File talk:MTR System Topological Map.svg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Suggestions
[edit]
@Jc86035: So do you have any ideas as to how can I improve this map? --Emphrase (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Emphrase: Your last update to the map (at 14:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)) definitely improved it, although there are still some weird things with the system and coastline geometry (particularly the line alignment in Kwai Chung and the Airport Express going straight from Tsing Yi to Chek Lap Kok) and the line colours are off. I've tried making another one using Sameboat's map tutorial. Haven't had time to add coastlines/rivers or most of the name tags yet though, and the central Kowloon bits should probably be moved east a little. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)- I agree with the Airport Express part and the line colours part (except West Rail Line, because MTR's colour for it is too close to Tsuen Wan Line's red). Geographical accuracy though, a topological map is meant to be just a simple overview of the network and not to be geographical accurate, and to find stations easier, so for the line geometry I tried to make it easier to look at what stations each line has and how they interchange, with less concern for geographical accuracy (such as in my map Tsuen Wan is almost as north as Tai Po Market, where in reality it's not even close). But I also agree that coastlines can be improved. Emphrase (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Also one of my goals when creating this map is to have no station labels overlapping the lines. Emphrase (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the Airport Express part and the line colours part (except West Rail Line, because MTR's colour for it is too close to Tsuen Wan Line's red). Geographical accuracy though, a topological map is meant to be just a simple overview of the network and not to be geographical accurate, and to find stations easier, so for the line geometry I tried to make it easier to look at what stations each line has and how they interchange, with less concern for geographical accuracy (such as in my map Tsuen Wan is almost as north as Tai Po Market, where in reality it's not even close). But I also agree that coastlines can be improved. Emphrase (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry if I am being too bitter:
- You used percentage for width and height attributes in SVG element which isn't supported by libRSVG, the SVG rasterization tool employed by Wikimedia. You need to give actual length value maybe in px so the image preview in file description page scales properly.
- The font size of all text is way too small compared to the effective dimension of the image even when I open the raw SVG in browser. The station labels and legend text are less than half of the legible size to me.
- The fact that you have converted all text to outline/path isn't going to invite anyone to collaborate with you because we have no raw text to work with. This means that we (without the source file) will have to add all text from scratch even if we just want to change the font size or correct a typo. To me, the usability of a vector map without searchable/selectable text is very indifferent from a raster image even you take the image scalability into consideration. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- For the first and the third point, the problem is Affinity Designer's SVG generation isn't very good. In the first version of this file uploaded the text was all over the place when rendered. I'm increasing the text size and working on alternative SVG generation methods. Emphrase (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- From your latest update, I can see there are many things wrong with SVG exported by Affinity. My biggest issue is that all glyphs of most words are unnecessarily separated by text/tspan elements and have their transform-position being defined independently. Another issue is that the interchange roundels have the black center which uses "circle" element which is fine, but he white rim is a horribly complicated path shape. That path data alone is 9430 byte long. And because you just duplicate the shape instead of storing the reusable shapes in "defs" ("symbol panel" in Ai and Affinity?) and instantiate them, that wasteful use of path data is multiplied by the amount of the interchanges present in the map. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Emphrase: Maybe to avoid duplicating work, we could both work on either File:MTR map.svg or this file? I wouldn't be opposed to using yours instead of the one I created, but there are definitely still some issues with file size and the way you've added the text and station icons. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)- @Jc86035: I think both maps are great, and I have no problem with working on only one of them. Emphrase (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Sameboat: do you have an opinion on this? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 09:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)- The style and principle of the 2 maps differ quite so much, on the personal and accessible level I prefer to work on Jc86035's version. The core problem of Emphrase's version I suspect is that Emphrase is still new to the software so I don't expect you would ever take the limitation of libRSVG into consideration when working in Affinity Designer. The fragmented text is something I would rather work from scratch instead of fixing it one by one. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Sameboat: do you have an opinion on this? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
- @Jc86035: I think both maps are great, and I have no problem with working on only one of them. Emphrase (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Emphrase: Maybe to avoid duplicating work, we could both work on either File:MTR map.svg or this file? I wouldn't be opposed to using yours instead of the one I created, but there are definitely still some issues with file size and the way you've added the text and station icons. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
- From your latest update, I can see there are many things wrong with SVG exported by Affinity. My biggest issue is that all glyphs of most words are unnecessarily separated by text/tspan elements and have their transform-position being defined independently. Another issue is that the interchange roundels have the black center which uses "circle" element which is fine, but he white rim is a horribly complicated path shape. That path data alone is 9430 byte long. And because you just duplicate the shape instead of storing the reusable shapes in "defs" ("symbol panel" in Ai and Affinity?) and instantiate them, that wasteful use of path data is multiplied by the amount of the interchanges present in the map. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- For the first and the third point, the problem is Affinity Designer's SVG generation isn't very good. In the first version of this file uploaded the text was all over the place when rendered. I'm increasing the text size and working on alternative SVG generation methods. Emphrase (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
