surprised that the official map makes no attempt to indicate that but instead displays them far far away from each other. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


I hope you don't mind: COM:SPLIT#File:BSicon uvÜSTBl.svg → File:BSicon uvÜWBol+lr.svg, File:BSicon uvÜSTBr.svg → File:BSicon uvÜWBor+lr.svg. Although possibly we can find some better names, as discussed before. YLSS (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. In fact, as I was looking at these icons, I realized that they needed both an “l” and an “r” in the suffix because of the four lines. Now, can we put   (vÜSTBl),   (uvÜSTBl),   (vÜSTBr) &   (uvÜSTBr) up for deletion, as there are now topological equivalents? (  (uvÜSTB) and   (utvÜSTB) can go immediately as they are unused outside of the catalogue listing.) Useddenim (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that they we should delete them: they may be used with a slightly different implication that the tracks of bi-directional route separate and re-connect, while   (vÜWBol+lr) doesn't necessary imply this. Pretty much like   (utvJCTgol) &   (uvABZld). YLSS (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Mm... Was the switching of direction in   (vÜWBol+lr) intentional? YLSS (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, no. Just a minor brain fart on my part. Useddenim (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

WASSER geometry[edit]

Just inquiring: where did you take that geometry from?   (WASSER) actually has a simpler one, and AFAIK the rest are derived from that one (at least I derived all parallel WASSERs from it). YLSS (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't honestly know. It was a version I had on my computer that I downloaded in March 2012. Useddenim (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)