Page 1 of 2
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 00:17 #41128 | |
northroad
872 posts |
Can I throw something open for debate. Recently when using a Sim and a user contributed timetable (don't need to say which one as I think this is applicable to most Sims) I came across a problem, which, when I did a bit of searching through the relevant pages for that timetable found that it had been reported as a problem. I know I should have looked through the specific timetable pages on the forum to see what potential problems lay ahead and put them right in the timetable before starting but I didn't. Let's face it how many users do, some but probably not all. This lead me to start thinking that there are numerous timetables in use which have similar issues and that is they have never been updated to include reported bugs or problems. Some of the reported problems could have been rectified and the timetable reissued. But which ones have and which ones haven't. There does not seem to be any spread sheet in the forum which identifies which revision, which timetable is currently at and up to what point any issues that have been reported have been included. Time moves on and the original writer of the timetable may well not be a member of the forum now. The same goes for actual simulations. Which revision is the current one. Looking in the downloads section there is a pdf. in there which was drawn up to show what was the current version but as far as I can see this is quite a few years out of date and does not include some of the many new sims. I do find it a little bit confusing and frustrating as I am sure others do. Can anything be done about this?. At the risk of causing great stomping of feet and people coming back and stating the obvious, yes I know it is a question of priorities, time, wifie complaining you spend to much time doing that etc. and that is why I throw it open for debate. Yes I might be able to help also but my help may not be needed. Lets see what others think first. Geoff Geoff. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: BarryM |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 08:41 #41131 | |
Danny252
1461 posts |
Honestly, the only sim that comes to mind where old TTs are a real issue is the NLL - mostly as it was redone from scratch (or certainly heavily revamped). Other than that, I think you're going back to Swindon/Didcot being combined (I doubt those TTs would even open in Swindid) or KX's scrollyfication, both of which are so long ago I can't even remember the dates. I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe one of the GW sims had extra timing points added/removed at some point, but I could be wrong.
Last edited: 04/02/2013 at 08:43 by Danny252 Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 10:37 #41133 | |
postal
5265 posts 
|
Having worked on or suffered from others implementing projects for more years than I care to remember, I think Geoff (northroad) has a point just in terms of basic good housekeeping. Perhaps the answer would be to have an Wiki page which could be updated in real time rather than a pdf on the main site which can only be updated if anyone has a pdf editor (rather than the basic pdf reader). As ever, it would rely on someone to keep things updated (and whatever is "someone's" job rapidly becomes "no-one's" but there is probably enough public-spiritedness within the SimSig family to keep things ticking over.I can't do anything immediately, but I'll try and rough out some sort of draft page for the Wiki later in the week unless anyone can do things any earlier. After all, it will give me something else to be jobsworth about when people post questions on the Forum. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 11:00 #41134 | |
|
AndyG
1842 posts |
" said:I can't do anything immediately, but I'll try and rough out some sort of draft page for the Wiki later in the week unless anyone can do things any earlier. After all, it will give me something else to be jobsworth about when people post questions on the Forum.For simulations history, these could be the starting point, albeit a bit out of date now:- http://www.SimSig.co.uk/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=usertrack:ssinstall:versions http://www.SimSig.co.uk/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=usertrack:ssinstall:oldversions I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 13:44 #41135 | |
jc92
3690 posts |
