80n wrote:
The one exception is currently Potlatch which is embedded and
obviously displays map content.
Because Potlatch is embedded, you are encouraged to put any copyright
notices you wish in the embedding page. :)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
John Smith wrote:
The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why
that doesn't display.
You probably need a DG file instead.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
Regards,
Ing. Gert Gremmen, BSc
Hey, cool. This is fun. Can we all join in?
cheers
Richard Fairhurst, MA (Cantab)
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s
Nic Roets wrote:
But I also don't know why you three compare the license change
to ordinary democratic processes. It's much closer to what's
been happening in the Arab States this year.
ticks off 'Godwin' on the Hyperbole Bingo card
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
John Smith wrote:
Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright
Um, no. The first thing to be protected by copyright was an Old Irish
psalter. Is and gabais Fergus dóib daur mór ro-boí for lár ind liss assa
frénaib, etc.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
Since recently was decided that in NL
cookies are subject to explicit permission of
the users, I'd think that Openstreetmap provides
information on what information and settings are
actually used by OSM.
Ok then.
OSM per se doesn't store
Markus Lindholm wrote:
But there's no need to store them on the client, as all users have to
log in the preferences can be stored server-side. Atleast I throw away
all cookies when I close the browser.
That works for osm.org but not on a third-party Potlatch deployment, where
it would require
Steve Doerr wrote:
In that case, could it be made to remember custom
backgrounds from one session to the next? If I want
to use the UK postcode layer, I have to add it manually
every time.
Sure - as ever, put it in a trac ticket. Stuff mentioned passingly on
mailing lists gets forgotten.
Adam Hoyle wrote:
Sorry to be dumb/lazy, and I'm sure you've told me before, but please can
you point me at the Potlatch2 trac/svn etc.
trac is the same for all of OSM: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ . Make
sure to select potlatch2 as the component. And only set the priority to
critical if it
jaakkoh wrote:
This may well be my first post to the talk list
Brave soul. :) (But welcome, seriously.)
Browsing a little with the new license status option of Potlatch 2.2
I'm seeing unfortunately lot of red on the map (and some orange,
too).
Don't get too disheartened.
To take your
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF
board members, so you then can make an official statement
about Michael's post.
I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, but there's something
faintly amusing about the appeals to an
Robert Whittaker wrote:
That's my position and you can take it or leave it. I really don't
see how flaming me in this list is helpful to the community.
Blimey. It was meant as a good-natured jokey e-mail, a gentle dig at best.
But if it helps, the Archbishop of Canterbury's house in Charlbury
ThomasB wrote:
And what do you think a laywer will say when asked
when the community using the license has no idea?
The community has a perfectly good idea, as indeed you would do if you
actually read the licence. ;)
Under ODbL you are publicly using a Produced Work from a Derived Database.
Steve Doerr wrote:
I think the main symptom was the contents of the left panel
disappearing: at this point, I would normally click Save, then
(once the Save was complete) click View, then Edit again to
start a new changeset.
If you can provide steps to reproduce, we can take a look at it.
NopMap wrote:
Well, if it is to be this way...
...then maybe it would be a good opportunity for you to help!
Why not volunteer to help LWG in its communications with the German
community? It seems a shame to lament that things are as usual and not do
anything about it.
cheers
Richard
--
David Groom wrote:
Apologies if this feature exists in all of the mainstream editing
software.
JOSM has a MOTD feature. Potlatch doesn't (and won't) because it's always
used when embedded within a website which can choose to display whatever
message it likes: indeed, osm.org does sometimes
NopMap wrote:
How should that work - without concrete information posted anywhere?
Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete
information, then?
You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will
crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't
David Murn wrote:
Maybe you dont understand the role of office-bearers of a
'non-profit' foundation. Sure, they are volunteers, but if they
dont have the time to do the job they volunteered for properly,
then it only hurts the community they claim to serve.
Indeed. And if they don't, you
NopMap wrote:
Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my
crystal ball and guess what everybody has been doing.
