6 ms·

Live London Underground / bus maps taken down by TfL trademark complaint

224 points by fanf2 2y ago

soco 2y ago
In case you ever wondered how can some people be against trademarks and copyrights in general.
- AndrewOMartin 2y ago
  Itch.io was taken down recently be an over-zealous AI-based service to detect trademark infringement and notify the authority, I wonder if this is a similar case. It'd be nice to know if someone in TFL actually requested this, or if it's a case of fanatical legal enforcement as a service.
- lou1306 2y ago
  This is a perfectly legit application of copyright law/brand protection, and I'm no fan of either. The Tube map is copyrighted work that requires a license to be used, even on a free service. The fellow should have stuck to normal OSM overlays, and none of this would have happened. What is controversial about this?
  - ForHackernews 2y ago
    If they want to control who uses the roundel logo, so be it, but I think it's absurd that copyright applies to the tube map itself. In the United States, government works like this would be public domain.
    - lou1306 2y ago
      The map is a work of design in its own right, it is not a mere geographical representation. Also, while it would be nice if government work were public domain in the UK as it is in the US, that is sadly not the case, and we have to deal with it.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    It's extremely simple. The Tube map shouldn't be a copyrighted work that requires a license to be used. You're judging the copyright enforcement action by itself in a void, but it's not in a void. Except it's actually trademark? It's ridiculous to apply trademark law here. No consumer confusion is happening.
    - lou1306 2y ago
      > The Tube map shouldn't be a copyrighted work Why not? Mind you I'm not saying any tube map, but the official TfL one.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        The official government maps are exactly the ones that everyone should be able to copy everywhere. It's basic information about the government department, and that is not something to seek rent on.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pluc 2y ago
Between that and CityMapper being part of the Gravy leak, things look pretty bleak for UK third party transit apps.
- gruez 2y ago
  >CityMapper being part of the Gravy leak You should take that leak with a huge grain of salt because the alleged list of apps stealing your location contains hundreds of apps that doesn't even contain location permissions.
  - pluc 2y ago
    Yeah, that's what they all say. Tinder and Spotify were both named specifically and both denied it. I don't trust any of them so I'm assuming they're lying, you do what you want.
    - gruez 2y ago
      Why do you trust an unverified "leak" over statements made by multi-billion dollar multinationals? Sure, corporations can lie, but so can such leaks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the leak is alleging something impossible (ie. stealing location data despite not having location permissions in manifest), then I'd need far more evidence than some csv list.
      - blitzar 2y ago
        Trust me, I wouldn’t lie to you for a billion dollars. I might have been caught lying before about these things but this time it’s different.
      - imchillyb 2y ago
        Not OP, but… I trust a leak from someone with no financial gain from the leak. I do not trust multi nationals worth several million, billion, trillion, to state truth. I expect them to lie until caught by a federal entity and fined. Guess how many times multi nationals lied to the public last year alone. Now you answer: “Why do you put any trust in what statements a corp releases?!”
PaulRobinson 2y ago
This feels a bit overzealous, "just" somebody following the letter of the job rather than the spirit of it over at TfL. I can see how it sort of happened though. TfL makes money from licensing The roundels and other ephemera are popular. From tourists buying licensed souvenirs, and other transport authorities licensing the signage system in use in their own regions, that is used to invest in the system as a whole (worth noting: TfL is not a private entity, it's non-profit making, everything it makes goes back into investment). Because of that popularity there are a lot of people who try and rip off the TfL brand and trademarks. Lots of tourist souvenir shops might be minded to get their own take on this material, and have some cheaply made and expensively sold to tourists, for example. Another transport authority might skip the millions invested in thinking about how to communicate clearly, and just "lift" TfL's thinking. That obviously isn't fair, if you think IP law is able to be fair in any way. So, yeah, there are people whose job it is to protect that revenue and protect the trademarked and copyright material that protect that revenue. But this is a hobbyist having fun. I don't think anybody thought that this was a service provided by TfL, and I can't expect he was making much of a living from it, or depriving TfL of revenue. It's really rather tragically sad that we're now in a World where good intentions on all sides can't really see each other. There is so much utter penny-and-dime theft and copyright infringing shit on the internet that requires constant purging by people who are expected to protect their own trademarks, that the assumption now is everybody is trying to make money off everyone else, and nobody wants to do any actual original work any more. I hope someone at TfL sees the light and comes up with a better license for use of their assets, and sees this for what it is, and reverses the decision. I doubt that'll happen, though. :(
