Fake charts: really a safety risk, or just a copyright issue?

[BelleSerene]

An article in the YM just out claims that 'forged charts are putting yachts at risk'. We're told that genuine Admiralty charts carry a watermark, and that 'variations may be spotted in the look, feel and weight of the product, the colour tone and strength of the ink, the folds on the charts and the height and binding quality of publications'.

Not about them somehow marking navigation features and hazards any differently from the originals they were copied from.

Chart publishers have a very valid concern that their copyright is being flouted by illegal copy-makers. But no evidence is presented of a danger to navigation, which is the claim the article, and its source, the Cruising Association, consistently takes.

The illustration is of a UKHO expert checking a chart with a magnifying glass. Doesn't that say it all?!

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Well, you have no idea of the provenance or age of the data a forged map is based on. It would be trivial to make an old version of a chart appear to be up-to-date with a little Photoshop work; that wouldn't make it up-to-date!

Another issue is that copying maps is not straightforward if you wish to maintain geometric fidelity. Even if the map source is up-to-date, has it been copied in a way that maintains the spatial relationships? That isn't as easy as it seems, and I can't see a forger taking the trouble to do it. Paper quality matters - it can easily shrink or stretch differentially in different directions, and poor quality paper can shrink/stretch by quite substantial amounts (I've seen this first-hand!)

The descriptions I've read suggest that these are poor quality copies, and using them for navigation could result in positions being plotted incorrectly, with obvious potential for harm.

 

[BelleSerene]

Well, you have no idea of the provenance or age of the data a forged map is based on. It would be trivial to make an old version of a chart appear to be up-to-date with a little Photoshop work; that wouldn't make it up-to-date!

Another issue is that copying maps is not straightforward if you wish to maintain geometric fidelity. Even if the map source is up-to-date, has it been copied in a way that maintains the spatial relationships? That isn't as easy as it seems, and I can't see a forger taking the trouble to do it. Paper quality matters - it can easily shrink or stretch differentially in different directions, and poor quality paper can shrink/stretch by quite substantial amounts (I've seen this first-hand!)

The descriptions I've read suggest that these are poor quality copies, and using them for navigation could result in positions being plotted incorrectly, with obvious potential for harm.

Well yes, isn't it called a photocopy? The easiest way to rip off a chart is to copy it exactly as it is. That maintains spacial relationships between features, and also means the chart details are as correct as at the printed date (which also appears on the copy) as they were on the Admiralty original. Surely the forger would have to take more trouble to do it any other way, and he'd increase his risk of detection too? The idea that UKHO would need to resort to a magnifying glass to tell whether a sample is a forgery would seem to confirm this.

Perhaps I'm missing something?

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Well yes, isn't it called a photocopy? The easiest way to rip off a chart is to copy it exactly as it is. That maintains spacial relationships between features, and also means the chart details are as correct as at the printed date (which also appears on the copy) as they were on the Admiralty original. Surely the forger would have to take more trouble to do it any other way, and he'd increase his risk of detection too? The idea that UKHO would need to resort to a magnifying glass to tell whether a sample is a forgery would seem to confirm this.

Perhaps I'm missing something?

Yes, you are. Photocopies are NOT spatially accurate; the process frequently distorts the relationship between the across and along paper directions. However, more to the point, a chart is far too large for a photocopier. The process would be to scan the chart, then print from the scan. However, to make them cheap, this means that corners have to be cut - producing (for example) a large-format print from a suitable plotter (e.g. the HP DesignJet range, such as most print bureaux operate) would be far too costly and labour intensive (my former employee did use them for short print runs of special purpose maps, but for runs more than about 50 or 100 copies, it was cheaper to go to press!). They would have to be printed using lithographic techniques to obtain the necessary low cost per copy; this can be and is an accurate process - but only if using the right kind of press. There are few suitable presses in the UK, and they are all operated by reputable companies who would not touch unlicensed copies with a bargepole. I should note that the relevant presses are about the size of a coach, and need extremely strong foundations under them, to ensure precise alignment between the various sets of rollers the paper passes through! So, the chances are these are being printed by a well-run press are negligible; there are of course less fussy presses operated elsewhere.

The reported issues are all ones that would be apparent to the eye of anyone familiar with the products; I am sure the magnifying glass is just for a publicity photo! However, using a glass would show more subtle errors that would affect the colour balance and so on.

I should, perhaps, state that I am speaking from the perspective of a career of over 30 years associated with publishing maps.

 

[BelleSerene]

Makes sense... thank you!

 

[maxi77]

Just to add the objective of the forger is not the safety of the user, rather the maximisation of profit. He provides no warranty and takes no responsibility. Just a though, the Amoco Cadiz was lost because of a number of forged, that is illegal copy, bolts which were not adequate to keep the hydraulic joints intact. One suspects that chart forgers have similar disregard for any users safety.