Why do you need to do that? Why don't you e-mail LWG and say: I think
you've been having difficulties with your communications. I'd like to
volunteer to be your
Ben Supnik wrote:
Oh...um, I think I'm getting it. I thought that Potlatch knows
where the user is editing because it is scrolled to that
location...e.g. my idea was that if a user could provide only
a URL for a type of data (e.g. a URL for NHD high res water
bodies) then Potlatch could
Hi all,
I'm pleased to announce Potlatch 2.2 is live.
New features include:
- Greatly improved vector background layer support (load shapefiles in
the background and bring elements through one-by-one), including
reprojection from OSGB
- Control-drag an area to select multiple elements
-
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which
licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will
not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project.
Fair enough.
As of today, contributions to OSM are ODbL+CT only.
Guess that's you
Hi all,
I'm pleased to announce Potlatch 2.2 is live.
New features include:
- Greatly improved vector background layer support (load shapefiles in
the background and bring elements through one-by-one), including
reprojection from OSGB
- Control-drag an area to select multiple elements
-
Robert Whittaker wrote:
A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data
remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free
and Open license without the need for further checks.
No, that hasn't been the case since Contributor Terms 1.2 were proposed in
November 2010 and
(continuing from previous message, d'oh)
In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community
would need to check existing data and delete it if so.
See also CT 1.2.x 1b which explicitly envisages this possibility:
if we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible, (in the sense
David Groom wrote:
However your argument above completely fails to refer to Clause 2
of the CT's
(and Robert Whittaker wrote similarly)
Yes. It's my belief that 2 onwards have to be read in the context of 1a/1b.
There would be no point having 1a/1b if that were not the case; and my
reading of
Adam Hoyle wrote:
another email I missed. d'oh.
this also sounds exceedingly good - any idea where I should look to
make sure I don't miss it?
http://kothic.org/
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
TimSC wrote:
Richard, can't we just live and let live? You're profile has the wise
words to avoid endless discussions and go do stuff. I think it is
possible since we recently dropped a discussion that was going nowhere,
at your suggestion [5]. I respected your request - live and let live. I
am
Eric Marsden wrote:
Reading odbl.de, 60% of users have accepted the new contributor terms
in Europe (40% in the USA, the proportion worldwide is not shown).
There 417k users. So (extrapolating) 200k have not accepted the
new terms and 190k have accepted.
Hopefully the decision on whether to
Craig Loftus wrote:
Richard can you give the following URLs a go?
Thanks for setting that up - really encouraging. But good news and bad, I'm
afraid.
The good news is that P2 can get the files from the server no problem. The
bad news is that Ordnance Survey appear to have broken it.
When I was
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
That means we can mix it with OSM, but not contribute it back to
OSM because the new contributor terms don't allow using ODbL
licensed data.
The standard Contributor Terms don't have to be the only Contributor Terms.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in
Ed Loach wrote:
I refer mainly to reprojecting from OSGB to WGS84, which
required manual tweaks to every .prj file [1]. Would
this need doing before upload, or is it something that is now
(but not deployed yet) automated within Potlatch 2?
Potlatch 2's improved (not deployed yet) shapefile
Craig Loftus wrote:
I'm not very familiar with projections so a little more clarity would
be useful for me. As potlatch 'understands' OSGB, is loading an OSBG
shp file any more expensive than loading a WGS84 shp file?
A little. P2 has to reproject each point on first load. But we're using an
TimSC wrote:
This issue not just one person's hobby horse - its an issue that is very
topical and very relevant.
Think you're missing an IMHO in there... and that's rather the point.
I can list plenty of things that I personally think are more topical and
relevant. I'm sure others on this list
Peter Miller wrote:
ITO are probably not the best people to set up maintain simple mirrors
of existing content. Are there not 100 sites where a mirror could be
set up and maintained? Why is the OS site not sufficient anyway?
