[HN Gopher] Live London Underground / bus maps taken down by TfL...
___________________________________________________________________
Live London Underground / bus maps taken down by TfL trademark
complaint
Author : fanf2
Score : 200 points
Date : 2025-01-13 12:51 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (traintimes.org.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (traintimes.org.uk)
| soco wrote:
| In case you ever wondered how can some people be against
| trademarks and copyrights in general.
| AndrewOMartin wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| pluc wrote:
| Between that and CityMapper being part of the Gravy leak, things
| look pretty bleak for UK third party transit apps.
| gruez wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?!"
| gruez wrote:
| >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.
|
| And what about the leak itself? "You really think someone
| would do that, just go on the internet and tell lies?"
|
| Here's an anonymous "leak" I found that says whatsapp is
| backdoored and sends your chats to the CCP:
| https://pastebin.com/uE4m694M . Are you going to believe
| it? If asked for comment, Meta is probably going to deny
| it, but obviously they're going to be lying for the
| reasons you mentioned.
|
| >Now you answer: "Why do you put any trust in what
| statements a corp releases?!"
|
| "Trust" isn't binary, it's a spectrum. I don't put much
| trust in corp releases, but I still trust them far more
| than an unverified source. Even if you put zero weight on
| "statements a corp releases", you can inspect the AOSP
| source code yourself and see that it shouldn't be
| possible for apps to steal your location data when it
| doesn't have location permissions, and therefore a list
| claiming that such apps are stealing your location data
| should be treated with extreme skepticism.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > Why do you trust an unverified "leak" over statements
| made by multi-billion dollar multinationals?
|
| Less incentives to lie.
|
| Edit: I had a think, and what I picked up on was the idea
| that sheer concentration of money might stand in as a
| signal for trust, and so whether somone with more money
| would naturally be more honest or dishonest than someone
| with less, is really more of an interesting question.
| braiamp wrote:
| Is not whenever they deny it or not, your device can attest
| to it. Both Google and Apple have no qualms screwing up
| with third parties in their apps. Also, apps have been
| datamined up the wazoo, if a company claims not to do
| something and does it, someone would have already howled
| about it.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| This is a bit of an incorrect read on what this leak is.
| Gravy gathers location data about people from multiple
| sources but not directly from consumers. Gravy's customers
| buy this data.
|
| As far as I understand, this is a list of locations and apps
| used by a person, but without much context. A typical
| response to this has been something like this:
|
| > Grindr has never worked with or provided data to Gravy
| Analytics. We do not share data with data aggregators or
| brokers and have not shared geolocation with ad partners for
| many years. Transparency is at the core of our privacy
| program, therefore the third parties and service providers we
| work with are listed here on our website.
|
| Note how carefully written this is to imply they don't share
| any data at all, but they stop short of saying "we don't
| share _any_ data with ad partners", just geolocation data.
|
| But for companies like Gravy, their whole business is about
| getting data.
|
| So it's not at all implausible (or even unlikely) that this
| represents an event where a user opened Grindr (conceivably
| sold to Gravy by one of Grindr's ad partners following an
| impression), and the same individual's location was
| determined by some other method (for example, IP address
| geolookup, or bought from a company which IS supplying data
| to Gravy directly and has location permissions).
|
| Take the leak with a grain of salt, sure, but it's looking
| reasonably genuine to me.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| > We (...) have not shared geolocation data with ad
| partners for many years
|
| Mobile operating systems don't have good (if any) support
| for opening things in subprocesses with restricted
| permissions from the rest of the app. So if Grindr loads an
| ad, that ad runs with Grindr's permissions. Same for any
| analytics code that ad uses. So if Grindr gets geolocation,
| even temporarily, so does every ad partner they have,
| whether they like it or not.
|
| And the thing is, ads are a bottomless pit of third-party
| JavaScript. Nobody trusts nobody in the ad space, so
| everyone wants their own trackers doing their own client-
| side data collection. So Grindr doesn't have to know
| anything about Gravy Analytics, they just have to have an
| ad partner decide to use them and bam, they're compromised.
| gruez wrote:
| >Mobile operating systems don't have good (if any)
| support for opening things in subprocesses with
| restricted permissions from the rest of the app. [...]
|
| >And the thing is, ads are a bottomless pit of third-
| party JavaScript. [...]
|
| If it's actually javascript, attempting to grab location
| would result in a weird location prompt[1] that shows
| even if you granted the app location permission. It's
| still conceivable for a random SDK to go rogue and
| exfiltrate location data, but it's unlikely that an ad in
| a webview would be able to.
|
| [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39665367/how-to-
| prevent-...