- HackerThemAll 2y ago
  I think TfL should focus more on the "transport" part of their business.
  - zimpenfish 2y ago
    > I think TfL should focus more on the "transport" part of their business. I imagine they'd love to if they weren't constantly shafted by Government Du Jour when it comes to funding.
davidhyde 2y ago
It’s CRITAAS proliferation. Copyright infringement takedown as a service. It only feels unfair because right now it’s asymmetric. Wait until there is an automatic SAAS to counter balance it and let the bots duel it out whilst laws eventually catch up.
mikelward 2y ago
I would complain to TfL, but their complaints form is broken > Sorry, something's gone wrong We have a technical problem right now. One of the following options might help you:
helsinkiandrew 2y ago
To be fair they explicitly state don't use their branding in the API documentation. They made £200K in 2024 from licensing - I think about a millionth of a penny per journey https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-advertising-annual-report-2024.pdf https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-advertising-annual-report-202...
- BonoboIO 2y ago
  200k? That seems very little to be honest. Who is licensing what from the London Metro?
  - lostlogin 2y ago
    I’m m wondering if it’s people putting the tube map on things. There is an application form and guidelines. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-advertisers/contact-us-for-map-licensing https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-advertisers/contact...
  - qeternity 2y ago
    If that is indeed the actual number, it most certainly has deeply negative ROI. There is no way they are running a licensing department for under £200kpa.
alvis 2y ago
Many years back, it was a thing that TfL actively encouraged developers to use their data, and I was lucky to be a winner of a notional campaign thanks to that. But now, the headwinds apparently have changed. Sad :(
- helsinkiandrew 2y ago
  > Many years back, it was a thing that TfL actively encouraged developers to use their data They still do but not the branding: "Use our data - not our brand" https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/open-data-users/design-and-branding https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/open-data-users/design-and-brand...
  - tuukkah 2y ago
    However, the map layout is data, not branding. If your service has to alter the layout, it's more confusing to the passengers who TfL should be thinking about.
    - NoboruWataya 2y ago
      It has a very unique look and feel, and I'm not sure it is "just" data given that the location of stations on the tube map doesn't actually correspond to their geographic locations within London. I do think it is capable of forming part of the TfL brand, though by now it feels quite generic to me. Regardless of whether the map is capable of being protected by IP law (TfL certainly seem to think it is), this just feels stingy and pointless on TfL's part. They are a public service after all, and these maps arguably furthered their public mission. Given how popular the map is I would much prefer they published it under a licence allowing free non-commercial use with attribution (including a statement that the user is not affiliated with TfL).
andiareso 2y ago
I don’t see the issue. You were using the TfL schematic map which is very much a form of art. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that they asked you to take that specific map down or continue with a license. To remove the whole site because of that seems petty. It was clearly stated in their api documentation. It’s no different than getting a license or usage rights for hosting an image or video on your site. Just because you are a hobbyist doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow the rules. This is coming from someone who is extremely pro fair-use and right to ownership.
- polotics 2y ago
  there is such a gap between hobbyist developers that do things for fun if and only if it stays fun, and consumers who will qualify as petty the reasonable decisions to pursue some other one of the very many other things-to-do-for-free that could be more fun. don't you think?
  - rad_gruchalski 2y ago
    To own the trademark and defend it means having to proactively find and fight violations. So, nope. How is the trademark holder supposed to know who they are dealing with? Because they said so? Well, in that case I know a Nigerian prince who would like to send you some money…
    - andiareso 2y ago
