Talk:Tube map

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tube map article.
Article policies
Tube map was the selected article of the London Transport Portal between 20th November - 5th December.

Contents

[edit] Putting the actual tube map on this page

I was expecting to see a copy of the actual map on this page. I assume it's omitted because of copyright? If not, it really, really, ought to be there. -- 62.255.32.8

Certainly the Diagram is copyright and I suspect the copyright is enforced fairly strictly. We do need something other than the current "geographic map" illustration, which is completely misleading. A photo of a poster-sized Diagram in context on a station wall should be OK. I wonder whether we could show a small detail as fair use - not enough to be useful to anyone as a map (and thus affect the market), but enough to show the style of the Diagram. Just Baker Street, maybe... or perhaps an interchange, a NR interchange and a "tick-mark" station. --rbrwrˆ
Could we use the original? If it was designed in 1931, then (assuming that the copyright was signed over to London Underground Ltd., or whatever it's called nowadays, and not kept with Mr. Beck or some other individual) it will have expired after 70 years - 3 years ago.
I'm pretty sure that we could get away with a small excerpt under fair dealings, but I think it would be least complicated from a legal perspective if it was done by an American located in the US under their much-broader fair use law (please note: this is not an incitement for a foreigner to possibly break UK law, merely an observation).
Of course, if Jimbo et al. would get off their high horse position that, frankly, I don't really sympathise with, and allow us to use with-permission credited images, I'm sure TfL would be happy to allow us to use it (they've given permission before for similar things). But that's another argument.
James F. (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
We could try getting permission to put 'the Great Bear' up instead. If we make it small enough nobody could tell the difference. ;) Morwen - Talk 20:16, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
ISTR Patterson had a good deal of trouble getting permission himself[1]. Marnanel 20:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Barnaby Dawson found the necessary contact details:

Transport for London Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL Tel: 020 7941 4500

We could do worse than just asking them if we can post the map. It can't do any harm and there's no obvious reason why they wouldn't accept. If more than one person were to write in requesting permission then we're likely to get a positive response. Please make sure you make it clear that we'll display their copyright notice and that the map will be displayed only on one page.

With-permission images are officially discouraged on Wikipedia ... - David Gerard 16:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If putting the map in wikipedia itself is breaking policy, could we at least make the link to the copy on TFL's website more prominent? Featuring the link in the first paragraph might be the best way to do this. Birkett 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have now done this - hope this is ok Birkett 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to have an image link to a page? Surely if we had a small image that linked to the tfl site that would be OK? I don;t fully know how the software on here works so I'll leave it up to yous. But this silly anti-copyright position is daft. If they are willing to give permission than why not?

On the main London Underground page the nitpicker might succeed in defeating a fair use rationale -- but surely since this is an article about the tube map fair use would sail gloriously on here? (We wouldn't be using a copyrighted image to illustrate the tube; we'd be using a copyrighted image to illustrate itself.) Doops | talk 08:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Would a map that was stylized in a sufficiently different manner be original enough to not be derivative? For example, only using right angles and different symbols for stops? I've been musing about whether a fully-two-dimensional application of the icons from WP:TRAIL could be used for these circumstances... Vagary 09:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As somebody said three years ago, a low-resolution photograph of a Tube map poster on a wall should be fine. I'm not entirely up to speed on Wikipedia's copyright guidelines, but WP:FAIRUSE suggests that a low-resolution illustrative photo of the Tube map would fall under fair use, in an article that was solely about that map. --McGeddon 09:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm fairly sure that adding an image of the map would be acceptable under WP:FAIRUSE. Specifically:

  • Under "Acceptable images" it lists "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.". I think most people would agree that the tube map is an iconic image, and I think an entire article devoted to the image counts as commentary.
  • The section "Unacceptable images" mentions maps: "A map, scanned or traced from an atlas, to illustrate the region depicted. Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article" (emphasis mine). As the map is the subject of the article, this exception would seem to apply.

I don't see why this discussion has dragged on for so long, given that the issues here are exactly the same as the issues surrounding any other copyright image on Wikipedia. It's fair use according to the guidelines, the image absolutely should be there. --carelesshx talk 04:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whether the commonest name is "Underground" or "the tube"