 

[Wooden Boat Fittings]

All that aside, and without any knowledge whatever of the so-called forged charts you're referring to, for the reasons below I do know that Droggy has been extraordinarily jealous in hoarding "his" data, despite the fact of it's being obtained at the expense of British taxpayers and should therefore be in the public domain. So I can see why the Government might want to try to protect "its" property by slanging off at the work of other people, whatever the quality of third-party competition. (As I said, I have no knowledge of whether these third-party charts are accurate or not.)

For years I've used the program WXTide to give me the times when my boat would be afloat in her mudberth, and for almost as many years WXTide has come without British tidal information. This is because of so-called "copyright" issues on the data, which the UK government claims it owns. Hence the program has been useless in the UK. Every other country that I'm aware of happily makes tidal information free of charge to the public as a matter of course. (Fortunately I got in before Droggy, so my version of the program works anywhere.) On the other hand, there may have been a change of heart in the government view about tidal information since then, in which case WXTide might now be as useful in the UK as it is in the rest of the world. Who knows?

Mike

 

[AntarcticPilot]

All that aside, and without any knowledge whatever of the so-called forged charts you're referring to, for the reasons below I do know that Droggy has been extraordinarily jealous in hoarding "his" data, despite the fact of it's being obtained at the expense of British taxpayers and should therefore be in the public domain. So I can see why the Government might want to try to protect "its" property by slanging off at the work of other people, whatever the quality of third-party competition. (As I said, I have no knowledge of whether these third-party charts are accurate or not.)

For years I've used the program WXTide to give me the times when my boat would be afloat in her mudberth, and for almost as many years WXTide has come without British tidal information. This is because of so-called "copyright" issues on the data, which the UK government claims it owns. Hence the program has been useless in the UK. Every other country that I'm aware of happily makes tidal information free of charge to the public as a matter of course. (Fortunately I got in before Droggy, so my version of the program works anywhere.) On the other hand, there may have been a change of heart in the government view about tidal information since then, in which case WXTide might now be as useful in the UK as it is in the rest of the world. Who knows?

Mike

This is actually not quite true. All tidal measurements are publicly available from the National Oceanographic Data Centre at Bidston free of charge; these are the raw data from which tidal constants are derived. Anyone who wishes can produce tidal coefficients from these data; it is A-level maths (or was when I were a lad!). I am sure that a lot of people who post here could perform the necessary analysis; I certainly could, and I am no mathematical genius. I believe several people have done this, and constants for WXTIDE are available if you search round a bit.

Because the tidal coefficients are derived data, not directly measured, they are automatically copyright in the UK and in fact, in most of the world. Because of the nature of copyright they cannot NOT be copyright, because of the way the law operates in the UK; there's a clue in the name copyRIGHT. The UKHO is a Trading Fund, which means that it is expected to raise a substantial portion of its running costs from sales and services; it is not entirely funded by taxpayers money, and the portion of taxpayers money that it does receive is seen as payment for services provided to HMG.

 

[Jaguar 25]

Yes, you are. Photocopies are NOT spatially accurate; the process frequently distorts the relationship between the across and along paper directions. However, more to the point, a chart is far too large for a photocopier. The process would be to scan the chart, then print from the scan.

Not to be pedantic, but there are photocopiers that can copy A0 drawings widely in use in engineering companies. Not that I am recommending the use of illegal copies.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I'm finding it very hard to imagine a chart which was distorted enough to be dangerous but not distorted enough for the distortion to be clearly visible. The only cheap and nasty charts I have come across are the UKHO Leisure editions ...

 

[laika]

An article in the YM
The illustration is of a UKHO expert checking a chart with a magnifying glass. Doesn't that say it all?!

The other illustration of a specific UKHO publication was of NP314. Not sure how the info in a photocopy of that would be different from the original. err...of course it was also last year's they had a picture of but so was the "original" next to it.

 

[Neil]

The Xerox 6705 is equipped with a colour scanner for accurately relaying the intent of engineers. This compact digital multifunction device is capable of A0-size output while offering the ease of use, functionality, and productivity of office multifunction devices..

If it's good enough for engineering drawings... Not that I condone forgery, especially if I'm paying original prices..........

 

[Seven Spades]

Of course it is a safety risk, if for no other reason that it undermines the ing term future of printed charts. The Admiralty charts have already been cut dramatically, this could just provide enough damage for them to reduce the range further. Please do not buy these charts no mater how cheap they are on ebay or anywhere else for that matter. Please support the original Admiralty charts, it really is a case of big them or lose them.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Of course it is a safety risk, if for no other reason that it undermines the ing term future of printed charts. The Admiralty charts have already been cut dramatically, this could just provide enough damage for them to reduce the range further. Please do not buy these charts no mater how cheap they are on ebay or anywhere else for that matter. Please support the original Admiralty charts, it really is a case of big them or lose them.

I buy mine second hand from Marine Chart Services. Isn't that just as bad?