      This is the thing. Most people don't know that in order to keep your brand, you have to continually use it and defend it. In a similar vein, the lawyers of the popular "hook and loop fasteners" Velcro constantly try and defend their IP so it doesn't become generic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRi8LptvFZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRi8LptvFZY
- jkestner 2y ago
  Eh, if your complaint comes 15 years after the site is launched, and then you wait an hour before following up with a legal notice, I’d be feeling petty too.
harry_beck 2y ago
It's a sad irony that TFL didn't even want this version of the map originally, and it was given to them, and maintained for free (I think) by a map enthusiast like the author of this version I think Harry Beck would think history was repeating itself https://youtu.be/cTLCfl01zuE?si=gb-PsswlfW8hSLGW https://youtu.be/cTLCfl01zuE?si=gb-PsswlfW8hSLGW
InsomniacL 2y ago
> But I believe it is possible to both “protect” your trademark (or whatever you think this is) and not treat people like this. They probably do not like the way they are treated by having their artwork/maps/trademarks taken without permission when they might well offer it for free for good causes / hobbyists. I'm guessing there is some copyright notice they require too in the license to protect themselves. I don't know if they do or not, but just pointing out the hypocrisy. Seems the OP would rather keep their site down than ask so i guess we won't know.
bloqs 2y ago
This STINKS of 'new person in the job with no personal connection or background to certain relationships, and crucially, allowances, established by the previous person, wants to test/establish their power in new role and is looking for easy ways to do it'
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- shermantanktop 2y ago
  The Dolores Umbridge Effect
krunck 2y ago
Or just host it in a country that doesn't care about UK law.
- NoboruWataya 2y ago
  Doesn't really work when you are an individual who lives in the UK.
mhandley 2y ago
TFL has obviously been aware of his use for 15 years, as the website was widely publicised in 2010. They have not taken any action to defend any trademarks they think he violates in all that time. IANAL, but I would have thought that if he wanted, he probably has a good case to invalidate those trademarks on the grounds that by not defending them for so long, they have become generic. But in the end, it's probably not a good use of his time and money to fight them on this.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cynicalsecurity 2y ago
Copyright laws need a reform.
madars 2y ago
The email TfL sent [1] to traintimes.org.uk ISP looks like a catch-all sent in haste. For example, it doesn't even mention the map. Instead, it invokes trademark registration numbers but these resolve [2] to LONDON UNDERGROUND and UNDERGROUND wordmarks and the roundel, none of them covering the map geometry as far as I can tell. It alleges a violation under Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act [3] but the act only applies to domains - and TfL never claims "traintimes" to be an infringing domain name (certainly doesn't look so under the marks cited). And, as a sibling comment points out, the act is a U.S. law but the site appears to be hosted in the U.K. If you think you have a case about the map, why not state it explicitly? The cynical answer is that ISPs have incentives not to care so making a case doesn't matter but ... [1] https://traintimes.org.uk/map/tube/email2.txt https://traintimes.org.uk/map/tube/email2.txt [2] One can look them up in https://www.tmdn.org/tmview https://www.tmdn.org/tmview [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125
paul_h 2y ago
I commuted the NJ/USA daily for a while and loved - https://njtranshit.com/ https://njtranshit.com/ - there's always room for sites that deliver something extra to the official one :)
mmastrac 2y ago
This licensing page appears to be a new addition to TfL, which probably suggests some bureaucrat negotiated a deal with a creative agency to license the tube map for pennies on the dollar, resulting in them sending out these notices. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-advertisers/map-licensing https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-advertisers/map-lic... Amusingly the notice was sent with references to USA trademark law. I am not sure how it works with regional governments, but copyright information for government-produced works tends to live as a "crown copyright" in the UK and former colonies.
- precommunicator 2y ago
  I don't think this scheme is a recent addition, I've seen it years ago
  - mmastrac 2y ago
    I wasn't able to locate a previous scrape of it on archive.org.
wkat4242 2y ago
I was wondering what disappeared, I think it's this: https://web.archive.org/web/20241204060614/http://traintimes.org.uk/map/tube/schematic/ https://web.archive.org/web/20241204060614/http://traintimes... Strange enough the owner also seems to have removed the OpenStreetMap-based live train maps. Those can't be copyrighted?
varelse 2y ago
[dead]
switch007 2y ago
Just want to say how much I appreciate traintimes.org.uk It's perfect Compare to National Rail that has a pointless loading page, uses the entire initial viewport to show anything but the train times, and search is weirdly stateful. Just terrible all round Thanks Matthew

