Template talk:Los Angeles Metro Rail

Flipped subway map

So the reason I initially aligned the subway map with Union Station at the top was to match the general alignment of the light rail map, where the left column is generally the north and west side stations with the east and south to the right. (it sort of fails at the D Line, but it was more imperative to maintain topography.) I don't totally mind the arrangement there is now, but I just wanted my original intent known. -MJ (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mjdestroyerofworlds: Ah, I see. Maybe perhaps it would be better this way if you'd prefer? My rationale for flipping it was trying to align the B Line as north-south along with the A Line in the light rail diagram. I would be totally fine with changing it back. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Breaks need fixing

Unfortunately, since I am not the best with BSicon, I left some breaks on the C Line. I was trying to correct some notably flawed geography since not all of the line is elevated. Therefore, I want to depict the stations at Avalon, Willowbrook/Rosa Parks, and Long Beach Boulevard all as separate elevated stations (akin to the E Line from Culver City, La Cienega/Jefferson, and Expo/La Brea) within the confines of this template, but I don't know how or if there is a way to do this (since they're all depicted as on a non-geographical curve.) Is there anyone who may be willing to assist me? I just didn't want to leave this problem unintended, but this would be more accurate to the geography of the C Line. Thank you! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@OrdinaryScarlett I admit it's been a little while since I was on the C, but surely it's elevated while running in the median of 105? Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

A look on Google (satellite view, 3D) for each station's coordinates suggests they are as @OrdinaryScarlett describes. I'll check for a solution to the requirement. Bazza (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I've tried the simple expedient (feel free to revert) of making the curve around Willowbook/Rosa Parks 90 degrees instead of 45, and then applying all the elevation formatting. Mackensen (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the assistance! I personally don't mind it at all. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@OrdinaryScarlett: @Mackensen beat me to it, although I've since simplified their solution. I've made a couple of amendments to reflect elevation as shown on Google satellite view. I've also created and uploaded some more overlays to make it easier to produce sequences of separated stations with elevations, embankments, and cuttings. Feel free to revert or amend as you wish. Bazza (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Mackensen (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Not too sure if this would be possible given the complexities, but would it be possible to somehow show the freeway median stations on the A and C lines in their respective individual templates as either elevated or below grade? This might be redundant since the road icon already occupies the outer area of the tile. Additionally, would it also be possible on the C Line's individual template to show where I-105 "swerves" to meet with the line as a bridge? Again, probably redundant and unnecessary give the complexity of the road icon already taking up the outer area of the tile. Please don't feel pressured to fulfill this request if not possible. Thank you! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@OrdinaryScarlett: My personal view is that these are railway Route Diagrams, schematic diagrams of the route and railway elements on it. They are not geographic maps. It's easy (I've been there and done that) to get drawn into trying to add too much incidental detail, especially in such limited space, and I've had to KISS myself from time to time.

Separately: you might save some horizontal space by only including one ~~ between station names and their interchange symbols (e.g. 7th Street/​Metro Center~~   ). Bazza (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate it! —OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S. @Bazza 7: The editor who originally added line bullets at the terminus stations wanted it this way to distinguish between terminus stations and interchange stations by the usage of spaces. Personally, I'm not sure what would be the best approach on this specific issue, but perhaps you may? My sincere apologies for the additional inconvenience. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Do not hide content

@OrdinaryScarlett: You reverted my edit which made visible the diagram key. Please read MOS:DONTHIDE and consider reinstating my change. Bazza (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I will do so immediately. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sandbox

I started Template:Los Angeles Metro Rail/sandbox to adapt some of the design features of Template:Overground RDT to this template. I feel that with a complex grid of lines, this approach provides greater clarity as far as which bullets represent which stations and the overall system topography. The major issue facing it seems to be the width of the map. There are probably also a few more spacing issues, such as with the Hollywood/Highland label on the upper left. I'm also not super happy with the tunnel section of the E line east of downtown. -MJ (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I love the idea. But yeah, as you said, the main issue is the massive width of the template, which will definitely be an issue when displaying on the article (and already is on mobile). OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@OrdinaryScarlett: a recent edit you made added planned opening years for stations. the reason I didn't include these from the offset it because horizontal space is a real premium here, and any extraneous text isn't really helping keep that down. as you left it, the dates are encroaching into adjacent lines on the unopened bit of the K line (which tbf is likely to open before this version of the routemap gets implemented), and the Foothill extension dates are adding more width on the left. I think the need for keeping the size down on this particular version of the map trumps the ability to display a bunch of information for each individual station. Maybe we could implement something in the key whereby †. ‡, or similar can denote opening dates? sort of like how the Tube map deals with notes? -MJ (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed the opening dates for now, though your suggestion could maybe be implemented. Additionally, since we're here, how would you feel about the inclusion of the maintenance and storage facilities, like on the current main diagram? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not strictly against it - as long as clarity can be maintained especially in the downtown core. Division 20 seems like it would be a messy thing to integrate. -MJ (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mjdestroyerofworlds: I'd say if it's too much trouble there's not a pressing need; it may be a nice feature to integrate but judging from the complexity of the design of this map already, it's not really an issue if they're not.

P.S. I finally replaced all of the missing icons, I'm not sure if that's what's holding this map back from formally replacing the current template in mainspace. Either way, just figured I'd let you know. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure we have clear criteria for when or even if the main rdt should be replaced. I do think IF the thicc sandbox version is going to go live, the way the rdt is presented in the Metro Rail article needs to change too. Instead of placing it in the infobox, place it in the article in the same way that the prototype Template:Overground RDT is integrated into London Overground: just as a standalone routemap template in the Los Angeles Metro Rail article probably under either the Lines or Stations subheader. I also think there may be further width savings to be had, but I'm just not seeing them myself. If you feel it's fit for replacing, I could probably agree to that - it's certainly complete and fairly concise. -MJ (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I just wasn't certain on what your intent for the sandbox template was. Since you were its creator, I'd rather leave it up to you to utilize it in any way you see fit. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to do what you want with it - it's on Wikipedia so it belongs to everyone. :) I'm not ready to push the button myself yet, but if other people feel this would be an improvement, then go for it. -MJ (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

One element I did considered when designing this originally was that stations should pretty universally be designated with full-sized BHF icons instead of as HST-sized "minor" stations. The closest thing to minor stops on the system are the stations in Long Beach which are one-way - and those do indeed look much better in the most recent revision. Anyway, BHF in (nearly) all cases for two primary reasons: all stops on the system are compulsory, in that every train on a line stops at every station, so no station is really any more or less important than any other (LB one-ways being an exception); and a more design-oriented reason is that the BHF icon fills up more of a single BSicon cell, so you can get tighter spacing between the icon itself and the adjacent text label. -MJ (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm always looking at the spacing at Pico/Aliso and see if it can be improved, and especially with the HST icon the label seems so distant from the icon. -MJ (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mjdestroyerofworlds: Feel free to revert this change of mine, I used HST since apparently it's the standard for light rail for BSicon. I wouldn't be opposed to changing it back if that's better or more preferred in this scenario. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Maintenance and Storage Facilities?

Would it be possible to include all of the maintenance and storage facilities on this route diagram template? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)