On 25 May, 22:32, wrote:
In article
,

(Mizter T) wrote:
I think it's nothing more than changed thinking about how to best
represent such interchanges - there seems to be various schools of
thought on this, and which one has the upper hand shifts over time.
(Perhaps market research suggested that many passengers genuinely
didn't realise how close the Hammersmith H&C/Circle station was -
combined with the increased frequency as a result of the Circle line
T-cup changes, this new look on the map might help to persuade more
passengers to use it... I'm speculating of course...)

Indeed so. Didn't the simplification that included removing the Thames and
the zones from the map also amalgamate most multi-disc interchanges into
single discs?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

I think there's a fairly clear principle or two to how they show the
interchanges.

* If the lines cross and there's no difference in accessibility,
there's one disc.

* If it's first stop on a shared stretch (with the same pattern) and
there's no difference in accessibility, there's one disc.

* If the lines come close but but neither cross nor run together with
the same pattern, there are linked discs.

* If there's any difference in accessibility there are linked discs.

Any exceptions to that?