£47.50 + VAT

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:31:14 +0100, David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 22/9/04 1:23 pm, in article [email protected],
> "Colin
> Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> The "indirectly" there involves using a paper OS map to go out into the
>> field as a basis for doing the surveying process yourself.
>
> That must be very tenuous legally. If I were to look at my OS map on my
> way
> to a particular site then that is using an OS map to go out into the
> field.
> But if I then draw a map entirely without reference to the Ordnance
> Survey
> map, how can that be a breach of copyright?

Sorry, my wording was bad there. I mean using the OS map in the field as
part of the surveying process (rather than using it to get there.)

Colin

 

[James Hodson]

On 22 Sep 2004 03:51:16 -0700, "MSeries" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I have been thinking about describing my favourite rides on my website,
>obviously including a map would beneficial. I use OS maps so it would
>be best to scan the relevant parts and superimpose my route on it. I
>understand that copying an OS map is illegal for most purposes so I
>emailed them to check. To do what I want would mean I need to buy a
>licence for £47.50+VAT. Stuff that, I'll draw them myself !

What's the situation if you use a product such as Autoroute as the
basis for your maps?

James

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:45:57 GMT, James Hodson
<[email protected]> wrote:


> What's the situation if you use a product such as Autoroute as the
> basis for your maps?

If the base for a map is not an OS map but another map then you may still
need an OS licence if that map is based on an OS map. Newer orienteering
maps based on older orienteering maps still acknowledge the OS if the
older map used the OS. In addition you may need permission from the
copyright holder of the non-OS map. It's a minefield!

Colin

 

[Mike Quin]

In article <[email protected]>, Colin Blackburn wrote:
> If the base for a map is not an OS map but another map then you may still
> need an OS licence if that map is based on an OS map. Newer orienteering
> maps based on older orienteering maps still acknowledge the OS if the
> older map used the OS. In addition you may need permission from the
> copyright holder of the non-OS map. It's a minefield!

A solution to this problem may be be to draw your own, which is perhaps
not as daunting as it sounds given the availability of logging GPS
receivers and software such as rideplot (http://rideplot.sourceforge.net/)
which can produces traces of the logs.

--
Mike Quin

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:04:50 +0000 (UTC), Mike Quin <[email protected]>
wrote:


> A solution to this problem may be be to draw your own, which is perhaps
> not as daunting as it sounds given the availability of logging GPS
> receivers and software such as rideplot
> (http://rideplot.sourceforge.net/)
> which can produces traces of the logs.

That's okay for areas with good coverage or where you can plot easy lines
to fill in any gaps. I use GPS trackmaker and some home spun software to
produce tracks of fell runs (idle suriosity rather than purpose.) Mapping
a dense woodland is another matter, though even here an altimeter, compass
and steady pacing can produce a decent usable map.

Colin

 

[James Hodson]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:51:34 +0100, "Colin Blackburn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's a minefield!

Let's hope said minefield is clearly marked on whatever map one
chooses.

<removes tongue from cheek>
James

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:19:29 GMT, James Hodson
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:51:34 +0100, "Colin Blackburn"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's a minefield!
>
> Let's hope said minefield is clearly marked on whatever map one
> chooses.
>
> <removes tongue from cheek>

ISTR several prominent military and intelligence facilities failed to make
it to some maps---it must have been foggy when the OS guys went out. They
probably didn't see the minefields either.

Colin

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:50:42 +0100, "Colin Blackburn"
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:23:13 +0100, Colin Blackburn
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The British Orienteering Federation says:
>>
>> "Note that the Ordnance Survey has copyright on all material produced by
>> them, so any map based, however indirectly, on OS material will be in
>> breach of copyright unless it is licensed by them, and the appropriate
>> royalty is paid. This is likely to apply to most orienteering maps,
>> including orienteering maps based on previous orienteering maps."
>>
>> The "indirectly" there involves using a paper OS map to go out into the
>> field as a basis for doing the surveying process yourself.
>
>And the OS says, in relation to using their maps as base maps to create
>new maps for publication:
>
>"Redrawn maps (also called based on) are maps which are made from our maps
>but completely redrawn to suit your needs. They can be drawn or compiled
>with reference to Ordnance Survey maps but are not exact or facsimile
>copies and do not look like the Ordnance Survey product."

