[mistrial9]

ok yes BUT .. a reason that transit maps were carefully composed is because people "who probably need assistance when using transit" plus "people who do not speak this human language" plus "people who depend on completeness and accuracy to a high degree" are all, at the same time, using one and only one map.

hurrah for computer science BUT this is also graphic design, with human factors, and simultaneously authoritative data that does matter to many real people. Easy tag-on criticism is "who needs all transit maps worldwide at all times" ? Isn't it obviously more important to have reliable, accurate, readable maps for the people who are using the system heavily in that area, instead of stretching all of those qualities to get a toy-prize for armchair readers and the world cloud servers on the Internet? common sense plays a role in the guaging accolades here IMHO

[mattlutze]

I think you're describing one of the core motivations for these decades of research.

In most places still, changes to these maps need to go through lots of people process. This implies they're slow to update, and therefore often not entirely accurate or optimally understandable. For example, consider service works or temporary outtages.

The outcome of this research is not a toy-prize for armchair readers, but a generalized algorithmic approach to building necessary and important accessibility tools.

[mistrial9]

as research it is interesting and gets wide attention, yes.

the reasoning above is a basis for rational discussion?

difficult to say in a diplomatic way on a computer science forum, that "replacing" human graphic design using algorithms does not get unlimited upvotes from me for real reasons