Admiralty charts

[prv]

I amazed to hear that small boat sailors keep all their charts up to date and insert the information from admiralty notices to mariners. Hands up anybody who with more than a few local charts does this! I don't because I have charts for most of the world and it's impracticable.

Agree it would become a full-time job with a worldwide portfolio, but with a cruising area of the English Channel I do keep my charts corrected.

Pete

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Have you got Helgoland to Brunsbuttel?

Sorry, no.

 

[sailorman]

And so all the food that is grown on UK soil should be free because the land of which it grows is already ours?

The obvious answer is no, because what you are really paying for is the cost of production. Likewise with charts: you are paying for ships to go and do surveys, for cartographers to draw the charts, for people to keep them up to date on a daily basis, for people to ensure total accuracy, for people to print and distribute, and shops to store them.

The truth is that paper charts in the US are not free at all. If you go into a chandlery and request a chart, they go online and make a free download of the data. Then they print the chart in the store, and then they charge you for it. About 12 USD seems to ring a bell - cheaper than ours, true, but a poor imitation. In fact, the chandlery I went to in Newport RI suggested I buy a BA chart 'if you needed somethin' really accurate'.

USA ENC charts ate free download as are Belgium & Holland.
See the Open CPN website for details

 

[AntarcticPilot]

It has already been touched on, but unfortunately it is true that US mapping and charting products are in general of lower quality than the equivalent Uk products, precisely BECAUSE the US government waives copyright on them. No-one can make money from them, so they are under-funded and generally done as cheaply as possible (there are honourable exceptions!). Also, the US government only produces products that it is either legislatively required to produce, or which it needs for its own internal operations. Other desirable products are not produced; there is no motive to do so. In the US, if you want a good map of an area, you might well have to make your own, starting from the rather low-resolution base mapping provided by the USGS. Road networks are often done using a free product called TIGER - which was created to facilitate census mapping, so it isn't really designed for road maps, and people have to spend a lot of effort in remedying its shortcomings when used as a road map (my experience is that road maps of the US are uniformly dreadful)! The OS does precisely the right product at a reasonable cost, as is shown by its presence in cheap sat-navs; it does so because it can and does charge for it. A large part of the cost is actually subsumed in a notional government contract to provide mapping infrastructure, and also in local agreements between planning authorities and the OS to exchange data.

Of course both systems have shortcomings, but it is noteworthy that the USA is the ONLY developed country that provides government data free of charge. It is also noteworthy that there are no US mapping products of anything like the quality of OS maps. I don't have personal experience of US chart products, but others have indicated that they aren't of the quality of UKHO products.

 

[capnsensible]

I do agree with the quality comments. I got some a few years back for a cruise around South Bahamas and I was, frankly, underwhelmed.

 

[maxi77]

It has already been touched on, but unfortunately it is true that US mapping and charting products are in general of lower quality than the equivalent Uk products, precisely BECAUSE the US government waives copyright on them. No-one can make money from them, so they are under-funded and generally done as cheaply as possible (there are honourable exceptions!). Also, the US government only produces products that it is either legislatively required to produce, or which it needs for its own internal operations. Other desirable products are not produced; there is no motive to do so. In the US, if you want a good map of an area, you might well have to make your own, starting from the rather low-resolution base mapping provided by the USGS. Road networks are often done using a free product called TIGER - which was created to facilitate census mapping, so it isn't really designed for road maps, and people have to spend a lot of effort in remedying its shortcomings when used as a road map (my experience is that road maps of the US are uniformly dreadful)! The OS does precisely the right product at a reasonable cost, as is shown by its presence in cheap sat-navs; it does so because it can and does charge for it. A large part of the cost is actually subsumed in a notional government contract to provide mapping infrastructure, and also in local agreements between planning authorities and the OS to exchange data.

Of course both systems have shortcomings, but it is noteworthy that the USA is the ONLY developed country that provides government data free of charge. It is also noteworthy that there are no US mapping products of anything like the quality of OS maps. I don't have personal experience of US chart products, but others have indicated that they aren't of the quality of UKHO products.

The US gets round this by slapping security classificationson the good stuff. I have used the good stuff and Droggy has nothing to touch it, but it is pretty useless unless you are in a covert submarine

 

[Sea Devil]

For what it's worth, the US approach to charts is just one facet of a much wider principle - under US law, nothing produced by the government is subject to copyright. So everything from photos taken by their military, to videos from NASA, to pig-keeping advice booklets from the Department of Agriculture, are in the public domain. It's the same attitude that makes GPS free for use as well - you can bet that if the UK government had set that up first, there'd have been a hefty annual license fee and none of us lot would be using it.

That said, I don't think it's unfair that the UKHO should be set up to cover its costs, and the suggestions in the OP that they might not have the right to are little more than Viago-esque crackpot theories.