| gruez wrote:
| >So it's not at all implausible (or even unlikely) that
| this represents an event where a user opened Grindr
| (conceivably sold to Gravy by one of Grindr's ad partners
| following an impression), and the same individual's
| location was determined by some other method (for example,
| IP address geolookup, or bought from a company which IS
| supplying data to Gravy directly and has location
| permissions).
|
| There's a pretty big difference between "grindr sells your
| inferred information from IP" and "citymapper sold your
| location data". Even though the latter technically could be
| limited to the former, it's pretty obvious that most people
| think it's selling your precise location as determined by
| GPS or whatever. Just look at the other replies to my
| comments if you don't believe me. This is important,
| because not all "location data" is the same. People are far
| more likely to be creeped out by precise location data than
| ip location data, and you're basically constantly
| transmitting the latter every time you use any app/website.
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I think TfL should focus more on the "transport" part of their
| business.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| To be fair they explicitly state don't use their branding in the
| API documentation. They made PS200K in 2024 from licensing - I
| think about a millionth of a penny per journey
|
| https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-advertising-annual-report-202...
| BonoboIO wrote:
| 200k?
|
| That seems very little to be honest. Who is licensing what from
| the London Metro?
| lostlogin wrote:
| 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...
| qeternity wrote:
| 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 PS200kpa.
| alvis wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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-brand...
| tuukkah wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| jkestner wrote:
| 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.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| This is like claiming you need to license the Mercator
| projection.
|
| The TFL tube map is almost 100 years old[0] and while we can
| argue if industrial design is "art" the main point of the tube
| map is utilitarian - to help people navigate the underground.
|
| [0]
| https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00087041.2021.1...
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| So copyright should only apply to stuff that's not useful?
|
| Whatever the term of copyright should be, there's no doubt
| that it was a significant endeavour to create it, and it
| creatively expresses the topography of London.
|
| Your analogy doesn't work very well I'm afraid. The Mercator
| projection is 500 years old, and generally speaking, you can
| only copyright specific works, not processes. If you want to
| protect a process from being used by others commercially, you
| need a patent, and generally patents are not as long lived as
| copyright.
| mmastrac wrote:
| No, but it's far more likely that fair use applies to
| something that is more _useful_ than _creative_, ie: maps
| and dictionaries.
|
| Regardless of how much effort a copyrighted work to
| produce, most Western countries have a fair-use equivalent
| to transformative use of a work:
| https://lawdit.co.uk/readingroom/intellectual-property-
| law-g....
| saaaaaam wrote:
| The copyright exceptions in the UK are very limited.
| There would not be a copyright exception in this
| situation.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| Odd that this site is a ".co.uk" but talks about the US
| fair use doctrine. The UK does indeed have "fair use"
| (actually called fair dealing) but this wouldn't come
| under it as far as I can tell (IANAL, etc.)
| samwillis wrote:
| It _should_ be easy for a human at TfL to make an assessment on
| something like this, see the autistic and technical value, and
| offer a free but heavily restricted license to the developer.
|
| But is suppose many organisations just don't give people the
| autonomy and authority to do such tings.
| VoidWhisperer wrote:
| For that specific map, based on what the email he got sent
| from TfL said, I don't think they directly have permission to
| issue that license - their site says people have to go
| through the partner who produced the schematic art to get a
| license
| tankenmate wrote:
| Except the schematic art is covered by copyright, not
| trademark.
| tuukkah wrote:
| On their website, TfL says both things:
|
| 1. The map is covered by copyright.
|
| 2. The only way to get a license is to buy one from their
| map partner.
|
| > _We protect the map under copyright and officially
| license it for brands and businesses to reproduce it._
|
| > _To use the map in your design, you must have the
| permission of our map licensing partner, Pindar Creative.
| This is the only way to officially license the map, no
| matter how you 'd like to use it._
|
| Yet, they don't even mention the case you might be a
| third-party developer providing a non-profit service.
|
| https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-advertisers/map-
| lic...
|
| > _For registered charities and schools, the licence is
| royalty free, but we still charge an artwork fee of PS352
| + VAT_
|
| https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-
| advertisers/using-t...