What happens if you redraw from an old (and therefore
out-of-copyright) OS map?

How could the OS tell the difference between that and redrawing from a
current map?

(assuming it's for a section of road/track that hasn't substantiually
altered in recent decades)


>
>Redrawing a map is category B copying a map as far as the OS's licensing
>is concerned. Category B licences are cheaper than category A licences
>(for facsimile copying.)
>
>Colin

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:05:09 GMT, Gawnsoft
<[email protected]> wrote:

> What happens if you redraw from an old (and therefore
> out-of-copyright) OS map?

Nothing, as long as the map is over 50 years old.

> How could the OS tell the difference between that and redrawing from a
> current map?

I have no idea.

The copyright and licensing rules are ridiculous and probably
unenforceable at many levels. However, the rules are there and the OS will
take action if they consider they have a case (as one poster is testament
to.)

Colin

 

[[email protected]]

Colin Blackburn wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:19:29 GMT, James Hodson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:51:34 +0100, "Colin Blackburn"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> It's a minefield!
> > Let's hope said minefield is clearly marked
> > <removes tongue from cheek>
> ISTR several prominent military and intelligence facilities failed to
make
> it to some maps---it must have been foggy when the OS guys went out.
They
> probably didn't see the minefields either.


such as the following (taken from NTK.net)

best wishes
james

the NSA monitoring station in MORWENSTOWE, CORNWALL
http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?x=220507&y=112750&scale=25000&rt=overlay.htm
http://qurl.net/4G

so there isn't an OS symbol for a giant AN/FLR-9 "Elephant Cage"
Antenna (dismantled)?:
http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?x=510500&y=239500&scale=25000&rt=overlay.htm
http://qurl.net/4H

MENWITH HILL listening station:
http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?x=420500&y=457000&scale=25000&rt=overlay.htm
http://qurl.net/4I

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:12:15 +0100, Colin Blackburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The copyright and licensing rules are ridiculous

As are their prices I might add. We are currently applying for planning
permission for a domestic windcharger (don't mention the T word!) Our
council requires us to send 6 copies of a ground plan at 1:2500
scale---showing adjoining properties. Ignoring the fact that the council
doesn't understand what adjoining means, the map we were asked to submit
would have cost us £72 for one copy. Making photocopies of this map would
be against copyright restrictions but we could buy additional copies at
20% of that price, thus 6 copies would cost us £144. Bizarrely the council
can sell us the required maps for £18 (for all 6). However this falls
under a map return scheme where we can only buy the maps from the council
if we immediately send tham back to the council. Why the council can't cut
out the post office's role in this I don'y know.

The OS baffles me but I still love maps, even theirs.

Colin

 

[Tony B]

> Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're doing anything morally or
> ethically wrong

too bloody true, who paid for all the surveying and production of OS maps in
the first place??? It pisses me off to have OS demand even more money for
their work when we have already paid for the stuff in the first place. USGS
maps are free on t'internet... OS's pricing is a bugger.

Tony B

 

[Tim Hall]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:41:28 +0100, "Colin Blackburn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:19:29 GMT, James Hodson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:51:34 +0100, "Colin Blackburn"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a minefield!
>>
>> Let's hope said minefield is clearly marked on whatever map one
>> chooses.
>>
>> <removes tongue from cheek>
>
>ISTR several prominent military and intelligence facilities failed to make
>it to some maps---it must have been foggy when the OS guys went out. They
>probably didn't see the minefields either.

When I was a Venture Scout some many years ago, one of our leaders
worked for the MOD in some mapping role. He used to blag maps from
work, to the untrained eye the same as 1:50000 OS maps, but with,umm,
interesting additions.


Tim

 

[Gonzalez]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:48:41 +0100, "Tony B"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're doing anything morally or
>> ethically wrong
>
>too bloody true, who paid for all the surveying and production of OS maps in
>the first place??? It pisses me off to have OS demand even more money for
>their work when we have already paid for the stuff in the first place. USGS
>maps are free on t'internet... OS's pricing is a bugger.

I get my OS maps for free...