224 points by fanf2 2y ago

soco 2y ago

In case you ever wondered how can some people be against trademarks and copyrights in general.

AndrewOMartin 2y ago
Itch.io was taken down recently be an over-zealous AI-based service to detect trademark infringement and notify the authority, I wonder if this is a similar case. It'd be nice to know if someone in TFL actually requested this, or if it's a case of fanatical legal enforcement as a service.
lou1306 2y ago
This is a perfectly legit application of copyright law/brand protection, and I'm no fan of either. The Tube map is copyrighted work that requires a license to be used, even on a free service. The fellow should have stuck to normal OSM overlays, and none of this would have happened. What is controversial about this?
- ForHackernews 2y ago
  If they want to control who uses the roundel logo, so be it, but I think it's absurd that copyright applies to the tube map itself. In the United States, government works like this would be public domain.
  - lou1306 2y ago
    The map is a work of design in its own right, it is not a mere geographical representation. Also, while it would be nice if government work were public domain in the UK as it is in the US, that is sadly not the case, and we have to deal with it.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  It's extremely simple. The Tube map shouldn't be a copyrighted work that requires a license to be used. You're judging the copyright enforcement action by itself in a void, but it's not in a void. Except it's actually trademark? It's ridiculous to apply trademark law here. No consumer confusion is happening.
  - lou1306 2y ago
    > The Tube map shouldn't be a copyrighted work Why not? Mind you I'm not saying any tube map, but the official TfL one.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      The official government maps are exactly the ones that everyone should be able to copy everywhere. It's basic information about the government department, and that is not something to seek rent on.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pluc 2y ago

Between that and CityMapper being part of the Gravy leak, things look pretty bleak for UK third party transit apps.

gruez 2y ago
>CityMapper being part of the Gravy leak You should take that leak with a huge grain of salt because the alleged list of apps stealing your location contains hundreds of apps that doesn't even contain location permissions.
- pluc 2y ago
  Yeah, that's what they all say. Tinder and Spotify were both named specifically and both denied it. I don't trust any of them so I'm assuming they're lying, you do what you want.
  - gruez 2y ago
    Why do you trust an unverified "leak" over statements made by multi-billion dollar multinationals? Sure, corporations can lie, but so can such leaks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the leak is alleging something impossible (ie. stealing location data despite not having location permissions in manifest), then I'd need far more evidence than some csv list.
    - blitzar 2y ago
      Trust me, I wouldn’t lie to you for a billion dollars. I might have been caught lying before about these things but this time it’s different.
    - imchillyb 2y ago
      Not OP, but… I trust a leak from someone with no financial gain from the leak. I do not trust multi nationals worth several million, billion, trillion, to state truth. I expect them to lie until caught by a federal entity and fined. Guess how many times multi nationals lied to the public last year alone. Now you answer: “Why do you put any trust in what statements a corp releases?!”

PaulRobinson 2y ago

This feels a bit overzealous, "just" somebody following the letter of the job rather than the spirit of it over at TfL. I can see how it sort of happened though. TfL makes money from licensing The roundels and other ephemera are popular. From tourists buying licensed souvenirs, and other transport authorities licensing the signage system in use in their own regions, that is used to invest in the system as a whole (worth noting: TfL is not a private entity, it's non-profit making, everything it makes goes back into investment). Because of that popularity there are a lot of people who try and rip off the TfL brand and trademarks. Lots of tourist souvenir shops might be minded to get their own take on this material, and have some cheaply made and expensively sold to tourists, for example. Another transport authority might skip the millions invested in thinking about how to communicate clearly, and just "lift" TfL's thinking. That obviously isn't fair, if you think IP law is able to be fair in any way. So, yeah, there are people whose job it is to protect that revenue and protect the trademarked and copyright material that protect that revenue. But this is a hobbyist having fun. I don't think anybody thought that this was a service provided by TfL, and I can't expect he was making much of a living from it, or depriving TfL of revenue. It's really rather tragically sad that we're now in a World where good intentions on all sides can't really see each other. There is so much utter penny-and-dime theft and copyright infringing shit on the internet that requires constant purging by people who are expected to protect their own trademarks, that the assumption now is everybody is trying to make money off everyone else, and nobody wants to do any actual original work any more. I hope someone at TfL sees the light and comes up with a better license for use of their assets, and sees this for what it is, and reverses the decision. I doubt that'll happen, though. :(