David, you changed the text on Tube map with the comment that "not 'frequently' - it's universal" rather than the edit I made that it is "frequently". I really can't agree with you (but haven't reverted it yet, but will if you don't) as, by definition, it isn't "universal" - just look at the map itself (no label of 'tube' anywhere) and 'universal' means no alternative used elsewhere, absolute which the name 'tube' clearly is not. 'Tube' may be very common, but it is not absolute. --VampWillow 13:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When people talk about 'the tube', how often do they implicitly exclude the subsurface lines? Pretty much never. Does tube.tfl.gov.uk only cover the deep tunnels? Of course not. There's a case to be made that "tube" only means the deep lines, but IMHO it's not a common enough POV to rate a mention in the intro, if it even rates one in the article as a whole - David Gerard 13:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In an Anglo-centric (or more accurately London-centric) view I'd agree with you, but if I look at leaflets for tourists and many sites on a world-wide basis they will as frequently use 'underground' not 'tube' (Aside: London Underground Limited not London Tube Limited!) which is why I left the 'frequently' in there. It is not universal. --VampWillow 15:05, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth, London Underground Limited is an abbreviation of the company's original full title, which was The London Underground Electric Railway Company Limited. The term Tube had not yet at that time come into general useage. Arkady Rose 21:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha - I thought you meant the application of the term "tube" (all vs. deep level only), rather than what the network is called (underground vs tube). In that case I maintain the text was unclear, because I took it to mean the first, not the second - David Gerard 15:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How about we go with but the name is usually applied to the whole system. (or maybe but the name is applied by Londoners to the whole system.). ? --VampWillow 16:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As I say above, I'm really not sure the sentence or distinction warrant being in the intro or article at all. Possibly on London Underground, but this article is about the map - David Gerard 16:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Conclusion; I just drop the remaining bit of the edit from someone else that I'd tried to rework entirely - much clearer anyway! Will have to watch for its re-appearance though. --VampWillow 16:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
AFAIK, 'tube' and 'London Underground' (or simply 'Underground') are used almost interchangably, with the first being more of a colloquial use, and the second being the most formal.
--Sasuke Sarutobi 23:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colour history

I've found that some people think the lines have always been the same colour since they were first built / added to the map, but they haven't. Views on adding a brief 'colour history' box? --VampWillow 21:30, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

I'd like to see that.

[edit] Public domain tube map

This page now has an image of the current tube map added by User:Greaterlondoner. The image is marked with Template:PD and the text 'Released to the Public Domain by London Underground'. I believe this to be untrue. User:Greaterlondoner has also been adding cropped sections of the map to individual tube station articles. I think using the wrong image copyright tags like this is a very serious matter. Suggestions? Edward 22:30:47, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

I don't believe a commons-licensed alternative Tube map would be a great chore if done collaboratively, although it might be a pain to keep it up-to-date. I've put a Zone 1 version up here if anybody is interested. --Dominic Sayers 13:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (amended --Dominic Sayers 16:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Latest tube map

User:Unisouth has added the current tube map, Image:Tube map.JPG uploaded under the GFDL as "my own image that i will let anyone use". I thus listed it on copyright problems since it is clearly the copyrighted London Underground tube map. User:Unisouth has now changed the description from "my own image that i will let anyone use" to "this is the official tfl tube map. it can be viewed or downloaded as long as it is not for commercial (profitable) use." and left a message on my talk page explaining that TfL allow use. Since it is a "non commercial use only" license of a copyrighted image, it would be elligible for deletion, but following on from the discussion above, can we claim fair use of a lower resolution copy for use illustrating this article? I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/Fair_use_claims#Fair_use_claims_needing_a_second_opinion. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible map

I have a small ash-tray-thing with an out-of-date (early 90's) but stylistically correct map on it. Could an image of this be uploaded? It is out of date enough not to affect map sales, and could also be used to illustrate how it has become a "brand", and is therefore used to appear on ash-tray-things. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The map is not sold (at least directly to the public), though it is probably sold to companies wishing to use it commercially (the makers of A-Z maps for example). A copy of the map is freely given out at every tube station to anyone who asks. If I was to scan the latest copy I have, and put that up here, would all the problems then go away? Astronaut 17:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the map is sold or not, it's an issue of copyright. TfL is known to take a very robust view in defence of their copyrights, so no, neither of these suggestions would be acceptable. Sorry. -- Arwel (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan Line Colours