The OS site
a) offers download-only access behind an e-mail
Peter Miller wrote:
If this is what you want then it clearly isn't a simple FTP mirror
Let's not overcomplicate things. :)
All that is needed is that someone
a) downloads all the OS VectorMap District files
b) unzips them
c) places the unzipped shapefiles on an FTP server somewhere
d) copies
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Graham Jones wrote:
In my day job I look after quite a few decision
making processes to help our organisation make difficult
decisions. I always say that I will have failed if at the end
of the day we have to resort to a vote to decide what to do
That's good. But
[sorry, just noticed this one]
Lennard wrote:
the editor can hide all nodes with a certain tag
Potlatch doesn't do it, but it seems it's a feature just waiting for a
developer.
Potlatch can do it fairly trivially; just give it a MapCSS stylesheet that
doesn't render said tag.
cheers
Richard
Peter Miller wrote:
Fyi we are doing some investigation in ITO into adding OS
VectorDistrict 'road missing' data on the OS Locator tiles or possibly
onto an alternative map layer. The aim being to make tracing of roads
easier
[...]
At a later stage one might consider extending the bot to also
Komяpa wrote:
Glad to announce the first release of Kothic JS map rendering engine.
There's live demo on http://kothic.org/js/
This is seriously amazing.
This is possibly the first thing that brings the promise of it's open
source, make your own maps into the realms of possibility for your
Richard Mann wrote:
Saw a new Onward Travel Poster at Oxford. Nice map. Presumably
a similar one at most other railway stations. Lots of detail,
including some footpaths that have a very familar shape...
Nice attribution. To OS.
Yes. This is supposedly a national initiative, but I've only
Graham Stewart wrote:
So again you are basically arguing that we should avoid
completing the map because having a patchy incomplete map is
what brings in contributors?
No, I'm not.
I'm arguing that completing the map by survey creates a community who will
go on to improve and maintain the
Graham Jones wrote:
setting up mapnik and all its dependencies is quite daunting
This week I've seen something that gives near-Mapnik quality rendering with,
hopefully, near-trivial installation, configuration and system demands. I
think one comment on IRC was zomg which succinctly sums it up.
Graham Stewart wrote:
This is no doubt true.
But surely having an area that has been *surveyed* to 100% road name
completion is just as likely to put off any new contributors as one that
was *traced* to 100%?
(i.e. not very in my opinion)
I don't think so. Again, the difference is that you're
Ed Loach wrote:
I can imagine the little M stickers being printed now...
For those curious as to what these maps look like, here's one I photographed
last week:
http://www.systemeD.net/temp/onward_travel_falmouth.jpg
(4.6Mb file)
Compare and contrast with http://osm.org/go/erU5Lvdkm- .
Peter J Stoner wrote:
Thank you for the photo. It is the first of the new posters I
have seen so it has helped me to check the Traveline and
NextBuses references!
:) They're good posters, I like them (though the cartography is a bit...
utilitarian, shall we say?).
This use of OSM shows
Ed Avis wrote:
But you are leaving out the third possibility which is an area stuck at
40% completion, which doesn't have a vibrant community either.
Oh, indeed. But if we were to put as much effort into marketing OSM and
improving our tools as we do into writing and indeed discussing bots,
Gert Gremmen wrote:
Some of us try to minimize the number of refused CT (about
400) but I have the strong feeling that those are mainly found
in the old core of the first 1000 of OSM mappers, the founders
that were interested in real free data.
Wut?
AFAIK the three contributors with the
TimSC wrote:
Yes, I attended to previous LWG teleconference and I asked for LWG,
as a committee, to enter into direct negotiations with me, an
individual mapper. The draft minutes are online [1].
Thanks for the link, which I see contains your conditions. As I know there
are people on this
Graham Stewart wrote:
So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used
on a restricted area
There is a section of the relevant wiki page where people can request areas:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OS_bot#List_of_requested_places
Note the column for Links to consultation
Steve Coast wrote:
Could you cite the evidence?
