On Jan 1, 10:34*pm, PhilD wrote:
On Jan 1, 5:58*pm, wrote:

If I look on a map , east is on the right, west on the left. I'm afraid
the direction of travel argument is just BS. You might as well say turn
a car map upside down if you're heading south!

... which can often be a convenient way of navigating.

As it happens, though, the diagrams you are looking at aren't maps,
they are diagrams. *If they were maps they'd need more vertical
space. *The diagrams are usually arranged so that, where possible,
they "point" in the direction the train is travelling. *Like it or
not, a lot of people find that very helpful.

Not usually at all, because most lines have branches.

On the Victoria and Bakerloo they have used maps which are different
on each side, corresponding to the direction of travel.

For most lines, they stick to west or north is left. Variation from
that tends to be confusing in my experience, not helpful.

They did attempt the direction-of-travel idea a few years back on the
District, but abandoned it. I don't know what feedback they received
to make them abandon it, but I certainly found it completely wrong to
show that one had to turn right after Earls Court to get to Wimbledon.

I also find it very confusing when I come to those maps in the street
which try to show things the way that you are facing (eg with
southeast at the top or whatever). I have definitely adapted to the
conventions of map-drawing, whether everyone else has or not.

I actually agree with Boltar that unless you are going to put all maps
flat on the ground, they are already so far from reality (being on a
vertical surface) that it's best to stick with conventions that are
well understood, like north at the top.