Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 09:12 -0500, Mike N wrote: On 2/10/2011 9:01 AM, Anthony wrote: Tracing aerials does not involve copying data. Tracing from Google's imagery not only violates their terms of usage, their spokespeople say that it's explicitly not allowed. There's nothing to prevent them from planting 'Easter eggs' in their imagery to catch violators. This caught me out recently when I was comparing the differences between google and OSM nearby. I noticed a few small towns nearby that were much bigger on google than on OSM, so I started looking for bing imagery for the area, which was very poor (cant even pick the highway into the town). I then decided to compare google satellite to google map data, and noticed more than half the roads in google data simply didnt exist, and quite a lot that did exist were the wrong shape/length or had incorrect junctions. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:45:47 +0100, Matt Williams wrote: On 10 February 2011 14:33, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: Am I the only one who is wondering what this whole thread is about? Has Anthony's edits been removed? If so, why? I haven't heard of the license change actually being implemented ATM, and certainly not that edits are being removed. So, what is this all about? See the other thread What the license change is going to do to the map from yesterday. Nope, that doesn't really help. Anthony posted a message out of the blue with a before and after picture and later stated that The board voted to delete my contributions, and this is the before and after. Later someone (who is AFAIK not a member of the OSM board) called him a troll and accused him of copying data from Google. But what really happened or what the real cause for this is is not made clear. So, his edits were deleted by the OSM board? Why? And if not only his edits were deleted, but all nodes and ways he touched were deleted, why? Why not his edits reverted to the previous state? Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: Nope, that doesn't really help. Anthony posted a message out of the blue with a before and after picture and later stated that The board voted to delete my contributions, and this is the before and after. Later someone (who is AFAIK not a member of the OSM board) called him a troll and accused him of copying data from Google. Which, by the way, I denied. Tracing aerials does not involve copying data. But what really happened or what the real cause for this is is not made clear. So, his edits were deleted by the OSM board? Why? I said on a mailing list that I traced from Google. The LWG asked me which of my edits should be deleted. I told them none of them should be deleted. So naturally they deleted all of them. And if not only his edits were deleted, but all nodes and ways he touched were deleted, why? Why not his edits reverted to the previous state? I explained this part above. In some cases I deleted ways in order to add new ones. I did this quite a bit when turning TIGER roads into dual carriageways, for instance. So, since my edit was the first edit for that way, there was nothing to revert to. On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:54 AM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Also, if a particular user's changes are going to be rolled back, this needs to include not only undoing things they added or changed but also undoing deletions. That would likely cause even more problems. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 10 February 2011 14:01, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Which, by the way, I denied. Tracing aerials does not involve copying data. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Since I began mapping on OSM (which was a while ago) the considered opinion of the project was Don't trace Google imagery. We're not sure it's legal, they're convinced it isn't and it's certainly a breach of their terms of use. So don't do it. Seriously. Bad things will happen, and it will be your fault You failed to heed this. Bad things happened. It's _your_ stupid fault. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 February 2011 14:01, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Which, by the way, I denied. Tracing aerials does not involve copying data. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. It definitely doesn't. There's no maybe about it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Regardless of what you believe, Google have said that they don't want their imagery traced into OSM and OSM have said that they don't want Google derived data in the database. You polluted the database with data nobody wants and now have been trolling the mailing lists ever since. That doesn't make you a victim of some OSMF conspiracy and it certainly doesn't help the otherwise complicated enough discussion of the license change. On 10 February 2011 14:24, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 February 2011 14:01, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Which, by the way, I denied. Tracing aerials does not involve copying data. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. It definitely doesn't. There's no maybe about it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Hi Am 10.02.2011, 15:24 Uhr, schrieb Anthony o...@inbox.org: Which, by the way, I denied. Tracing aerials does not involve copying data. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. It definitely doesn't. There's no maybe about it. Since you are no judge I dare to object. However: OSM data integrity is at stake, and you are endangering it, willfully and knowingly. While you seem to understand the reasoning behind the OSM contribution policy, you fail to obey it. You are endangering the work of thousands of people. You are not in a position to do so. So, by all means, I want you to be banned from our project. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 10 February 2011 14:24, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: It definitely doesn't. There's no maybe about it. You seem to have missed my substantive point, so let me restate it: You deliberately did something we as a community have chosen not to do. You willfully put the work of others in jeopardy. This is YOUR fault. You are the wrong-doer here. Your selfishness has caused a lot of work for other people. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Kay Drangmeister k...@drangmeister.net wrote: Hi Am 10.02.2011, 15:24 Uhr, schrieb Anthony o...@inbox.org: Which, by the way, I denied. Tracing aerials does not involve copying data. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. It definitely doesn't. There's no maybe about it. Since you are no judge I dare to object. What does being a judge have to do with determining whether or not I copied data? In many jurisdictions, a judge wouldn't even be involved in such a determination of fact, a jury would. However: OSM data integrity is at stake, and you are endangering it, willfully and knowingly. Everything was fine just a few days ago, before the LWG started deleting stuff. I note that the only evidence whatsoever that I ever traced anything from Google, is the fact that I said I had. And you don't trust me. So this deletion spree is based on absolutely nothing. While you seem to understand the reasoning behind the OSM contribution policy, you fail to obey it. I thought I understood the policy. To cover your ass so Google can't say you're encouraging people to break the TOS. But I've been told that isn't it at all, and that you actually don't want people to trace from Google. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Anthony wrote: I thought I understood the policy. To cover your ass so Google can't say you're encouraging people to break the TOS. But I've been told that isn't it at all, and that you actually don't want people to trace from Google. Honesty - try it some day, it works ! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:36:53 +0100 Kay Drangmeister k...@drangmeister.net wrote: However: OSM data integrity is at stake, and you are endangering it, willfully and knowingly. While you seem to understand the reasoning behind the OSM contribution policy, you fail to obey it. You are endangering the work of thousands of people. You are not in a position to do so. So, by all means, I want you to be banned from our project. Let's get this completely fair, and remove all the work of others who have been caught tracing from Google, admitted it when challenged, and only the work which was challenged has been removed. Work which may also be traced from Google because it also was a long way from the person's home, and not been specifically challenged, is still there in the OSM database. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Am 10.02.2011 15:12, schrieb Grant Slater: Message from Mikel 2 days ago explaining: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2011-February/001052.html I believe the user-revert script used is fairly simple and does not have direct access to the OSM database. The script does attempt to restore previous states, but without direct DB access it is limited. Thanks for letting us know this, as it was the missing piece in this discussion. It helped a lot understanding why and how things happened. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:59:45 + Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: On 10/02/11 19:37, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:36:53 +0100 Kay Drangmeisterk...@drangmeister.net wrote: Let's get this completely fair, and remove all the work of others who have been caught tracing from Google, admitted it when challenged, and only the work which was challenged has been removed. Work which may also be traced from Google because it also was a long way from the person's home, and not been specifically challenged, is still there in the OSM database. Sounds to me like you're either admitting that you have traced from Google or you know people who have. In either case that traced work needs to be deleted, and serial tracers need blocking like Anthony. The distances are not any kind of excuse. If you are implying that most people trace from Google, then I am convinced you are wrong. Of course you could be less of an argumentative pain-in-the-arse and either put up or shut up. I have made public, further back in the lists, the 'name' of the person who did this. I'll save you the trouble of searching the archives. It was 'staehler'. I found his work in Australia, which was copied, and wrong. I asked him, he admitted it and agreed to remove it. Months later I found more of his work elsewhere in Australia, again flagrantly wrong, because I was doing survey work on the ground. He then tried to lay the blame on others for not having reverted his work for him (Frederick Ramm, actually). Australian mappers - mostly Rosscoe, carefully unpicked his Australian work. When I have looked through staehler changesets I see that he has mapped in many continents. So for procedural fairness, all of his work should go. His name is public on these lists, with my name pointing him out as copying, and copying from Google, as that was the only place with those wrong street names. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Where possible only infringing edits will be removed - I'm not sure why you think we would or should do more than that. In this case the mapper refused to cooperate with identifying which edits were infringing so we had to assume they all were and remove them all. You must not be paying attention. I've repeatedly identified which edits were infringing - NONE OF THE EDITS WERE INFRINGING. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Anthony wrote: I've repeatedly identified which edits were infringing - NONE OF THE EDITS WERE INFRINGING. I'm afraid there seems to be either a misunderstanding between us or a contradiction on your part. Earlier in this thread you wrote : I said on a mailing list that I traced from Google. The LWG asked me which of my edits should be deleted. I told them none of them should be deleted. So naturally they deleted all of them. Either you traced from Google or none of the edits were infringing. Those two assertions are mutually incompatible. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
- Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org To: Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map) On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: Either you traced from Google or none of the edits were infringing. Those two assertions are mutually incompatible. No they aren't. Anthony, they might not be incompatible as far as you are concerned. But they are incompatible as far as the OSM community is concerned. That is a fact. OSM has repeatedly said it does not want contents that are derived from Google tracing. It's very clear. OSM is not asking you whether you think you are allowed to trace from Google. It is telling you that as a community we don't want you to trace from Google. Regards David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Either you traced from Google or none of the edits were infringing. Those two assertions are mutually incompatible. No they aren't. Anthony, they might not be incompatible as far as you are concerned. But they are incompatible as far as the OSM community is concerned. That is a fact. I'm not sure where you're getting that fact from. Nor do I see the relevance. The OSM community might believe that 1+1=3 for all I know. But that doesn't change the fact that it 1+1 in fact equals 2. OSM has repeatedly said it does not want contents that are derived from Google tracing. It's very clear. OSM is not asking you whether you think you are allowed to trace from Google. It is telling you that as a community we don't want you to trace from Google. Yes. And it's telling me that by deleting contributions which have absolutely nothing to do with my tracing from Google. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
OSM has repeatedly said it does not want contents that are derived from Google tracing. It's very clear. OSM is not asking you whether you think you are allowed to trace from Google. It is telling you that as a community we don't want you to trace from Google. Yes. And it's telling me that by deleting contributions which have absolutely nothing to do with my tracing from Google. Actually, let me correct that. A tiny fraction (less than 0.001%) of the OSM community has told me that by deleting contributions which have absolutely nothing to do with my tracing from Google. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 11 February 2011 01:11, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Actually, let me correct that. A tiny fraction (less than 0.001%) of the OSM community has told me that by deleting contributions which have absolutely nothing to do with my tracing from Google. What percentage has told you that that what you were doing was OK? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Anthony wrote: OSM is not asking you whether you think you are allowed to trace from Google. It is telling you that as a community we don't want you to trace from Google. Yes. And it's telling me that by deleting contributions which have absolutely nothing to do with my tracing from Google. After admitting to tracing from Google imagery, you refused to tell which objects were involved. You left other members no choice - they had to take the prudent course of action. Had you been willing to collaborate, this could have been avoided. You wish that, after reading you admitting to tracing from Google imagery, other contributors would accept your retraction and continue as if nothing happened - but it is not possible : your initial admission cast a shadow that other project members are not willing to bear. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: Anthony wrote: OSM is not asking you whether you think you are allowed to trace from Google. It is telling you that as a community we don't want you to trace from Google. Yes. And it's telling me that by deleting contributions which have absolutely nothing to do with my tracing from Google. After admitting to tracing from Google imagery, you refused to tell which objects were involved. Oh my God. How many times do I have to say this? NO OBJECTS WERE INVOLVED. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 11 February 2011 01:34, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Oh my God. How many times do I have to say this? NO OBJECTS WERE INVOLVED. By now this is all at risk of getting a little like a soap opera, and like with soaps, there is a risk that people coming in at the middle of a storyline will fail to grasp the nuances of the situation. So for their benefit... PREVIOUSLY ON DYNASTY: * Anthony brags about tracing from Google (did he mean imagery or maps? Oooh! Cliffhanger) * Many within the project appalled - Anthony, how could you, everybody knows it's not allowed * The Man demands to know what objects are tainted. Anthony insists none are. * The Man deletes all of Anthony's contribution and banishes him to the wilderness. Surely only waking up and realising it's a bad dream will save him now. * Various mappers chastise Anthony for having brought this misfortune not only down on his own head, but on those of others. Demand to know why he didn't just answer The Man's question. * Anthony insists that yes, he did trace from Google and that no, none of his contributions represent prohibited content in OSM. * Anthony goes on to have in his possession simultaneously tea and no tea, thereby solving one of the stickier puzzle in the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy text adventure game[1]. Go Anthony! Stay tuned to today's rivetting episode of Dynasty! Dermot [1] The key to this conundrum, incidentally, was to go rummaging inside your own brain, find and remove your common sense, which would otherwise block any attempt at justifying such an obvious paradox -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Does anyone think more discussion is going to yield anything useful? It is obvious that Anthony is unwilling to accept a nearly universally held community consensus. I initially thought that the wholesale nuking of all his contributions was a little drastic. But his continued anti-community behavior has convinced me that it was indeed the correct course of action. There is no room for such selfishness in a community based project. And yes, if as much of the community agreed that 1+1=3 as agrees that tracing from google is not desirable, then I would tag lanes=3 on 2 lane roads. Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: And yes, if as much of the community agreed that 1+1=3 as agrees that tracing from google is not desirable, then I would tag lanes=3 on 2 lane roads. I wouldn't. And I think that pretty much sums this whole mess up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
* Anthony goes on to have in his possession simultaneously tea and no tea, thereby solving one of the stickier puzzle in the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy text adventure game[1]. Go Anthony! Was there ever a sequel to that text adventure? It kind of ended on a cliff-hanger ... nick *** WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print or copy this email without appropriate authority. If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake, please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not waived or destroyed by that mistake. It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with your computer system). Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Maritime Safety Queensland or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. *** ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 11 February 2011 02:05, nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote: Was there ever a sequel to that text adventure? It kind of ended on a cliff-hanger ... Well there was a crucial bit where the protagonist left the planet... Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 11 February 2011 02:05, nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote: Was there ever a sequel to that text adventure? It kind of ended on a cliff-hanger ... Well there was a crucial bit where the protagonist left the planet... Last bit I remember, the protagonist left the spaceship to go onto the planet ... what happened after that? nick *** WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print or copy this email without appropriate authority. If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake, please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not waived or destroyed by that mistake. It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with your computer system). Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Maritime Safety Queensland or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. *** ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Damn, I assumed that it was either the 'evil twin' or 'amnesia' plot line. On Feb 10, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 February 2011 01:34, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Oh my God. How many times do I have to say this? NO OBJECTS WERE INVOLVED. By now this is all at risk of getting a little like a soap opera, and like with soaps, there is a risk that people coming in at the middle of a storyline will fail to grasp the nuances of the situation. So for their benefit... PREVIOUSLY ON DYNASTY: * Anthony brags about tracing from Google (did he mean imagery or maps? Oooh! Cliffhanger) * Many within the project appalled - Anthony, how could you, everybody knows it's not allowed * The Man demands to know what objects are tainted. Anthony insists none are. * The Man deletes all of Anthony's contribution and banishes him to the wilderness. Surely only waking up and realising it's a bad dream will save him now. * Various mappers chastise Anthony for having brought this misfortune not only down on his own head, but on those of others. Demand to know why he didn't just answer The Man's question. * Anthony insists that yes, he did trace from Google and that no, none of his contributions represent prohibited content in OSM. * Anthony goes on to have in his possession simultaneously tea and no tea, thereby solving one of the stickier puzzle in the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy text adventure game[1]. Go Anthony! Stay tuned to today's rivetting episode of Dynasty! Dermot [1] The key to this conundrum, incidentally, was to go rummaging inside your own brain, find and remove your common sense, which would otherwise block any attempt at justifying such an obvious paradox -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