Have you Merkins sorted out how you're classifying roads and tagging their
numbers yet?
(if that's just general incompetence rather than import-related malaise feel
free to correct me ;) )
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Graham Stewart wrote:
This keeps getting raised and I'm not sure how true it is.
If you import data into an area that already has an active community, you
likely won't damage the community (though you may piss them off). OTOH, you
probably don't _need_ to import data because there's already an
Peter Miller wrote:
According to OSM Mapper Worcester has been developing nicely over a
couple of years.
Fyi, the most active mapper is this srbrook. Mapper since: 14 October
2009 at 20:30 (over 1 year ago). Description: I'm Steve and have been
mapping in the south Worcester, UK area since
Quintin Driver wrote:
Richard, have you or any of the LWG members done any work for MapQuest,
Skobbler and / or Cloudmade ?
Wow. I'm not an LWG member and I've never done any work for MapQuest,
Skobbler and/or CloudMade.
Where on earth did that come from and what on earth has it got to do
TimSC wrote:
On 07/06/11 14:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
You don't need to put stuff into OSM to make it mashable-uppable. Most
competent licences will have a Collective Work/Database provision to
enable this.
While this this strictly true it is sometimes hard to associate
external records
TimSC wrote:
Straw man.
[...]
Sigh.
[...]
It is ridiculous
[...]
I guess I should not surprised you can't see the benefits
[...]
This seems to be a common thread of your arguments - you make wild claims
Fair enough. It's fairly evident you don't see stuff on the same wavelength
as I do.
I'm led to believe that people have been issuing LWG with private lists of
demands that they want met before they will consent to ODbL+CT.
Could I ask that said people have the courtesy to post their demands here, too?
It would be a shame if the suspicion arose that the process is being swayed
TimSC wrote:
With complete lists of addresses, we can go and find exact positions
of these services. I am still unsure if this is compatible with the
relicensing.
If you go out and find the exact position of a service, with a piece of
paper and a pen (or a GPS or whatever), that's your
Richard Weait wrote:
Any thoughts or widely accepted customs regarding this?
I'd use a length of either railway=disused or railway=abandoned.
IMX it only takes a year or so for a disused railway, often called OOU in
the UK (out of use), to become unsuitable for trains to turn up and go.
On
Pmz a écrit:
Je viens de détecter une nouvelle victime de potlatch2: la frontière sud
de la commune de la bacconière (53). J'en ai profité pour ouvrir
un ticket à ce sujet !
Ce n'est pas victime de potlatch2, c'est victime de newbie. Meme si vous
ne pouvez pas créer un patch pour Potlatch 2,
Hello all,
As some of you might know, I used to work for British Waterways editing
their consumer website, Waterscape.com. We also put together a bunch of
other waterway websites while I was there, one of which was for the Severn
Way long-distance path.
Unfortunately, what with public sector
Ben Robbins wrote:
All we need is a phisical list, and an access list.
Um, we have that already.
For physical tags, we have:
highway=footway, or
highway=cycleway, or
highway=bridleway, or
highway=track
See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging. If it quacks like a
Ben Robbins wrote:
Also, I have no idea how to take this to talk-gb, except by simply
replying there not here, and breaking up a string of responses. I did
however justify why it's here, which your welcome to read. I'm still
struggling some what with getting these replies in the right place,
Ben Robbins wrote:
Also, I have no idea how to take this to talk-gb, except by simply
replying there not here, and breaking up a string of responses. I did
however justify why it's here, which your welcome to read. I'm still
struggling some what with getting these replies in the right place,
Ben Robbins wrote:
[...]
Please take this to talk-gb.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Tracks-and-there-place-in-society-tp6389100p6389114.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I note an increasing number of roads tagged with ref=Cnumber:
http://osm.org/go/euF7qf93-
http://osm.org/go/eu6CM0IS-
etc.
