Talk:Tube map

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] (http://www.annao.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/text_patterson.htm). 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)

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)

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.