" said:Honestly, the only sim that comes to mind where old TTs are a real issue is the NLL - mostly as it was redone from scratch (or certainly heavily revamped). Other than that, I think you're going back to Swindon/Didcot being combined (I doubt those TTs would even open in Swindid) or KX's scrollyfication, both of which are so long ago I can't even remember the dates. I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe one of the GW sims had extra timing points added/removed at some point, but I could be wrong.I think what geoff meant about TT versions and updates, is simply the bug fixing side of user contributed timetables. at present there are two ommissions in this respect: a) a directory for timetables in the wiki, detailing each available timetable, its current version, notes on the tt etc (although there is some space in each simulation manual. with a page like this, to be updated by each timetabler who uploads his work, it could help with the issue b) regular reliable updates to timetables - some people will not want to fix/update their timetable, some wont have the time, many do get an update out. looking through the forum i have noticed several timetable threads where errors have been reported and acknowledged, but no action has been taken for months. ( I will admit I am one of the guilty partys here!) "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Last edited: 04/02/2013 at 13:47 by jc92 Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 16:20 #41138 | |
GeoffM
6377 posts |
Ideally timetable writers would need to provide some sort of a release to allow others to modify it, if they want to. That way, if such a writer disappears, no permission needs to be sought to modify that TT. As for the versioning, perhaps TTs could do with an inbuilt version number, set by the author. Possibly an auto-increment build number (save number). A "built on simulation version X" might also help. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 18:17 #41147 | |
|
Noisynoel
989 posts |
My TT's already show a version number, which, strangely enough increment with each version done (Not necassarily released)
Noisynoel Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 18:33 #41148 | |
|
GeoffM
6377 posts |
" said:My TT's already show a version number, which, strangely enough increment with each version done (Not necassarily released)That's good, of course. I mean actually integrating it with the timetable base data so that the simulation has some intelligence WRT to the timetable itself. Especially given the TT working group's suggestions so far. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 19:33 #41149 | |
|
postal
5265 posts
|
" said:Ideally timetable writers would need to provide some sort of a release to allow others to modify it, if they want to. That way, if such a writer disappears, no permission needs to be sought to modify that TT.Presumably that is only in regard to a modified TT being uploaded for circulation rather than someone editing a TT for their own personal use. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 21:16 #41150 | |
|
Sacro
1171 posts |
" said:" said:Depends on the country, it's probably fine in the UK, probably not in the US.Ideally timetable writers would need to provide some sort of a release to allow others to modify it, if they want to. That way, if such a writer disappears, no permission needs to be sought to modify that TT.Presumably that is only in regard to a modified TT being uploaded for circulation rather than someone editing a TT for their own personal use. Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 21:23 #41151 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
" said:" said:Oh lord, it's just a Simsig timetable, not some Hollywood film! Suggesting you can't modify a Simsig TT when in the US because the writer will take you to court for it is ludicrous." said:Depends on the country, it's probably fine in the UK, probably not in the US.Ideally timetable writers would need to provide some sort of a release to allow others to modify it, if they want to. That way, if such a writer disappears, no permission needs to be sought to modify that TT.Presumably that is only in regard to a modified TT being uploaded for circulation rather than someone editing a TT for their own personal use. Last edited: 04/02/2013 at 21:24 by Danny252 Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 21:50 #41152 | |
|
postal
5265 posts
|
But if you are Geoff and your company (which is an American company) is responsible for the web-site, you have to make sure that everything is above board. Nobody is saying you can't modify the TT, just that none of us would like to see Geoff be put potentially at risk by violating copyright law.