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > For registered charities and schools, the licence is
| royalty free, but we still charge an artwork fee of PS352
| + VAT
|
| Institution funded by taxpayers charging institutions
| funded by donors and taxpayers. Be nice if there were any
| value being added, rather than just exchanged.
| tuukkah wrote:
| If TfL hasn't bought the full rights to their map layouts,
| the shame is on them.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| autistic value? Trains? I see what you did there?
| samwillis wrote:
| s/autistic/artistic
|
| I violated my own rule of always re-reading a post 5 min
| after posting it...
| orra wrote:
| > You were using the TfL schematic map which is very much a
| form of art
|
| The site was taken down by a trademark complaint, not a
| copyright complaint.
| dcrazy wrote:
| Trademarks apply to artistic works that identify an entity.
| See the TFL roundel.
| tuukkah wrote:
| You can use a logo to refer to the entity in question. Is
| it not fair use if you refer to a subway station using the
| subway station logo?
| dcrazy wrote:
| I am not a lawyer, much less a trademark lawyer, so I
| don't think I can reasonably try answer this question.
| andiareso wrote:
| No. If using a plain text word suffices, then that's all
| you get.
|
| My wife is an IP attorney at a large UK based law firm.
| We have discussed this exact thing before (in this
| thread).
|
| She worked on a client matter for a banking app that
| wanted to show the logo of each company next to the
| transaction. This was not cleared by legal given that the
| law only allows for the bare minimum reference.
|
| I think it's dumb because a logo is faster to see in a
| list vs. text, but it doesn't matter. I think IP laws are
| so backwards in the modern era, but thems the rules.
| mr_toad wrote:
| Someone should tell Wise. My list of payments has the
| logos of TfL, ASDA, Tesco, Sainsbury and others next to
| the payments.
|
| Apple Maps also uses the logos when you bring up location
| details.
| dcrazy wrote:
| Those businesses may have enrolled in Apple Business
| Connect or otherwise made an agreement to show their
| trademarks inside the Maps app. Or the Maps app is
| showing the store's app, and their app icon includes
| their trademark. (One of the requirements of submitting
| your app to the App Store is granting Apple a license to
| use your app's icon.)
| rossng wrote:
| They could have easily offered a free license to use the
| trademark. This project wasn't harming them in the slightest.
| Demanding the map's removal and implying that he will have to
| pay to put it back up shows a lack of empathy.
| crazygringo wrote:
| No, trademarks are genuinely important because they allow
| consumers to distinguish between official things that an
| organization stands behind, versus hobbyist projects,
| imitators, etc.
|
| But all the creator had to do was to remove logos and
| possibly change the name so there would be no confusion
| around whether this was an official project or not.
|
| And it seems like the geographic map was fine, only the
| schematic map would have been an issue because its design is
| presumably specifically copyrighted and yes you would have to
| license that just like any other map.
|
| The letters he received may have been heavy-handed but
| there's nothing wrong with the general principle of it.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| The point is that trademark holders could start by reaching
| out and asking nicely instead of being assholes about it.
| lexicality wrote:
| To be fair, they did _start_ by reaching out and asking
| nicely. They just immediately escalated.
| mr_toad wrote:
| The TfL trademarks are all over Apple Maps. The map itself
| would be covered by copyright, not trademark.
|
| It would seem that nobody bothered to run the notice past a
| lawyer.
| darrenf wrote:
| > _To remove the whole site because of that seems petty._
|
| How have they removed the whole site? It literally says "My
| traintimes.org.uk is still there." at the bottom of the page.
| Looks like only the maps have been removed.
|
| (Edited to add: I'm a long time traintimes.org.uk user who
| never even realised they had maps on the site, so consequently
| I am happy the whole site has _not_ been taken down)
| rozab wrote:
| This is particularly galling because TfL never credited or
| compensated the designer of the map, Harry Beck, until long
| after his death.
| lexicality wrote:
| The first email asking to remove a single map from a sub-
| feature of the website is very reasonable.
|
| The second email sent an hour later requesting the hosting
| provider immediately suspend the entire domain was not.
| cryptonector wrote:
| > To remove the whole site because of that seems petty.
|
| Maybe, but TFA explains that it's not being petty, just lack of
| time and resources.
| harry_beck wrote:
| 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
| InsomniacL wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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'
| shermantanktop wrote:
| The Dolores Umbridge Effect
| krunck wrote:
| Or just host it in a country that doesn't care about UK law.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| Doesn't really work when you are an individual who lives in the
| UK.
| mhandley wrote:
| 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.
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| Copyright laws need a reform.
| madars wrote:
| 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 [2] One can
| look them up in https://www.tmdn.org/tmview [3]
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125
| paul_h wrote:
| I commuted the NJ/USA daily for a while and loved -
| https://njtranshit.com/ - there's always room for sites that
| deliver something extra to the official one :)
| mmastrac wrote:
| 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-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.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I was wondering what disappeared, I think it's this:
| 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?
| switch007 wrote:
| 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
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-13 23:01 UTC)