Imagine you're travelling the underground or DLR, sitting [comfortably] and reading a book, and the train stops in a station. Fellow commuters pile on and amongst them is a rather largely-proportioned lady. And so that eternal dilemma begins: Is she definitely pregnant and therefore do you offer up your seat? Or is she not pregnant? Or is she somewhere in middle and you know if you offer up your seat and you've got it wrong you're going to be lamped by her oversized handbag (either containing baby books or hundreds of chocolate bars, depending of course on whether she's pregnant or not). Well, some bright spark at TFL seems to have come up with the idea that pregnant ladies can wear a badge, the type you'd find on a birthday card, with the underground logo and a clear statement that the wearer is an expectant mum. Praise be for small innovations – not only does the child bearer get a seat but we are saved from that awful moment of decision which just makes one wish to be thoroughly British, bury oneself in one's novel, and pretend one is oblivious to everything.

Last week, the British Cartographic Society claimed that "online maps" are "wiping out history". Now, I consider myself to be a fan of maps. I've several books on cartology and I could either find my way or instruct on the intricacies of a 1:50,000 or 1:25,000 Ordinance Survey map with the best of them. Given Ollie's renowned Flood Map or Olympic Map, in recent months he's clearly branched into the benefits of online maps.

As much as I love maps, I don't agree with the BCS. Maps such as Google and Multimap are good for driving (they beat a sat. nav.) and yes, perhaps they do leave out the "crucial data people need to understand a landscape" – but were they ever claiming to do this? No, they're providing a means of finding the most appropriate route to get from A to B, generally via road. Now, unless you're cycling or walking from one end of Yorkshire to the next, you probably don't need to worry about hills and if you're in a car, then you'll probably be sorted regardless. As for landmarks, it's all about usage, isn’t it? If I want to find a tumulus, Google isn't going to help – but a 1:25,000 will. If I want to find my nearest pub, which serves food all day on a Sunday and welcomes dogs, then I'd better turn to Google.

It irritates me that the BSC are somehow criticising the online usage of maps – because, in fact, they should be embracing our new-found love for the map. Suddenly, due to the internet, maps have become accessible. Until the day that Google contains footpaths and writes a group's DofE route out for them, ready for them to print (over my dead body, although there are actually computer programs, sadly, designed to do this) there will always be a place for the 1:25,000 OS (or equivalent). In the same way you can't compare tinned tuna to a tuna steak, I don't see how you can compare an online map to the "real thing". "Corporate cartographers are demolishing thousands of years of history - not to mention Britain's remarkable geography - at a stroke by not including them on maps which millions of us now use every day" – oh, don't be so dramatic. "We're in real danger of losing what makes maps so unique, giving us a feel for a place even if we've never been there" – no we're not, for goodness sake, it's just providing a different use and the traditional map will always continue. Embrace it and move on (map in hand, of course).