“In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Last edited: 04/02/2013 at 21:51 by postal Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 23:33 #41154 | |
|
Josie
310 posts |
Doesn't copyright/intellectual property law only apply to publishing or sharing? If I buy a copyrighted book and tear out a page from the middle, or stick a sheet inside the back cover with some of my own notes, I don't violate the author's copyright because I'm not making and distributing a copy of the original text, just modifying my own copy. That's analagous to deleting or adding a train from a Simsig timetable on my computer. I'm not distributing a copy (or strictly speaking, a derivative work) until I reupload it to the website.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: postal |
| Which version are you using 04/02/2013 at 23:52 #41157 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
" said:But if you are Geoff and your company (which is an American company) is responsible for the web-site, you have to make sure that everything is above board. Nobody is saying you can't modify the TT, just that none of us would like to see Geoff be put potentially at risk by violating copyright law.I didn't think the Simsig community was malicious enough (and rich enough - the holder must pay legal fees) to report someone for "copyright infringement" just because they edited a TT on their own computer. And if you're going to go down the "website may violate copyright law" route, you may as well not upload the TTs - after all, by having the files available, SimSig.co.uk is facilitating said copyright infringement, an argument which has been used to shut down several websites! :P (Or we could just do what we've done for the last decade and not be bothered at all that I might check "passing time" on a train because the writer missed it) Last edited: 04/02/2013 at 23:54 by Danny252 Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 05/02/2013 at 00:04 #41158 | |
|
jc92
3690 posts |
" said:But if you are Geoff and your company (which is an American company) is responsible for the web-site, you have to make sure that everything is above board. Nobody is saying you can't modify the TT, just that none of us would like to see Geoff be put potentially at risk by violating copyright law.would it be possible to alter the T&Cs of uploading a timetable so that, by uploading any file to the SimSig site via the upload page, that the author authorises modification/distribution of said file? just a thought "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 05/02/2013 at 01:03 #41159 | |
|
postal
5265 posts
|
" said:I didn't think the Simsig community was malicious enough (and rich enough - the holder must pay legal fees) to report someone for "copyright infringement" just because they edited a TT on their own computer.I think we are getting a bit at cross-purposes here. The point I tried to make which kicked this whole synthetic debate off was that there is presumably no problem with anyone editing a TT and using it for their own purposes on their own computer. However, anyone who writes a TT has the intellectual property rights to that TT so anyone modifying that TT then re-publishing it would be infringing those intellectual property rights. This is the point that Geoff brought out originally by positing "Ideally timetable writers would need to provide some sort of a release to allow others to modify it, if they want to. That way, if such a writer disappears, no permission needs to be sought to modify that TT." No it's not a Hollywood movie and no it's not a big deal but it is still a bit of the annoying detail which bores most people out of their skulls but which needs to be tied down if you have recently been granted your right to live and work in the USA and your newly formed USA based company on which the livelihood of you and your family depends controls a web-site where copyright material may be distributed. For myself, if I had written a TT, I would be more than just a little miffed if someone else then came along, bastardised it and then submitted it for circulation. I wouldn't be looking at any legal recourse, but I might still be asking for the edited version to be taken down for infringing my rights. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Last edited: 05/02/2013 at 01:07 by postal Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 05/02/2013 at 02:30 #41161 | |
|
northroad
872 posts |
Interesting points raised so far. JC92 was correct and I was talking specifically about timetables, but it would be nice to know which revisions all of the Simulations are currently at. Postal, correctly points out that it is just basic housekeeping really for those and an update of the existing pdf. showing the versions should cover that. As for the timetables, I personally would have thought that anyone who submits a timetable for use in a Sim Sig simulation is offering it up for use and scrutiny by other users. Rightly so, they should be proud of what they have achieved. I know I have made a start several times on trying to create one but have still not managed to complete a single one, so my hats off to those that succeed. Does it not follow, that if they are offering it for publication and use by others, that should it not be correct (probably the wrong word to use) then when others use it and find problems, it is then advantageous, for others to contribute to it and make it workable. An addendum if you want to call it that. Probably not for every minute detail but certainly for some things. Platforming and the likes are obviously things that are an everyday issue and working hazard and therefore any problems like that or similar, are up to the user to overcome. But what about train rules that are or are not incorporated. I am talking about when a train is late and arrives at station ‘A’ which then has a run around necessitating the loco to go into a siding etc. off screen and then reappear. Welwyn GC, Paignton to name just two examples where it could and does happen. It is most annoying that the loco appears before the intended stock for the next service has even arrived. Having to correct it for numerous examples in the same timetable does have it’s annoying points before you even start playing. A tweak in the timetable like ‘Must not enter before’ would solve the problem. A good example (and it is only an example not intended to have a dig at anyone as I know that particular time table has been updated) is the multi play game for Kings Cross 2012 Weekday which took place the other evening. If you read that topic and look at the posts and reports included then you can see my point. I wasn’t in that game so really cannot say too much about what happened but such things like ‘already used’ or ‘no onward working’ etc. are a point in question. The author of that timetable is actively trying to get it right by taking onboard the comments raised, which is to be commended. But some timetables are just left without any update at all. Are they workable, yes of sorts is the answer I suppose, but it would be great if they didn’t need to be tweaked before using them and having to read the forum to see which problems raised previously, have or have not been incorporated and when. I might be nitpicking about all of this. I know it is only a game that is why I threw it open for debate, but Sim Sig is said to be as realistic as possible on the home page. Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 05/02/2013 at 03:01 #41162 | |
|
GeoffM
6377 posts |
My concern was simply that the original author would probably be a bit cheesed off if somebody took their timetable, fiddled a bit, and then uploaded without permission or credit. Although we do a basic check of uploads, we certainly don't go into the detail of whether it is 98% similar to a timetable already uploaded and thus probably copied. All the TT writer needs to do is write a single sentence indicating whether they are happy for others to modify it, maybe as long as the original author is credited. If such a statement is not present then one should assume natural copyright laws apply - for this type of thing there isn't much difference between the UK and the US, not that I think it's entirely relevant anyway. After all, not many people successfully sue YouTube for something a user uploads that violates copyright.
SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 05/02/2013 at 03:03 #41163 | |
|
GeoffM
6377 posts |
" said:but Sim Sig is said to be as realistic as possible on the home page.I do wonder where we stop sometimes though. If we encounter a real life error, do we replicate it or fix it? SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 05/02/2013 at 03:04 #41164 | |
BarryM
2158 posts |
" said:I might be nitpicking about all of this. I know it is only a game that is why I threw it open for debate, but Sim Sig is said to be as realistic as possible on the home page.. Hi Geoff, I hosted Kings Cross the night you were referring to. JU writer of the TT was on a panel. What you heard was about a points failure at Moorgate. To continue to provide a service, I terminated trains at Drayton Park and transposed services. A number of trains were blocked at Moorgate and their headcodes used on the interposed train. That is why you heard ‘already used’ or ‘no onward working’ etc." The transposing is a very difficult exercise in KX as it is old core-code. The original timetable is/was not altered in any way, only the copy of the timetable loaded in the sim. Any problems with the timetable were referred to the writer. Was not this "realistic"? I believe Network Controllers would have done the same thing. Regards Barry PS: Are you on the way home? Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Last edited: 05/02/2013 at 03:05 by BarryM Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 05/02/2013 at 03:48 #41165 | |
|
northroad
872 posts |
Hi Barry, yep leaving the land of make believe on Friday, Holland for two weeks and then working on the other halves punch list items. One has to wonder how far copyright goes. I think it is fair to assume that writers of timetables have used a WTT to compile. I have section YB for 76/77 in front of me now and it clearly states on the front cover PRIVATE and not for publication. Is that for the WTT, the content or only if it is published by someone else including it's content when used in Sim Sig or others similar. That being the case then the majority of timetables in Sim Sig may be in breach. Does it only mean currently in use. Train tracker and other web sites do use information under licence. I seem to remember that we have had this similar discussion numerous times on the forum but never really got to the bottom of what is and what is not. The explanation of what happened the other night was noted however I would say that in some timetables when you use them when checking with the tools function to analyse the timetable you can see that there are no rules at all. Maybe it does not need them, maybe it does. My opinion is still the same though if someone submits a timetable to sim sig then surely they must expect other users to put it under the test as it were and not be surprised that if something is inherently wrong that they allow it to be put right if they do not respond to those comments on the forum and choose to do nothing about it. Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 05/02/2013 at 09:58 #41166 | |
|
postal
5265 posts
|
Purely in the SimSig context, how or where do you draw the line between correction of errors and altering the TT in a way that the original writer would not want? Perhaps we can get round it by asking that TT writers waive their rights on the condition that any copy of the TT revised by someone else is an addition to the Downloads page and not a replacement. This of course takes us right back to the original point made by Geoff (northroad) about version control and logging.