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/getamap/

1. Click on "Get-a-map"
2. Tap in a 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 digit grid reference
3. Right click on map centre
4. Save as...
5. Repeat from stage 2
===
6. Use an image editing program to stitch the portions of the map
together
7. Print
8. Laminate (optional)
9. Use as desired

I suppose you think that cars should be able to use the roads for free
too.

 

[Martin Newstead]

Tony B wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're doing anything morally or
>> ethically wrong
>
> too bloody true, who paid for all the surveying and production of OS
> maps in the first place??? It pisses me off to have OS demand even
> more money for their work when we have already paid for the stuff in
> the first place. USGS maps are free on t'internet... OS's pricing is
> a bugger.
>
> Tony B

and have you seen how much profit they make, to reinvest of course.

 

[Tony B]

> I suppose you think that cars should be able to use the roads for free
> too.

Conversly, do you think bicycles should have to pay to use roads?

As for OS, I don't mean free, I mean not pay twice... anyhow, there is a
good argument for taxing motor vehicles to curb usage, I wouldn't have
though that was an issue with maps. I can see why they want to charge to
cover printing, distribution etc. but once bought, what's the problem? Sure,
someone COULD copy the paper map and use it rather than buy another, but I
wouldn't have thought it was a huge loss for them.

As a f'rinstance on how daft it is, in Memory Map Navigator one is allowed
to print off OS copy but only on A4 - A3 or larger is restricted. What's
that all about then?

Tony B

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"MSeries" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I have been thinking about describing my favourite rides on my website,
obviously including a map would beneficial. I use OS maps so it would
be best to scan the relevant parts and superimpose my route on it. I
understand that copying an OS map is illegal for most purposes so I
emailed them to check. To do what I want would mean I need to buy a
licence for £47.50+VAT. Stuff that, I'll draw them myself !

I would say that if it's just a hobby site then go ahead and do the maps,
and if you are unlucky enough to get a "strongly worded letter" from OS then
rethink. This is totally different from the AA case where they were making
big $$ from someone elses work, so OS should very rightly come after them
for $$$compensation.

 

[Doki]

Tony B wrote:
>> I suppose you think that cars should be able to use the roads for
>> free too.
>
> Conversly, do you think bicycles should have to pay to use roads?
>
> As for OS, I don't mean free, I mean not pay twice... anyhow, there
> is a good argument for taxing motor vehicles to curb usage, I
> wouldn't have though that was an issue with maps.

It occured to me, as I drove home today, that if car usage were successfully
reduced, everyone who doesn't drive would end up paying more tax, as cars
and car related bits and bobs contribute a fair bit of tax revenue.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Martin Newstead
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Tony B wrote:
>>> Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're doing anything morally or
>>> ethically wrong
>>
>> too bloody true, who paid for all the surveying and production of OS
>> maps in the first place??? It pisses me off to have OS demand even
>> more money for their work when we have already paid for the stuff in
>> the first place. USGS maps are free on t'internet... OS's pricing is
>> a bugger.
>
> and have you seen how much profit they make, to reinvest of course.

I think that's an irrelevance. What is the overall cost/benefit to the
economy as a whole to have the Ordnance Survey (and the Hydrographic
Office) 'profit centres'? I suspect looking at the economy as a whole
this has a negative impact on industry generally which greatly
outweighs any actual saving made by the treasury. Conversely, US
industry greatly benefits from the ready availability of free, high
quality maps.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Doki
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Tony B wrote:
>>> I suppose you think that cars should be able to use the roads for
>>> free too.
>>
>> Conversly, do you think bicycles should have to pay to use roads?
>>
>> As for OS, I don't mean free, I mean not pay twice... anyhow, there
>> is a good argument for taxing motor vehicles to curb usage, I
>> wouldn't have though that was an issue with maps.
>
> It occured to me, as I drove home today, that if car usage were
> successfully reduced, everyone who doesn't drive would end up paying
> more tax, as cars and car related bits and bobs contribute a fair bit
> of tax revenue.

Or less tax, since car tax does not pay for the wear and tear to the
roads that the car causes, so the road maintenance bill would fall
drastically.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When all else fails, read the distractions.