Can anybody explain where the idea that the Metropolitan Line is magenta comes from? Magenta is a very bright, saturated colour with as much blue as red in it. The Metropolitan line is clearly a much darker colour on all printed and web material from TFL (e.g. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/downloads/pdf/maps/metropolitan.pdf), with more red than blue (although I am not sure how consistent this is). In my view, the closest colours are burgundy or one of the darker and redder shades of purple. Can sombody point to an official source for the colours? If not, I suggest we use the closest colour names based on the colours in TfL's current web maps. --DanielRigal 11:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/LULColourStandardsLinked.pdf describes it as "corporate magenta", for what it's worth. --McGeddon 11:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That helps a lot. Clearly "corporate magenta" is a colour very different from normal magenta. They list #990033 as the closest web safe colour. The question now is how we should describe the colours here? "corporate magenta" is a TfL internal name which does not mean much outside of TfL. Would it be better to revert to "Burgundy" or to change it to "TfL Corporate Magenta" and explain what that means in a footnote? --DanielRigal 12:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The map in my planner (which dates from 1988!) uses a very magenta-like colour. I can't believe that London Transport would have called it "corporate magenta", so what name would they have used? Failing that, how about "Metropolitan Purple" - with a footnote to give its proper name?
EdJogg 14:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
LU prefix all of their colours as 'Corporate' due to them trying to keep a consistent corporate identity throughout all of their signs, maps, letterheads etc. If they had just said blue, red, magenta, grey etc etc then when it comes to printing or any type of reproduction or colour, everything would be different shade. So to stick to one particular shade, they've obviously decided to name them as corporate colours to clarify that these are the shades to use to. An example of using non corporate colours can be seen at recently refurbished stations where the enamel roundels are the wrong shade of red and blue.
With regards to what colour to call it, I think it should still be called magenta. Just becuase it looks like burgundy or purple is irrelevant, as that is your personal opinion and not fact. The fact is that as far as TfL and LU are concerned, it is magenta, so why call it anything else.Ninjainabowlerhat 18:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the purpose of including words in the colour list, though? To tell a reader what word TfL would use to describe it, or to explain the colour in words to a blind or black-and-white-Internet-user? --McGeddon 18:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Very good point! Incidentally, I'd always considered the Central Line colour to be orange (or at least a very orange shade of red)... EdJogg 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everybody. I see the logic of using the TfL colour names now. I have added a bit of clarification so that nobody else gets confused like I did. I still think they are mad to call that colour "Corporate Magenta" though... ;-) --DanielRigal 21:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Metropolitan 'corporate magenta' looks black on my screen. Is this just me? Anchoress (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a sort of plum colour. Perhaps your monitor is showing all dark colours as black? Does the blue look black as well? Try increasing the brightness a bit and see if that helps. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Line Colours (again)

Starting again as I was running out of screen!

(1) I have tweaked the section describing how limited service is shown, trying to avoid using a phrase like: "...service on a line is indicated by the line type used" - ie two meanings of 'line' here. However, I do not like my phrase "...format of the colour used", but I couldn't come up with anything better!

(2) Some of the colour history is difficult to understand. The Metropolitan entry is clear to understand, some of the others (like 'Circle') are not. It would be worth replacing this text with a short paragraph of prose (which may be boiled-down if required) to make it more accessible.

EdJogg 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North London Line

"The North London Line...is .. radial.." Discuss with particular reference to the anatomy of the circle. SilasW 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User SilasW (talk · contribs) has a very good point. 'Radial' is entirely the wrong word to use here. Radial routes include the ECML, WCML, GC (from Marylebone), GWR (Paddington), LSWR (Waterloo), etc, etc.
The North London Line effectively traverses an arc, but it is not an arc (geometry), which is a precise mathematical shape; it is nearer orbital than radial, but I can't think of the right term to use. (Semi-circular doesn't seem quite right...)
EdJogg 10:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
How about "semi-orbital" or "part orbital"? --DanielRigal 10:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank-you. Semi-orbital seems to fit the bill nicely, and a quick Google suggests the term is generally understood in a transportation context (also see Orbirail#Prospects, where the NLL is mentioned), although it is not widely used.
Paragraph has been tweaked to suit.
EdJogg 12:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map disclaimer

This was ugly and appeared to be pushing a point. While I think it's fair to say that keeping the image off the article is ludicrous, there's no point disrupting the article to point out the copyright issue. Chris Cunningham 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving sections

I have added some extra (and much-needed IMO) history of the map to the article and done some tidying. Hope this is OK - revert anything you don't like. Would anyone mind if I moved the 'popular culture' section beneath the 'technical aspects' one? To me it seems more natural... A is to B as B is to C 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beck and Barnet

Hi all - I've heard it suggested that Beck deliberately chose to give his birthplace, Barnet (also my birthplace, FWIW), and his home town of Finchley prominent positions in the centre of the top of the map, rather than make the direction of the northern line a little more geographically accurate. Does anyone know whether there's any truth to that idea? Grutness...wha? 00:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Beck's Maps" section factually inaccurate

The opening paragraph in the "Beck's Maps" section seems more like a work of fiction than fact.

It is well-known that Harry Beck was an electrical engineer who was working as an eletrical circuit draftsman for the (then) London Transport Passenger Board. Beck realised that the tube map at the time could indeed be simplified if just the relationships between the stations were drawn as opposed to the stations being drawn geographically correctly. He then proceeded to simplify existing maps based purely on his knowledge and expertise in circuit layout and design.

Also, according to his biographer, Ken Garland, Beck was paid 10 guineas for the original work (which became a hand-held map), and not five as is currently stated. When London Underground wanted to specifically commission a wall version he was paid an additional five guineas.

References:

In my opinion, this entire paragraph needs rewriting and then all the "citation needed" tags can be removed.

André Sihera (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)