“In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 05/02/2013 at 11:11 #41168 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
Oh dear. Intellectual property. M'learned friend lives, breathes and teaches this stuff; some of it has even penetrated my skull. Here goes. Copyright exists in any original work. Any at all, no exceptions. It subsists for the life of the author plus seventy years. Copyright is what we're talking about here, rather than any other form of IP. As an academic point, copyright can be brought or sold just like any other form of property. That is why Eric Treacy's photos are now copyright someone else - his collection was sold after he died. More recently, the law allowed for "moral rights" - even if copyright was sold, the original author was allowed to assert a right to be named as the original creator of the work. I suspect that doesn't clear up the problem as far as Simsig is concerned, although I think it's moral rights we're talking about here. Reworking of an existing work is permitted to some degree (think sampling, which seems to have become fundamental to some forms of "music" in recent years). In that case, the new author may legitimately refer to it as their own work. But trivial tweaks don't count. The rules governing what is & isn't permissible are complex and make a happy hunting ground for m'learned friends (at a price, of course). That, of course, is the point. Copyright protects an author's ability to profit from his work. (It's how songwriters, photographers, computer programmers, etc make their living so, in spite of those who believe in freedom to copy everything, I don't think we should just throw it overboard.) Where there is no profit involved, it's far less relevant. No TT writer has yet suggested they're going to want money for their creations so the likelihood of anything ending up in court is somewhat limited (unless someone wants to spend a fortune just for the experience  ).But it is worth ensuring one's backside is covered. There seems to be a trend in the US to litigation over everything; even my fevered imagination finds it hard to see how anyone could create a situation where they could sue Geoff and Simsig, but US attorneys' imaginations seem more fevered than mine (hot coffee anyone?) so I wouldn't rule it out, even if it does only ever apply to moral rights. So the question is how to ensure the legal position is covered. It is open to any copyright holder to pass on their copyright, either by sale or by gift, in whatever way they choose. Likewise it is open to any website owner that hosts original works to require that an author gives copyright to the website as a condition of hosting - the author may still assert moral rights and be acknowledged as the original creator. So maybe Geoff needs to add, as has been suggested, a term that requires copyright in timetables to pass to Simsig. After that, I think the key is to make sure timetables and versions are correctly attributed. I think I'm right in saying an original author has no right to prevent a TT being altered in a way they don't want once it's published - provided other rules relating to copyright (including attribution of authorship) are observed. But I think it would be good practice that the modified TT be added to downloads rather than replacing the original (of course the original author should be able to withdraw an uncorrected TT if they wish - I'm sure Geoff and mods would be pleased to facilitate that). Any thoughts? Copyright in original WTTs has become an academic issue. As I understand it, Network Rail has said that they will not seek to enforce intellectual property rights over operating publications that find their way into the public domain so the possibility of ending up in court has become entirely hypothetical. Therefore, for any purposes in connection with Simsig, information obtained from documents in circulation may be used without hindrance. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: northroad, postal |
| Which version are you using 05/02/2013 at 13:44 #41174 | |
|
sorabain
72 posts |
random thought: rather than necessarily re-publishing the complete timetable would it be possible for an implementation of some kind of "timetable patch" file format that users could apply to an existing timetable? Would this get around copyright since the "patch" will only have a tiny overlap with the original? I have to hold my hands up here and admit that i've not ever looked at the existing raw timetable format so don't know if such patches would mean more work for core development teams, or if it's something ASCII based where a patch could resemble output from diff and be relatively easy to apply Apologies if i'm digging up previously stated suggestions, v. busy @ work but didn't want to leave this thought until later as i'll likely forget to post it at all Regards, Sorabain Log in to reply |
| Which version are you using 05/02/2013 at 14:14 #41175 | |
|
derbybest
274 posts |
As a tt writer and have a few tt's uploaded i have found that despite testing some errors do occur. As has been said the info comes from wtt's/swb's etc these books also contain errors and staff has to work round them. If SimSig is supposed to be realistic then there will be errors too Chris Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Noisynoel |