I've just discovered this and I'm sure you've all seen it before, but just
in case...

http://www.motorwaymap.co.uk/pdf/Mot...%20version.pdf

Ian

On 2011\09\24 19:22, Ian F. wrote:
I've just discovered this and I'm sure you've all seen it before, but
just in case...

http://www.motorwaymap.co.uk/pdf/Mot...%20version.pdf

Thanks.

It's superficially interesting, but what lets it down is that the
motorway network is not a self-contained concept in the way a rail
network is. Anyone travelling from the A3M to the M27 would not see the
link between them as being in any way inferior to the motorways
themselves, yet this map makes the link between them look almost as if
it's under construction. Also particularly dishonest is its portrayal of
the A194M leading to the A167M in Newcastle - I believe that in reality
anyone going from the A1M to the A167M would avoid the A194M completely,
unless there were serious traffic issues on the more direct routes.
Ironically a map of the road network which omitted motorways would be a
self-contained network, and would be useful for cyclists etc., but the
transport buffs would never draw such a map. You could argue that the
tube network has similar problems in that it encourages people going
from Wimbledon to South Wimbledon to go via Earls Court, but it was at
least originally paid for by an organisation which wanted people to do
exactly that.

On 2011\09\24 20:04, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\09\24 19:22, Ian F. wrote:
I've just discovered this and I'm sure you've all seen it before, but
just in case...

http://www.motorwaymap.co.uk/pdf/Mot...%20version.pdf


Thanks.

It's superficially interesting, but what lets it down is that the
motorway network is not a self-contained concept in the way a rail
network is. Anyone travelling from the A3M to the M27 would not see the
link between them as being in any way inferior to the motorways
themselves, yet this map makes the link between them look almost as if
it's under construction. Also particularly dishonest is its portrayal of
the A194M leading to the A167M in Newcastle - I believe that in reality
anyone going from the A1M to the A167M would avoid the A194M completely,
unless there were serious traffic issues on the more direct routes.
Ironically a map of the road network which omitted motorways would be a
self-contained network, and would be useful for cyclists etc., but the
transport buffs would never draw such a map. You could argue that the
tube network has similar problems in that it encourages people going
from Wimbledon to South Wimbledon to go via Earls Court, but it was at
least originally paid for by an organisation which wanted people to do
exactly that.

To finish off what I was saying, this map is ultimately a self-indulgent
exercise, in that the reason it exists is not to convert a screen into a
map, but to convert its author into a cartographer.

You may well be right. I can't think of any other reason for creating something so utterly useless.

"Robin9" wrote:

'Basil Jet Wrote:
. . . . this map is ultimately a self-indulgent exercise, in that the
reason it exists is not to convert a screen into a map, but to convert
its author into a cartographer.

You may well be right. I can't think of any other reason for creating
something so utterly useless.


What a bunch of miserable sods you are! It's just a bit of harmless fun,
surely.

Well, I may be a "miserable sod" and perhaps this silly exercise is "just a bit of harmless fun", but can you sensibly challenge either my opinion or Basil Jet [_2_]'s assertion?

What a bunch of miserable sods you are! It's just a bit of harmless fun,
surely.

My thoughts too, Mizter T. I like it....I posted it on Facebook, and the
only complaint was that he'd missed service stations....

"Mizter T" wrote:
"Robin9" wrote:
'Basil Jet Wrote:
. . . . this map is ultimately a self-indulgent exercise, in that the
reason it exists is not to convert a screen into a map, but to convert
its author into a cartographer.

You may well be right. I can't think of any other reason for creating
something so utterly useless.


What a bunch of miserable sods you are! It's just a bit of harmless fun,
surely.


Yes, it's a bit of harmless fun ... until people start using it to
navigate. The fact it exists means that, before long, some people
will use it.

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 2011\09\24 19:22, Ian F. wrote:
I've just discovered this and I'm sure you've all seen it before, but
just in case...

http://www.motorwaymap.co.uk/pdf/Mot...%20version.pdf

Thanks.

It's superficially interesting, but what lets it down is that the motorway
network is not a self-contained concept in the way a rail network is.
Anyone travelling from the A3M to the M27 would not see the link between
them as being in any way inferior to the motorways themselves, yet this
map makes the link between them look almost as if it's under construction.

Not helped by the author making no attempt at all to show the roads in the
correct orientation.

the A3(M) travels almost exactly N-S not E-W, and it's not like there isn't
the space to get this right

tim

We were about to embark at Dover, when (Ian
F.) came up to me and whispered:


I've just discovered this and I'm sure you've all seen it before,
but just in case...

Out of Date, and factually wrong.

The A6144(M) is no more, as is the M10.

The A14(M), A92(M), A168(M), A604(M), A635(M), A666(M), A1058(M) and
A6138(M) are all missing.

Tis pretty though.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----