Leaving aside for now the question of sourcing, I feel a little uneasy
about these being rendered on the map. Anyone using the map as, well, a
Kev js1982 wrote:
Some C (and U) roads are signed apparently - see
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/c-roads/
Indeed - a tiny number, and of the list at
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/c-roads/signs.shtml, quite a few seem to be
temporary or works signs (i.e. more for local council edification than
for general
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28397519/history
This way seems to have been reduced to only those nodes at
intersections, obviously wrong given the curves in the road. Can
anyone explain what this DB fixer is and how much damage
it's done?
Back in the
Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
Thanks. I also got it working by changing {zoom}/{x}/{y} to
$z/$x/$y after examining some other Potlatch URLs. It would be nice
to get this into the standard Background list for P2 one of these days.
Happy to do that. Could you give me a lat/long bounding box for
Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
I was wondering if anyone is working on Ipad support for
openstreetmap.org?
AIUI gesture (touch-screen) support is in the latest development builds of
OpenLayers, and will be available on osm.org when they make an official
release.
cheers
Richard
--
View this
On 06/05/2011 08:13, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Am I right that you can embed P2 into other websites and connect it to
the live API?
Yep. See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch_2/Deploying_Potlatch_2 .
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Martin wrote:
Sounds like they are trying to reinvent OSM, but for waterways only.
Perhaps people with particular knowledge of waterways in OSM might
wish to contact them?
See comments at
Tom Chance wrote:
I completely agree that the tools aren't there yet, but could they
not have used OSM for their database?
In theory, yes. But there are huge costs to that, too. The effort
required to work with the community, and in particular, through the
tagging minefield. The extra
Peter Miller wrote:
It does however seem disappointing for them to be duplicating
some a lot of work.
I agree that the OSM data is not perfect however it is good
and could be even better very easily.
AIUI they're not duplicating work. This is a towpath condition project,
not a map the
Andy Mabbett wrote:
Perhaps you missed this part of my post (quoting BW):
A pilot project in London is already:
mapping comprehensive data on access points, barriers, facilities
and public transport as well as information on the surface type,
average width and
Ed Avis wrote:
The general practice in this country is to use footway for paved paths in
cities and path for muddier countryside ones (or, perhaps, through city
parks).
Um, no it isn't. There is absolutely no consensus for using =path in the
countryside rather than =footway. I strongly
Frederik Ramm wrote:
It would be great if we could somehow reboot and arrive at
something sane again.
Superb posting. +1 to all of that.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-Logo-in-the-Wiki-tp6319413p6321156.html
Sent from the General
Peter Miller wrote:
Anyone else getting this and have any other information or work-rounds?
It's actually an API issue rather than a P2 issue. P2 is simply saying
either the API refused to send any data or I couldn't get any response
from the API. Tom has recently committed a change that will
Jochen Topf wrote:
Don't be so hard on the Strategic Working Group. After months of talks
they have actually done something! I think we should celebrate that!
After dipping their toes into many important subjects for the future of
OSM they have chosen the logo change as the most important
David Dixon wrote:
OK, I've updated the tagging of all the National Byway relations
listed on the wiki to network=rcn, and also updated the wiki to
reflect the changes. I suppose I ought to go out and fill in
some of the local gaps now!
Thumbs up to all of that. :)
cheers
Richard
--
David Dixon wrote:
Richard - are you prepared to humour the rest of us and give this a go?
Well, I can't stop you!
If I were someone wanting the National Byway to render right now, I'd tag it
as rcn, not ncn, because I believe if it quacks like a duck, tag it like a
duck and the quality and
Richard Mann wrote:
Does anyone object if longish-distance routes (eg the round-Berkshire
route) are now coded as rcn (rather than lcn), given that Sustrans
have moved away from making a distinction between their national and
regional routes?
Personally I think that'd be a great improvement.
Andy Allan wrote:
If we keep the route=bicycle I would suggest network=ncn,
name = National Byway and therefore bring it into line with
all the other national cycling routes in every other country
in OSM.
Strongly disagree. But then you know that. :)
I think the root (route?) problem is
Peter Miller wrote:
What tagging would you expect us to use within OSM to identify
something as being part of this network?
