or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Check out this trail map of Breck
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Check out this trail map of Breck

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
post #2 of 22

Cool!

 

How can it be so windy if it's really a subway?

post #3 of 22
Thread Starter 

The skiers are moving so fast that they generate wind down the tunnels... of course.

post #4 of 22

Absolutely worthless.

It doesn't show how to get from Marylebone to Elephant and Castle; or from St Pancras to Kings Cross.

post #5 of 22
Thread Starter 

How many people on this board are going to "get" that last post?

post #6 of 22

Your question frightens me.

 

How many people on this board are so sheltered that they're not going to get it?

 

Mind the gap.

 

Just so long as I don't have to fumble for my Oyster Card every time I board a lift.

 

 

post #7 of 22

A disasterous turd.

The justifications are amazing too.  You'd think the map would practically insert itself in your brain by reading their description of it. Actually that type of talk is quite common by 'experts' - reminds me of things on a certain website I've heard.....You can talk about all the intellectual underpinnings and data that make it 'great' but it's still practically unreadable.  Readable for a computer maybe, not a human.

There's no relation to the topography, and the oversimplification actually makes it much harder to interpret.

 

This is not new as they state. Check out this subway map of New York from the early '70's. This type was abandoned as it gave you no relation to the streets above and just made things more confusing.

 

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1972.jpg

post #8 of 22

Maybe it's an out-of-station free transfer?

post #9 of 22


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

 

How many people on this board are going to "get" that last post?


Probably need a poll to make that determination.
 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by goblue View Post

 

Your question frightens me.

 

How many people on this board are so sheltered that they're not going to get it?

 

Mind the gap.

 

Just so long as I don't have to fumble for my Oyster Card every time I board a lift.

 

 

 

 

Well, yeah. Go blue you are correct.  I've never been to London, or even England & I got it.
It logically followed this post:
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurking bear View Post

 

Cool!

 

How can it be so windy if it's really a subway?


 

And I didn't even have to check the trail map to find those names probably aren't listed.  Hasn't everybody read Harry Potter & the significance of Kings Cross ?  There are only a few countries in this world where the names Marylebone to Elephant and Castle as place names make sense. And then there is google.

post #10 of 22

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

 

A disasterous turd.

The justifications are amazing too.  You'd think the map would practically insert itself in your brain by reading their description of it. Actually that type of talk is quite common by 'experts' - reminds me of things on a certain website I've heard.....You can talk about all the intellectual underpinnings and data that make it 'great' but it's still practically unreadable.  Readable for a computer maybe, not a human.

There's no relation to the topography, and the oversimplification actually makes it much harder to interpret.

 

This is not new as they state. Check out this subway map of New York from the early '70's. This type was abandoned as it gave you no relation to the streets above and just made things more confusing.

 

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1972.jpg

 

I actually agree with the justification.  Often when I'm at the summit, I get very lost, because of the artisitic license used on the map.  Here, the trails at the summit are very well organized, and I think it would help me out a lot.  That being said--I don't think that there aren't problems with this map.  But I think I would prefer this to a poorly rendered artist's "interpretation."

 

BTW--a ski resort is not like the NYC subway.  There are no streets to relate to.  So I don't care about that part.  As long as the signage on the hill is adequate, this new map is certainly superior to the old.

 

 

post #11 of 22

Humph might be rolling in his grave at this one, but could the Breck map now be added to an international game of Mornington Crescent?

 

...I'll need to consult my copy of the 1948 rule book for the definitive answer.

post #12 of 22

Actually I like it.  It would be interesting to try to use it.

I've been at areas (not Breck) where I tried to go somewhere and wound up back at the same lift.

 

And similarly, trying to get around Heavenly when the upper lifts are closed for wind?  Very confusing.

 

One potential problem is that the trails need to be well-marked, since you have no additional info to help you identify them. 

 

My favorite map was the Killington map in the 1980's when they superimposed the trail system on a topographic map.  An actual map, not a painting!  Amazing.  I suppose they discontinued it because their brilliant management couldn't understand it.

post #13 of 22

4th edition, page 37

post #14 of 22


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 911over View Post

 

4th edition, page 37

 

Wasn't that superceded by the 13th edition, chapter 7 I believe

post #15 of 22


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzinwin View Post

 

 

 

I actually agree with the justification.  Often when I'm at the summit, I get very lost, because of the artisitic license used on the map.  Here, the trails at the summit are very well organized, and I think it would help me out a lot.  That being said--I don't think that there aren't problems with this map.  But I think I would prefer this to a poorly rendered artist's "interpretation."

 

BTW--a ski resort is not like the NYC subway.  There are no streets to relate to.  So I don't care about that part.  As long as the signage on the hill is adequate, this new map is certainly superior to the old.

 

 

A poor map is a poor map.  Both a realistic style and this abstraction are done by 'Artists'.
 

