Gpn, as I read the Guardian article, the complaint about non-digital NOTAMs is really about non-digital data re controlled airspace - we want it, but it is not available from CAA or NATS in the form we need it. [All the following is with the caveat "
AFAIK" - I am not an expert.]
The moving map displays used in gliders (and for all I know in some other GA kit) need CAS data as, typically, text files in the right format. Different software houses (Winpilot, Glidenav, SeeYou, etc.) have different formats - they grew like Topsy, individually engineered, each with their own way of specifiying coordinates for the corners and altitudes/levels of CAS.
That is a pity, but a historical fact.
At present, each software program (most are not UK-originated) is updated with files of new airspace changes only when some public-spirited volunteers in the UK transcribe official CAA/NATS data into the appropriate formats (different volunteer for each program). This is slightly error-prone, though I have never heard of one getting it wrong. But they could. So they tell users that they can't guarantee that the moving map data is right.
IF CAA/NATS did it, all programs would have a common data base and it would be up to CAA/NATS to get it right. They still might not (errors have appeared on charts before now - missing masts, printing one colour offset from where it should be, and even CAS not correctly depicted etc.) but the responsibility would then lie with CAA/NATS, not the public -spirited volunteers. Moreover, it should be published on a timely basis - today, the volunteers are inevitably doing it after official changes are promulgated.
AIUI.
Chris N.