Pete

I wrote to the UKHO and asked why they thought they owned the copyright of works created for the first time more than 50 years ago and they replied they had a legal ruling by a court in Malta...!!! This is their only legal affamaition of their copyright to all charts of whatever age and origin. A couple of decades ago Malta decided in its court to flout UK copyright law and find in favour of UKHO. Fine but I bet the UKHO would be in a load of trouble if they were challenged in a British Court. Of course nobody is going to and the UKHO have huge funds and motivation (own jobs) to fight any challenge...

My suspicion is that many electronic chart systems are not paying the copyright fee... Otherwise how could they sell at such low prices?

Michael

 

[prv]

I wrote to the UKHO and asked why they thought they owned the copyright of works created for the first time more than 50 years ago and they replied they had a legal ruling by a court in Malta...!!!
[...] I bet the UKHO would be in a load of trouble if they were challenged in a British Court. Of course nobody is going to

If "nobody is going to challenge them", that's probably why they can't point you to a UK case, isn't it?

Maybe nobody challenges them because current charts are obviously new, derivative works and hence still under copyright. It's ludicrous to claim that a current-edition chart and the 1960s chart of the same area are the exact same thing. Some of the survey data might be common between them, but that doesn't make it the same work.

My suspicion is that many electronic chart systems are not paying the copyright fee... Otherwise how could they sell at such low prices?

My suspicion is that all mainstream electronic chart publishers are paying the license fee... Otherwise why isn't the UKHO suing them?

UKHO have reputedly offered some weird license terms over the years. I'm not sure exactly what, but imagine for the sake of example that they decided to license their data to a tiny company for a one-off £50,000 fee. If that tiny company is an iPhone app maker who thinks they can sell at least 10,000 copies of their app, they can allocate £5 of the price to chart data and we all think "wow, that's cheap".

Pete

 

[Sea Devil]

My suspicion is that all mainstream electronic chart publishers are paying the license fee... Otherwise why isn't the UKHO suing them?

UKHO have reputedly offered some weird license terms over the years. I'm not sure exactly what, but imagine for the sake of example that they decided to license their data to a tiny company for a one-off £50,000 fee. If that tiny company is an iPhone app maker who thinks they can sell at least 10,000 copies of their app, they can allocate £5 of the price to chart data and we all think "wow, that's cheap".

Pete

Very interesting idea...

In my correspondence with them I felt they were not the brightest light on the Christmas Tree. Pretty old fashioned organisation desperately trying to keep in touch.

From some of the electronic chart prices mentioned on this tread plus what I have seen advertised I should think their copyright revenue will dry up. I no longer carry a sextant and tables in the boat rather several GPS and a hh in a Faraday cage. I do have paper charts for the day everything blows up but with the prices of chart-plotters falling I am sure in the next decade or two it will be possible to have one in Faraday cage and not bother with more than a passage chart or two.

Michael

f

 

[prv]

From some of the electronic chart prices mentioned on this tread plus what I have seen advertised I should think their copyright revenue will dry up. I no longer carry a sextant and tables in the boat rather several GPS and a hh in a Faraday cage. I do have paper charts for the day everything blows up but with the prices of chart-plotters falling I am sure in the next decade or two it will be possible to have one in Faraday cage and not bother with more than a passage chart or two.

You're right that paper charts will become a niche item in due course, but that won't be a problem for the UKHO. They're already in the business of selling data rather than paper per se. A few commercially-odd licensing deals to app makers won't affect that, nobody is navigating container ships exclusively on an iPad with Navionics. You can bet they're charging like a wounded rhino for the data for IMO-compliant ECDIS systems.

Pete

 

[maxi77]

It seems pretty clear Droggy has adopted a new business model, once produced the data is almost free to reproduce so low cost licences mean you sell many licences. Every tom dick and harry will sell you the UK chart package now for next to nothing and as we have seen with some of the free tidal stuff if they are not paying royalties they threaten action. I suspect the licence portion of a paper chart was in pennies, most of the cost being in production and storage and distribution cost. Chart retailers I suspect had a pretty big margin to cover stock costs and the application of corrections.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Notwithstanding the metaphorical two fingers you will get from the Government and Treasury at the implication they should subsidise the UKHO to enable small boat owners to have cheaper charts (because that's what you are suggesting in reality), perhaps you can ask for the data over 50 years old to be free? Unfortunately I'm interested in all the corrections and new surveys. If you look at the chart and the survey data it's VERY rare or impossible to find a chart where the whole thing is based on data over 50 years old. .

The National Library of Scotland will or would supply photocopies of charts over 50 (75?) years old, and this used to be recommended in the CCC pilot books as a way of getting much more detailed soundings for some areas than made it into modern charts.

 

[JumbleDuck]

​You cannot add ‘colour’ and the position of some buoys and claim it is 'a new work' but this is what the Ǻdmiralty does.