Just route=bicycle, name=National Byway should be enough IMO. I wouldn't
really call the National Byway a network - it's a circular route with the
odd spur - but I guess
Peter Miller wrote:
I can't see any obvious instances of this tagging in the database at
present. Can you give me some example ways?
Ah, well, if you're asking about how it's tagged at present: it's grouped
in _relations_ (as cycle routes usually are) which have tags
route=bicycle,
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
[some hard-to-follow stuff]
Gert - could you quote in the same way that everyone else does, please? i.e.
no top-posting, snip the bits of the message you're replying to, prefix each
line of quoting with , line-wrap your quotes properly. It
Ed Avis wrote:
So do the produced map tiles (a Produced Work under the ODbL,
I think, or am I mistaken there to?) have to be distributed under
the ODbL also - or can you use any distribution terms as long
as it has attribution - or what?
ODbL 4.3 allows you to distribute Produced Works
Ed Avis wrote:
To answer my own question - I guess that 'reasonably calculated to
make...' suggests you should include an attribution notice and ask
downstream users to respect it - although it doesn't mandate any
particular choice of licence. So we would still have the attribution
Robert Whittaker wrote:
I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because
I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData
In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future
non-OS-derived edits, you do so from another account with assent to the
Contributor
Dave F. wrote:
On 18/04/2011 16:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future
non-OS-derived edits, you do so from another account with assent to the
Contributor Terms.
Did you mean *non*-OS edits? If so could you expand on that please
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
So I take it that now I've signed I can't contribute any more OS stuff?
I believe you can and am continuing to use OpenData as often as I did before
(that's not very often). Robert believes you can't and has explained why
in this thread.
there do seem to be slightly
80n wrote:
There is zero chance that any large organisation would try to use
OSM's CC-BY-SA licensed map data and think that they would
get away with it.
I agree with you here FSVO large.
I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and
deliberately using OSM data
Ed Avis wrote:
What's not clear is how the ODbL+DbCL licence would help this
situation. It would at least straightforwardly permit the publishing
of map tiles without any attribution or share-alike requirement
Disagree. (This has been gone over ad nauseam on legal-talk, I'm just
pointing it
Kai Krueger wrote:
If I am not mistaken, you your self have said that you would rather
use Ordinance Survey data then OpenStreetMap data, despite being
an absolute OSM enthusiast. And if I remember correctly, this was
not only due to licensing, but also because of ease of use?
Indeed, but
Peter Miller wrote:
So the proposal is now:
maxspeed:type=GB:national_single|GB:national_dual|GB:motorway|GB:restricted
I may be missing the point on all of this, but:
Why are we doing this?
In OSM we optimise for the mapper, not the data consumer. That means we tag
exceptions, not
Peter Miller wrote:
There is also the difficulty of identifying which country you are in
Nominatim seems to manage. :)
There is current the problem that no one has actually created a look-
up table for the values that can be used by downstream systems
Ah, now, this is where we have
Ed Loach wrote:
Admittedly I have no motorways in the area I map, but I have added
lots of maxspeed tags recently to try and eliminate (or reduce the
number of) mapdust/skobbler missing speed limit bugs.
Gah!
Doing that on national speed limit roads is surely tagging for the
renderer writ
Stuart Grimshaw wrote:
Some routes stop after a certain time of day, or they follow
a different route at weekends. They follow a different route
for 1 journey before or after school and they go to different
stops because of roadworks.
To keep this information accurate you really would
Project of the Week: Mother's Day. Map your mother.
As, of course, amenity=your_mum.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/April-fools-that-should-have-been-tp6234058p6234432.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Pieren wrote:
My first intention was to ignore this message but I cannot
Anyone round here ever seen the film 'Groundhog Day'?
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Okay-this-is-just-cool-Lockport-NY-tp6225128p6227765.html
Sent from the General
701 - 800 of 1720 matches
Mail list logo