 

There are no streets to relate to as in a subway map, but there are 3 dimensions.  By abstracting it into a flat plane with no indications of terrain, you have given up massive amounts of information.  What the pitch is, how the pitch varies, are there trees, does the trail turn, etc. You may solve confusion in one area while eliminating all sorts of knowledge of where you are. 

Also, because everything is abstracted, every intersection needs to have signs on it to tell you where you are.

This is a fairly poor solution to the rather complicated problem of making a map of a ski area.

The best way to find out is to test it by having people use it.

post #16 of 22

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

 


 

A poor map is a poor map.  Both a realistic style and this abstraction are done by 'Artists'.
 

 

There are no streets to relate to as in a subway map, but there are 3 dimensions.  By abstracting it into a flat plane with no indications of terrain, you have given up massive amounts of information.  What the pitch is, how the pitch varies, are there trees, does the trail turn, etc. You may solve confusion in one area while eliminating all sorts of knowledge of where you are. 

Also, because everything is abstracted, every intersection needs to have signs on it to tell you where you are.

This is a fairly poor solution to the rather complicated problem of making a map of a ski area.

The best way to find out is to test it by having people use it.

 

Honestly, there is realtively little information gained in the artistic "painting" that most maps use.  Pitch and pitch variation are not something that is accurately portrayed in any ski map I know of.  Pitch is basically ascertained through the color code.  Green=flat.  Black=steep.  Trees are the only possible advanrage to an artist's drawing.  However, that is also my problem.  Trees are the most inaccurate part of any ski map, trying to follow an artist's interpreation of trees has led me astray many a time.  Whether the trail turns is also very inaccurately portrayed on most maps. 

 

The reason this abstract maps is good is because it displays only the information that is importnat--namely the relationship between one trail and another.  When I reach an intersection of trails, I'd like to know EXACTLY where I am, and where I should go (especially when I'm at the summit where there are 10 trails alll going in different diretions) .  With this new map, I know exactly where I am.  With an artists drawing, who knows?

 

You're right in that this map is useless if there are no signs.  But most ski areas I know have signs at every intersection. 

post #17 of 22

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

 

Check out this subway map of New York from the early '70's. This type was abandoned as it gave you no relation to the streets above and just made things more confusing.

 

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1972.jpg

 

It's only confusing to some. To others it's simpler to understand because it has less additional information. There are versions of the Tube map which show overhead roads, but very few people use them. Most people who use the Tube get on at the nearest station to where they are now and want to get to the nearest station to where they want to be. They don't want to see every road that's above them. They just want to make a journey. If you're ever in London, it's worth a try - you get used to it pretty quick!

post #18 of 22

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post

 

If you're ever in London, it's worth a try - you get used to it pretty quick!

 

Living in London, I can say this: why are the overhead roads needed on the tube map? I'm fine without.

post #19 of 22

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiking4 View Post

 

 

 

Living in London, I can say this: why are the overhead roads needed on the tube map? I'm fine without.

 

I think most of us are fine without.

I've seen the tourist maps with the various highlights marked on them, but they are then more difficult to find where you want to go on the Tube.

I like the Picadilly line tubes where they have a kinda map thing on them that lets you see what's overhead (at least it passes the time between Earls Court and T1)

post #20 of 22

It's the style used by all reasonable subway systems:

 

www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/subway/

 

The London system is unusual in that it is multiply connected.  (Even if it isn't a subway.)

 

post #21 of 22

OK maybe I am not well but..... I looked at it and my first thought way ahhh finnaly a map I can follow!!!

post #22 of 22

On the London Subway map, here's a review about a whole book on the subject:

(Review by Edward Tufte)

from:  http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/bookreviews


 

 


Mr Beck's Underground Map

by Ken Garland

 

Harry Beck's diagram of the 7+ lines of the London Underground, although geographically inaccurate, provides a coherent overview of a complex system. With excellent color printing, classic British railroad typography (by Edward Johnson), and, in the modern style, only horizontal, vertical, and 45 degree lines, the map became a beautiful organizing image of London. For apparently quite a number of people, the map organized London (rather than London organizing the map). Despite 70 years of revision due to extensions of the Underground and bureaucratic tinkering (the marketing department wrecked the map for several years), the map nicely survives to this day.

 

Later European and American knock-offs did not succeed at all. The underground map and Minard's famous Carte Figurative of the French Army's disaster in Russia in the war of 1812 are alike in important respects: both are brilliant, and neither travels well. The underground map and Napoleon's March are perfectly attuned to their particular data, so focused on their data sets. They do not serve, then, as good practical generic architectures for design; indeed, revisions and knock-offs have uniformly been corruptions or parodies of the originals. Both, however, exemplify the deep principles of information design in operation, as well as the craft and passion behind great information displays.

 

There is a fine book on the map: Ken Garland, Mr Beck's Underground Map (Capital Transport Publishing 1994). The book describes the enormous care, craft, thought, and hard work of Harry Beck that went on for decades--exactly what it takes to do great information design and so in contrast to the quick-and-dirty practices and thinking of commercial art. Garland's book is also a model for writing histories of great information designs.


New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Check out this trail map of Breck