While both Hamlet and Eine Kleine Nachtmusik are long out of copyright as creative works, publishers who go to the trouble of typesetting and printing them have copyright in the editions they produce.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Have you got Helgoland to Brunsbuttel?

I've got UKHO charts for Nordkap to Morocco and across to Brazil, including the whole of the British Isle and the Baltic but missing France.That's a stack of 30+ folios almost 2' high and weighing about the same as I do. Offers welcome - I need the space.

 

[NormanS]

The National Library of Scotland will or would supply photocopies of charts over 50 (75?) years old, and this used to be recommended in the CCC pilot books as a way of getting much more detailed soundings for some areas than made it into modern charts.

Yes, I've got several that way from the NLS. One of the obvious ones is BA 2805, a beautifully detailed chart, from a survey by Captain Henry Otter in 1860, with corrections up to 1865. The information on this chart is unavailable from any modern source. Obviously it has to be used with some discretion, and there are no Lats and Longs on it.

It will take a super-tanker wreck to move the UKHO to produce a modern chart for this area.:disgust:

 

[Bru]

I've discussed licensing UKHO chart products with them for a project I decided in the end to bin

The terms were extremely reasonable, the pricing model well structured and the people at their end exhibited a sound knowledge of both their product and the needs of their customers

Much of the historic chart data was complied under letters patent and is subject to perpetual Crown Copyright

Otherwise, copyright persists for 50 years from publication except where the data previously enjoyed perpetual copyright removed fairly recently with the above exception) in which case the transitional arrangements run out in 2040

Even then, a new chart issued today will be copyright for 50 years from the date of publication.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I've discussed licensing UKHO chart products with them for a project I decided in the end to bin

The terms were extremely reasonable, the pricing model well structured and the people at their end exhibited a sound knowledge of both their product and the needs of their customers

Much of the historic chart data was complied under letters patent and is subject to perpetual Crown Copyright

Otherwise, copyright persists for 50 years from publication except where the data previously enjoyed perpetual copyright removed fairly recently with the above exception) in which case the transitional arrangements run out in 2040

Even then, a new chart issued today will be copyright for 50 years from the date of publication.

I'd forgotten that point, but Crown Copyright is one key to the situation! However, Crown Copyright is not all on the side of the producer. I forget all the exact reasons, but we used to do our very best to ensure our publications weren't Crown Copyright, because the perpetual copyright didn't outweigh other draw-backs such as not having control over who administered copyright, and us having to get permission from an office (based in the UKHO, AFAIR!) to reproduce our own maps. It was also a big draw-back for academic publishing, causing all sorts of difficulties with publishers of journals as we couldn't assign copyright. There was also the perpetual petty irritation of having to refer people requesting copyright permission for older maps to the Crown Copyright people, despite it being perfectly obvious that a) there was no commercial edge and b) we were the originators of the data and c) we knew that the response wouldn't be quick! UKHO don't have an option; their products are Crown Copyright almost by definition.

However, perpetual copyright isn't really an issue; a chart old enough to be out of the normal copyright window (which is 70 years, not 50) is almost certainly too old to be of use except in exceptional circumstances. At the very least it will be on a datum incompatible with GPS; at worst it will be on a datum whose definition is something like "referenced to an astronomical fix at ....." or (as on one of ours) "Parts are referenced to an astronomical fix at A, others to an astronomical fix at B", with an unknown difference between the two datums (at least, until I did a lot of research into it to try and sort the data out!). The latter two aren't likely to be a big issue for mainland UK, but it certainly could be for islands off the West Coast, where the survey network on one island might well not be "in synch" with an adjacent island whose survey links happened to go a different way. Land based surveyors have a habit of "losing" differences between survey networks in unimportant places like the gap between islands!

 

[Bru]

... (which is 70 years, not 50) ...

Standard copyright is life plus 70 years however Crown Copyright is now 50 years from publication (125 years from creation for unpublished information). I only found that out when I also discovered that most of the Crown perpetual copyright had been done away with

 

[JumbleDuck]

The latter two aren't likely to be a big issue for mainland UK, but it certainly could be for islands off the West Coast, where the survey network on one island might well not be "in synch" with an adjacent island whose survey links happened to go a different way.

That's more of a problem for the video gamez kidz who like careering around by chart plotter. The advantage of the older charts is that in many places they have very much more detailed survey information on them ... and when you're close enough in to use that it's pilotage time rather than navigation anyway. Datum doesn't really matter when you're waiting for the headland to open the Sgeir Dubh before heading north until the depth is 2 fathoms. That's why I still find the old CCC sketch charts very useful.

 

[doug748]

"It is very difficult to justify the prices Admiralty Charts charge for their products."


As others have pointed out, they run a nifty organization and charts are such short shelf, low volume products.

However.

What I can never get to grips with is how something as predictable, well documented and necessary as tidal data can be treated as a state secret.