Template talk:TransLink major route diagram

Bus to Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal
Should that be included in the diagram? I see it included on some SkyTrain maps. Cganuelas (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I personally wouldn't as I feel this diagram is complex enough as it is. —Joeyconnick (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If it was added, then there might be people who would argue for adding the bus to Horseshoe Bay as well – it will just keep going. Mind if I ask on which SkyTrain maps you saw this (stations, pamphlets, web). Sweetnhappy (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw this on some Canada Line stations, particularly Waterfront, City Centre, Bridgeport, and Brighouse, because I sometimes stare at the maps when I'm bored and waiting for the train. It is marked in orange like the B Lines. I do see a ferry icon on the map by Bridgeport that says something along the lines of "Buses to Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal". Cganuelas (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for my train earlier today and saw ferry icons by Granville, Burrard, and Bridgeport stations saying something to the tune of "bus to Horseshoe Bay/Tsawwassen ferries". Should we include that? Cganuelas (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent widening/change in how fare zones are displayed
So with regards to this edit, I have no problem with making the spurs/possible extensions grey (which needs to be done for the Expo Line one too, especially since that is not on the books anymore) and it's nice to show the Canada Line going through a tunnel under False Creek, but I cannot say I support the new display of the fare zones because a) you can't just tell by looking which zone a non-boundary station/stop is in and, more importantly, it makes an already-wide diagram wider. We also lose the fact that zones 4 and 5 are West Coast Express only, although sure, that's not a super-major concern. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you have an issue with the width of the diagram. The  spur for Port Coquitlam extension is still the longest item in the right-hand column, and the left has only grown a few pixels beyond the proposed Expo extension. The only way to narrow the diagram is to use two-line titles (which you strenuously objected to, the last time I tried to add those).
 * I removed the background shading for the fare zones because they were so pale they were indistinguishable on some monitors and displays. I have since revised the diagram so that there is NO confusion where the zone boundaries now are.
 * Ditto for changing the proposed Millennium Line extensions: they just weren't visible.
 * Useddenim (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about width for two reasons: one, you indicated it was of concern when I was, as you say, strenuously objecting to rendering the name of some stations smaller than the others simply to save space, and two, because even though I think there are some factors that should override concerns over width, that doesn't mean I think we should just go wide with no regard for how bulky the diagram is becoming. Could we split "spur for Port Coquitlam extension" after the Port Coquitlam bit? I think having the diagram be a bit longer is better than wider.
 * I wasn't saying that the zone boundaries weren't noticeable (although I do see how the latest version improves things in that respect). I was saying how before you could just look at a station and by the background, without looking elsewhere (i.e. to see what fare zone "block" it was in), you could tell its zone. Now, depending on how large or small your screen is/what your magnification is, you may need to scan a lot farther to figure that out. The way things are now, though, I think we might be overemphasizing those boundaries, which as we know don't currently apply to the buses listed and which, if TransLink gets its way with the Fare Review, won't exist past this year (most likely). Have there been a lot of complaints about the previous backgrounds being too faint? I would argue the zone information is of secondary importance, so if it's not "coming through" on some displays (I'm kinda curious which ones), that isn't a huge issue in my estimation. And also, as I've said, you could argue this new version doesn't communicate zone info perfectly either, in which case I'd say let's go with the narrower version. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that the zone boundaries weren't noticeable (although I do see how the latest version improves things in that respect). I was saying how before you could just look at a station and by the background, without looking elsewhere (i.e. to see what fare zone "block" it was in), you could tell its zone. Now, depending on how large or small your screen is/what your magnification is, you may need to scan a lot farther to figure that out. The way things are now, though, I think we might be overemphasizing those boundaries, which as we know don't currently apply to the buses listed and which, if TransLink gets its way with the Fare Review, won't exist past this year (most likely). Have there been a lot of complaints about the previous backgrounds being too faint? I would argue the zone information is of secondary importance, so if it's not "coming through" on some displays (I'm kinda curious which ones), that isn't a huge issue in my estimation. And also, as I've said, you could argue this new version doesn't communicate zone info perfectly either, in which case I'd say let's go with the narrower version. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've removed the zone numbers and restored the Fare zones section. That's probably all the narrowing that can be done. The colour issue will occur with any display that has the brightness set high and/or the contrast turned down. Useddenim (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm not sure we should be trying to/need to accommodate people whose colour settings are non-standard given that, again, the zone info is secondary but oh well, compromise. Is there a reason we're using a salmon-esque colour for Zone 2 and not outright red? And maybe it would be best to include the zones in the overall Legend section? —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you've been lucky, but every monitor I've ever used has suffered from "drift" over time. The reason for the pale red was that I was trying to follow your lead with the pale colours. Feel free to change things. Useddenim (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

R2,R3,R4
I see the R1 and R5 are included on the diagram. Should the other RapidBus routes be included as well for consistency? Zacharycmango (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly... but this diagram is already more than busy, and I'm not sure it really serves much purpose for readers compared to, say, a diagram like File:Vancouver Transit Network Map.svg (which could use an update), which at least has some relation to geographical reality. And I don't see any easy way to include the east–west R2 particularly as that introduces a whole other set of stop locations that don't already exist in the diagram. It might be better to have one diagram for SkyTrain/SeaBus and one for the rapid buses or again, to abandon this style of diagram for representing all of TransLink's major routes and work on updating the more map-based one. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)