HackerThemAll 2y ago
I think TfL should focus more on the "transport" part of their business.
- zimpenfish 2y ago
  > I think TfL should focus more on the "transport" part of their business. I imagine they'd love to if they weren't constantly shafted by Government Du Jour when it comes to funding.

davidhyde 2y ago

It’s CRITAAS proliferation. Copyright infringement takedown as a service. It only feels unfair because right now it’s asymmetric. Wait until there is an automatic SAAS to counter balance it and let the bots duel it out whilst laws eventually catch up.

mikelward 2y ago

I would complain to TfL, but their complaints form is broken > Sorry, something's gone wrong We have a technical problem right now. One of the following options might help you:

helsinkiandrew 2y ago

To be fair they explicitly state don't use their branding in the API documentation. They made £200K in 2024 from licensing - I think about a millionth of a penny per journey https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-advertising-annual-report-2024.pdf https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-advertising-annual-report-202...

BonoboIO 2y ago
200k? That seems very little to be honest. Who is licensing what from the London Metro?
- lostlogin 2y ago
  I’m m wondering if it’s people putting the tube map on things. There is an application form and guidelines. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-advertisers/contact-us-for-map-licensing https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-advertisers/contact...
- qeternity 2y ago
  If that is indeed the actual number, it most certainly has deeply negative ROI. There is no way they are running a licensing department for under £200kpa.

alvis 2y ago

Many years back, it was a thing that TfL actively encouraged developers to use their data, and I was lucky to be a winner of a notional campaign thanks to that. But now, the headwinds apparently have changed. Sad :(

helsinkiandrew 2y ago
> Many years back, it was a thing that TfL actively encouraged developers to use their data They still do but not the branding: "Use our data - not our brand" https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/open-data-users/design-and-branding https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/open-data-users/design-and-brand...
- tuukkah 2y ago
  However, the map layout is data, not branding. If your service has to alter the layout, it's more confusing to the passengers who TfL should be thinking about.
  - NoboruWataya 2y ago
    It has a very unique look and feel, and I'm not sure it is "just" data given that the location of stations on the tube map doesn't actually correspond to their geographic locations within London. I do think it is capable of forming part of the TfL brand, though by now it feels quite generic to me. Regardless of whether the map is capable of being protected by IP law (TfL certainly seem to think it is), this just feels stingy and pointless on TfL's part. They are a public service after all, and these maps arguably furthered their public mission. Given how popular the map is I would much prefer they published it under a licence allowing free non-commercial use with attribution (including a statement that the user is not affiliated with TfL).

andiareso 2y ago

I don’t see the issue. You were using the TfL schematic map which is very much a form of art. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that they asked you to take that specific map down or continue with a license. To remove the whole site because of that seems petty. It was clearly stated in their api documentation. It’s no different than getting a license or usage rights for hosting an image or video on your site. Just because you are a hobbyist doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow the rules. This is coming from someone who is extremely pro fair-use and right to ownership.

polotics 2y ago
there is such a gap between hobbyist developers that do things for fun if and only if it stays fun, and consumers who will qualify as petty the reasonable decisions to pursue some other one of the very many other things-to-do-for-free that could be more fun. don't you think?
- rad_gruchalski 2y ago
  To own the trademark and defend it means having to proactively find and fight violations. So, nope. How is the trademark holder supposed to know who they are dealing with? Because they said so? Well, in that case I know a Nigerian prince who would like to send you some money…
  - andiareso 2y ago
    This is the thing. Most people don't know that in order to keep your brand, you have to continually use it and defend it. In a similar vein, the lawyers of the popular "hook and loop fasteners" Velcro constantly try and defend their IP so it doesn't become generic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRi8LptvFZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRi8LptvFZY
jkestner 2y ago
Eh, if your complaint comes 15 years after the site is launched, and then you wait an hour before following up with a legal notice, I’d be feeling petty too.

