Maps on CD

[phil]

In article <[email protected]>, j-p.s
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 May 2003 16:03:34 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell scrawled: ) In fact, the AA claimed to be
>doing just such a ) thing, until the OS proved them wrong in court, and they had to pay £25 )
>million in damages for copying their mapping data.
>
>Was it like with the answer sheets to last year's lecture notes, where the OS included tiny
>deliberate mistakes in the maps and the AA copied them verbatim?

I believe the OS include small deliberate mistakes in their published map data for exactly
this reason...

Phil
--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt

 

[J-P.S]

On Wed, 7 May 2003 22:53:51 +0100, [email protected] scrawled: ) I believe the OS include small
deliberate mistakes in their published ) map data for exactly this reason...

Aha. Mind you, if I were the OS I'd say that too. I mean, if I were a spokesman for the OS. I can't
really imagine being the OS' hive mind.

J-P
--
What time should we set the alarm?

 

[Marc]

Trevor Barton <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> You pays your money...
> >
> > ...and according to the OS you have pay again and again and again without making a choice
>
> Given that (presumably) OS don't make a profit,
They do.

> and that the money you pay goes both to them and to the cost of printing, you are not paying
> again. We all pay for the mapping agency, but those of us that directly use the maps pay more. It
> is silly to suggest that the maps ought to be free - that way the 90% of the population that don't
> ever use (for example) a 1:50000 map

everyone in the UK uses the maps and repays for them, unless of course you believe that the
LAs,Water authorities, land registry,etc.etc. have their own mapping services?

--
Marc Tabards, banners and signs for fundraising events and charities
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

 

[Colin Blackburn]

[email protected] wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, j-p.s
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 7 May 2003 16:03:34 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell scrawled: ) In fact, the AA claimed to be
>>doing just such a ) thing, until the OS proved them wrong in court, and they had to pay £25 )
>>million in damages for copying their mapping data.
>>
>>Was it like with the answer sheets to last year's lecture notes, where the OS included tiny
>>deliberate mistakes in the maps and the AA copied them verbatim?
>
>
> I believe the OS include small deliberate mistakes in their published map data for exactly this
> reason...

I believe this is a myth but then my belief may be wrong. They do, or did, miss off some rather
large buildings in North Yorkshire.

While we're on about maps has anyone else occasionally got non-OS maps when requesting 50,000
maps from multimap? Today I couldn't get the map section with Hawes on as an OS map but instead
got a map that looked like it had been drawn by a child with a wonky pencil. Three tries later I
got the OS tiles.

Colin

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected], Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> typed:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, j-p.s
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 7 May 2003 16:03:34 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell scrawled: ) In fact, the AA claimed to be
>>> doing just such a ) thing, until the OS proved them wrong in court, and they had to pay £25 )
>>> million in damages for copying their mapping data.
>>>
>>> Was it like with the answer sheets to last year's lecture notes, where the OS included tiny
>>> deliberate mistakes in the maps and the AA copied them verbatim?
>>
>>
>> I believe the OS include small deliberate mistakes in their published map data for exactly this
>> reason...
>
> I believe this is a myth but then my belief may be wrong. They do, or did, miss off some rather
> large buildings in North Yorkshire.

http://www.mercatormag.com/article.php3?i=101

Says that the OS denies adding deliberate mistakes, but rather have "fingerprints involving style,
content, and design". I guess that just means that labels rather than data are moved, or something.

 

[Tim Hall]

On Thu, 08 May 2003 11:04:04 +0100, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:

>non-OS maps when requesting 50,000 maps from multimap? Today I couldn't get the map section with
>Hawes on as an OS map but instead got a map that looked like it had been drawn by a child with a
>wonky pencil.

Yep, both 1:50000 and 1:25000 of Hythe Kent. Seems to be a Dutch Road Atlas looking at the copyright
thing. I assumed it was part of the same reason they've dropped house numbers from their search -
too high a price charged by the OS.

> Three tries later
> I got the OS tiles.
>

No luck for me.

Tim
--

fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.

 

[Trevor Barton]

marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Trevor Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> You pays your money...
>> >
>> > ...and according to the OS you have pay again and again and again without making a choice
>>
>> Given that (presumably) OS don't make a profit,
> They do.

So it would appear. Still it doesn't change my argument, though.

>> and that the money you pay goes both to them and to the cost of printing, you are not paying
>> again. We all pay for the mapping agency, but those of us that directly use the maps pay more. It
>> is silly to suggest that the maps ought to be free - that way the 90% of the population that
>> don't ever use (for example) a 1:50000 map
>
> everyone in the UK uses the maps and repays for them, unless of course you believe that the
> LAs,Water authorities, land registry,etc.etc. have their own mapping services?

Yes, quite, we all benifit equally from OS maps, except for those of us who want to use our own
personal printed versions of the maps, who benifit more. I truly don't see how anyone could argue
that they should be free, although you could possibly argue about the cost and that depends on the
printing cost I guess, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't a major part of the retail cost, which
includes a profit margin for everyone on the printing and distribution chain (or are you arguing
that they shoudldn't make a profit on the transaction?). They are hardly standard print jobs, and
even paperbacks at 5.99 only gets the author a quid or so and most publishing houses are not exactly
rolling in it.

Do you think that the LAs, water authorities and all the other commercial users of the maps get
them for nothing? They all pay for it, and at the end of the day mapping is an expensive
business. It seems to me that if you get more benifit from the OS (by buying their maps directly)
than the average use (that we all get through the LA, land registry and the like) then you should
pay extra for it.

Trev