 

[Stemar]

I'm finding it very hard to imagine a chart which was distorted enough to be dangerous but not distorted enough for the distortion to be clearly visible. The only cheap and nasty charts I have come across are the UKHO Leisure editions ...

Nasty, OK, but Cheap????

 

[JumbleDuck]

Nasty, OK, but Cheap????

Two quid a side?

 

[maxi77]

All that aside, and without any knowledge whatever of the so-called forged charts you're referring to, for the reasons below I do know that Droggy has been extraordinarily jealous in hoarding "his" data, despite the fact of it's being obtained at the expense of British taxpayers and should therefore be in the public domain. So I can see why the Government might want to try to protect "its" property by slanging off at the work of other people, whatever the quality of third-party competition. (As I said, I have no knowledge of whether these third-party charts are accurate or not.)

For years I've used the program WXTide to give me the times when my boat would be afloat in her mudberth, and for almost as many years WXTide has come without British tidal information. This is because of so-called "copyright" issues on the data, which the UK government claims it owns. Hence the program has been useless in the UK. Every other country that I'm aware of happily makes tidal information free of charge to the public as a matter of course. (Fortunately I got in before Droggy, so my version of the program works anywhere.) On the other hand, there may have been a change of heart in the government view about tidal information since then, in which case WXTide might now be as useful in the UK as it is in the rest of the world. Who knows?

Mike

The UK taxpayer does not pay the whole cost of charts,tides etc, the non government users pay their share and with some justification the government believes the bulk of taxpayers would not support paying for harts etc for commercial and liesure use. I know that the USA courts took a different view but I must admit it is not thefirst time I have not agreed with them.

There are many tidal programmes and the problem i believe with WX was they were using data that all other users pay for and Droggy does make the data available now at reasonable rates. I can buy software that is better and more accurate than WX for the cost of a couple of beers so no great hardship

 

[Quandary]

When I used to race I also had a drawing office with a plan printer, we routinely would make a couple of throw away copies of our charts for an offshore course for use on deck without thinking twice about it, I suppose I was in breach of copyright but I was too much of a tightwad to buy more than one copy of a chart in any year. As far as accuracy goes our working drawings which we printed on the machine were required to be as accurate as anything from the Admiralty. I agree that making accurate copies is not a problem but durability is a different issue. You used to be able to buy laminated unfolded Imray charts which were everlasting but I suppose there is no demand for such a thing now,
While I still have a plan printer, it is inkjet, I no longer go out racing in the dark and my charts are now duplicated on a tablet and a laptop so the dodgy practice is long ceased.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

The danger is that you have no idea of the source material the fake charts use. I was looking at the MAIB report on the loss of the MFV Aquila, lost on the Bo Faskadale reef, north of Ardnamurchan. One of the factors the MAIB noted was that there was a substantial change between the older chart used by the MFV and the later version created after the loss of the MFV. Not a real change - but the previous survey was from the 19th century. Now, in itself this did not cause the loss, but it might well have made the captain of the MFV more cautious. And this is in an area where we would all say "rocks don't change much; an old chart will still be fine"!

A UKHO chart will have all the details of the date of the survey and the date of printing, allowing those interested in such things a fair chance of assessing the reliability of the chart. A Fake might well have these dates photoshopped to appear more up-to-date than the source really was.

Mapping organizations of all kinds go to great lengths to ensure their products are as accurate as they can be, with lots of QA procedures built in. Over the years I have spent a lot of time carrying out QA on other peoples' work, and the checks I have carried out have frequently found errors, which we corrected before publication. I've done this on UKHO charts of the Antarctic regions, as well as our own work. Other people have carried out the same QA on my work. One of our last checks before printing was often to leave a copy out in an open area and gather comments from whoever wanted to look - it was amazing how often even a map that had gone through repeated QA checks was found to have (usually minor!) corrections still to do. When I was doing QA checks on data the compilers thought was pretty much final, I would often find tens or hundreds of minor errors; this would be AFTER the compilers had carried out their own checks and probably found an order of magnitude more errors!

Even with all this care, and repeated layers of checking, we sometimes left mistakes in. The real red-face one was when we left a spelling mistake in!

Do you imagine a forger would go to anything like the same lengths?

 

[JumbleDuck]

The danger is that you have no idea of the source material the fake charts use. I was looking at the MAIB report on the loss of the MFV Aquila, lost on the Bo Faskadale reef, north of Ardnamurchan. One of the factors the MAIB noted was that there was a substantial change between the older chart used by the MFV and the later version created after the loss of the MFV.

I'm not sure that "a fishing boat was lost because it used an up-to-date UKHO chart" supports your case as well as it might.

However, I wouldn't buy fake charts myself. It seems a bit silly, for the reasons you give. I suppose they might be attractive to cheapskate commercial operators who are obliged to carry paper charts they never look at, though.