harry_beck 2y ago

It's a sad irony that TFL didn't even want this version of the map originally, and it was given to them, and maintained for free (I think) by a map enthusiast like the author of this version I think Harry Beck would think history was repeating itself https://youtu.be/cTLCfl01zuE?si=gb-PsswlfW8hSLGW https://youtu.be/cTLCfl01zuE?si=gb-PsswlfW8hSLGW

InsomniacL 2y ago

> But I believe it is possible to both “protect” your trademark (or whatever you think this is) and not treat people like this. They probably do not like the way they are treated by having their artwork/maps/trademarks taken without permission when they might well offer it for free for good causes / hobbyists. I'm guessing there is some copyright notice they require too in the license to protect themselves. I don't know if they do or not, but just pointing out the hypocrisy. Seems the OP would rather keep their site down than ask so i guess we won't know.

bloqs 2y ago

This STINKS of 'new person in the job with no personal connection or background to certain relationships, and crucially, allowances, established by the previous person, wants to test/establish their power in new role and is looking for easy ways to do it'

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
shermantanktop 2y ago
The Dolores Umbridge Effect

krunck 2y ago

Or just host it in a country that doesn't care about UK law.

NoboruWataya 2y ago
Doesn't really work when you are an individual who lives in the UK.

mhandley 2y ago

TFL has obviously been aware of his use for 15 years, as the website was widely publicised in 2010. They have not taken any action to defend any trademarks they think he violates in all that time. IANAL, but I would have thought that if he wanted, he probably has a good case to invalidate those trademarks on the grounds that by not defending them for so long, they have become generic. But in the end, it's probably not a good use of his time and money to fight them on this.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

cynicalsecurity 2y ago

madars 2y ago

The email TfL sent [1] to traintimes.org.uk ISP looks like a catch-all sent in haste. For example, it doesn't even mention the map. Instead, it invokes trademark registration numbers but these resolve [2] to LONDON UNDERGROUND and UNDERGROUND wordmarks and the roundel, none of them covering the map geometry as far as I can tell. It alleges a violation under Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act [3] but the act only applies to domains - and TfL never claims "traintimes" to be an infringing domain name (certainly doesn't look so under the marks cited). And, as a sibling comment points out, the act is a U.S. law but the site appears to be hosted in the U.K. If you think you have a case about the map, why not state it explicitly? The cynical answer is that ISPs have incentives not to care so making a case doesn't matter but ... [1] https://traintimes.org.uk/map/tube/email2.txt https://traintimes.org.uk/map/tube/email2.txt [2] One can look them up in https://www.tmdn.org/tmview https://www.tmdn.org/tmview [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125

paul_h 2y ago

I commuted the NJ/USA daily for a while and loved - https://njtranshit.com/ https://njtranshit.com/ - there's always room for sites that deliver something extra to the official one :)

mmastrac 2y ago

This licensing page appears to be a new addition to TfL, which probably suggests some bureaucrat negotiated a deal with a creative agency to license the tube map for pennies on the dollar, resulting in them sending out these notices. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-advertisers/map-licensing https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-advertisers/map-lic... Amusingly the notice was sent with references to USA trademark law. I am not sure how it works with regional governments, but copyright information for government-produced works tends to live as a "crown copyright" in the UK and former colonies.

precommunicator 2y ago
I don't think this scheme is a recent addition, I've seen it years ago
- mmastrac 2y ago
  I wasn't able to locate a previous scrape of it on archive.org.

wkat4242 2y ago

I was wondering what disappeared, I think it's this: https://web.archive.org/web/20241204060614/http://traintimes.org.uk/map/tube/schematic/ https://web.archive.org/web/20241204060614/http://traintimes... Strange enough the owner also seems to have removed the OpenStreetMap-based live train maps. Those can't be copyrighted?

varelse 2y ago

[dead]

switch007 2y ago

Just want to say how much I appreciate traintimes.org.uk It's perfect Compare to National Rail that has a pointless loading page, uses the entire initial viewport to show anything but the train times, and search is weirdly stateful. Just terrible all round Thanks Matthew