Hello. Since British territory is colored in this map in a darker shade of grey, it appears that Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and Isle of Mann have been left out, as if they're foreign territory. Should they also be colored in dark grey? Just like Great Britain (island), the Hebrides, and the Shetlands?

Only England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be in dark grey. As those are the constituent parts of the UK. As it is currently it is a map of high speed rail in Great Britain, not a map of high speed rail in the UK. PS the isle of man is not part of the UK, neither are the channel islands, so the only part neeeding added to the dark grey is northern ireland. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Rail articles tend to follow a geographical divide - Rail transport in Great Britain and Rail transport in Ireland. There was no political statement intended in the shading of this map (the border was included). As a number of people seem to be getting concerned about this minor detail, the map now reflects the territory of the whole UK, even though HS2 will only be on the island of Great Britain. I hope everyone feels more comfortable with this. Cnbrb (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of showing Scotland in this map? Wouldnt it be better to instead zoom in on England to show the route of the line better? Tri400 (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a map of high speed rail in the UK, Scotland is part of the UK. although currently Scotland does not have any HSR in place, there are plans afoot to adopt it in the future. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the map should probably now be edited, as per today's announcement for a high speed line to link Edinburgh and Glasgow by 2024 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20296195). It is already included in the article. (Apologies for not signing originally; it's rather late) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel it's more useful for the reader to see the whole of GB & Ireland (plus a chunk of France) to show the extent of HS2 in context to introduce the article, otherwise it makes the article far too Anglo-centric. But yes, details maps are also desirable but I think these should feature later in the article. As for the Scottish proposals, thank you ThunderingTyphoons for pointing this out - I have now reflected this on the map. The lines are only projected so they're very approximate, based on this proposal from Transport Scotland. Cnbrb (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good work Cnbrb. The only thing I might add is that maybe the Edinburgh-Glasgow route could be a different colour, since it's a genuine (albeit vague) proposal with a desired time frame for implementation, whereas the routes north of Manc and Leeds (HS2 phase 2) are (unfortunately) just pipe dreams and possibilities at the moment. I'd do it myself, but I don't know how and probably don't have the right program to do it with. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ThunderingTyphoons! Possibly... I've just shaded it slightly darker to differentiate. I'm trying to keep this low-detail though, so I'm leaving out any intermediate stations and smaller spurs that are too small to be usefully represented here. Goodness knows what I'll do if Scotland goes independent...! :-) Cnbrb (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I expect if they did the whole article would have to change somewhat, including the title. Oh well, more editing to do... --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)