Hi, There exist GeoData that are spatial and temporal aggregates, commonly the spatial aggregation is for contiguous regions. Anyway, yes, a type of error propogation in their analysis relates to the aggregation (this is described by MAUP).
A lot of government/official data about people in the UK is spatially aggregated into regions based on their 'usual residence' (postcode, census output area/tract, health area etc). Other statistics are also compiled for these areas (e.g. amount of greenspace/accessibility to XYZ). I think it is becoming easier to get to the unaggregated data due to improvements in data security/access and storage etc... With this it is opening up the possibilities of analysing data across a range of spatial scales (or for different weighting surfaces e.g. accessibility) at a detailed level of spatial resolution. It is subjective as to what scales, what resolutions (origins and orientations), what weightings to use, but this somewhat avoids the MAUP for spatially aggregated data when trying to identify correlations. In my experience, often the disaggregate data wanted for an analysis exist and can, in theory, be integrated. However, the data are often distributed only within different organisational domains and what is wanted for an analysis is data from multiple domains. I know of some work that is exploring how to enable this analysis in something called a Virtual Safe Setting. The idea is to allow the integration of the data and produce outputs that can be made available to specific groups adhering to the requirements of all the source data providers. MAUP effects will persist like arbitrary zoning for elections/governance and a demand for and use of statistics for these exist. But data improvements (particularly access) should be driving the development and use of appropriate data analysis tools for those things we can analyse in a disaggregated form. I appreciate I have come at this from an academic non Web 2.0 angle, but it does relate. Thanks and best wishes, Andy http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/people/a.turner/ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 July 2008 16:02 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Spatial analysis was Re: MapMaker Hi Renee, Seeing MAUP come up is both cool and a bit scary at the same time. I think MAUP is easier to understand with an example. The best example I've seen illustrating MAUP was a paper one of my advisor's, Kingsley Haynes (with Bill Bowen and others) did back at GMU: "This paper uses the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Toxic Release Inventory for 1987-1990 and the 1990 Census of Population and Housing to analyze the spatial distribution of toxic industrial pollution and demographic groups in Ohio. In apparent support of the previous body of research, we report high correlations between racial variables and level of toxic release at the county level. The highest levels of toxic release in Ohio occur in the state's most urban counties, fourteen of which contain approximately 90 percent of the state's minority population. However, a census-tract examination of the most urban of these counties, Cuyahoga, reveals no relationships between race and toxicity." While MAUP is a cool topic of research it is a bit scary that this is the bar we are setting for non-technical users to become involved in spatial analysis. I'd bet not even 1 in 10 GIS users have any clue what MAUP is. Does this mean they should have to hand back over their ESRI licenses? It also a bit scary to see the postmodern arguments against geographic analysis crop up. They also have an important role to play in the critique of research, but I'd also argue they have crippled the discipline of geography. The focus has become what is wrong with maps and analysis and not what problems it can solve (full rant here - http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=b3406b). On the upside I think the GeoWeb has the potential to solve both of these problems. By making data more accessible and enabling collaboration and conversation around maps we now have the ability to uncover MAUP problems and data politics. If I made the map with environmental dumping and county level race data and both the map and data were easily available in one place then I could take the same data and illustrate the MAUP problem by showing the correlation does not bear out at the census tract level. If we do not open these technologies then the map can "lie" and very few have the ability to catch it and prove it wrong. The opening up of both data and analysis has far more power to reveal lies and problems than it does to create them. Sure I can create a blog and post all sorts of falsehoods, but far more often a blog can be used to reveal the same. Journalism did not fall apart with blogs. Statistics did not fall apart when Excel allowed anyone to run a Pearson's correlation. The same will hold true for geographic analysis. best, sean FortiusOne Inc, 2200 Wilson Blvd. suite 307 Arlington, VA 22201 cell - 202-321-3914 ----- Original Message ----- From: "R E Sieber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 3:54:39 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Spatial analysis was Re: MapMaker Occasionally the neo does intersect with the paleo. To me it comes down to two (huge) points that stump us paleo-geographers, particularly when it comes to GIS: 1. Geospatial literacy, which largely boils down to spatial distributions. Most GIS analyses don't have to do with finding specific attributional information for a point or doing a query based on topology (find me the nearest thing) but with looking at clusters of things (points, lines, areas). That requires geostatistics and, since most of the stats are based on areas, it first requires understanding of the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP). Of course, the public doesn't need a lecture in the MAUP but they do need a sense of why they need to choose an appropriate areal unit,* for example, for determining a population density. Many people don't get the concept of density right away--they think in terms of counts in any given area before they understand that they need to control for size. Then it takes them a while to understand that they can shift bits of area around and get different results and that they can lie with maps (a very readable book, BTW, by Mark Monmonier). Most have never heard of gerrymandering. They also look at map output and think that what they see is causative. Poverty (or even worse, they'll think race) must cause crime because they can "see" the relationship. It takes some understanding of the data--its source, limits, aggregation, and analysis--to realize what's going on. It requires that they understand the difference between causation and association and the difference between association and what they see on a map (hence my concern with the Rhiza Labs stuff, as cool as it is). And it takes an understanding of politics (like who decided the neighborhood boundaries and what forces caused the poor people to live where they do). Therefore, 2. Geospatial data and politics (aka data and access; what Google doesn't want you to know). No matter how much data we have; how well we can represent it in 2-D, 3-D, 4-D; no matter how much analytic capacity we have, there will still be agendas embedded in the data. Paleogeography has been all over this for hundreds of years. The best book is Denis Wood's The Power of Maps, which shows that even satellite images can be biased and road maps have agendas. Google might, and I'm just making a suggestion here, they might not want you to know where Tibet is because Google wants its partner countries to be happy and the government of China doesn't want you to recognize Tibet as a country. This is not new. There's a whole library of books written on maps and politics and the importance of where you draw the boundary. Or as Nietschmann said, "More indigenous territory has been claimed by maps than by guns." We know that maps (or geospatial data and its varied inputs and outputs) have power. That's why it's fun. But geospatial data can be exclusionary in its power too, as much as we may wish for its ubiquity. Hope this doesn't cause some geoflaming like the last time. Renee *In geography, there's been lots of work in trying to automate the appropriate areal unit with mixed success. You can't get away from needing to make some arbitrary rules to do it. And the rules, arbitrary or not, inevitably lead to some bias. David G. Smith PE PLS wrote: > Seems 'neo' comes full circle and returns to what the 'paleo' guys > have already been doing for decades in desktop GIS... > > *ducking tomatoes and exiting stage left...* > > Seriously, the excitement factor of it is in bringing true, robust > geoanalytical capability to this Mashup-oriented self-service Web x.0 > paradigm in the form of easy-to-feed, easy-to-consume web services. > Grab dataset 'a' on the fly from here, run your analysis on the fly > there, and show the results in your [insert framework du jour here: > Google Earth / Virtual Earth / WorldWind / OpenLayers / Widget / > iPhone / whatever else we dream up ] > > David G. Smith PE PLS > Synergist Technology Group, Inc. > 570.280.6763 > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > NOTE: New cell phone number: > 570-280-6763 > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Liebhold > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Geowanking] Spatial analysis was Re: MapMaker > > This whole episode re-inforces the notion that mapmaking capabilities > are now commonly useful and available, but comprehensive search and > aggregation are incomplete and mostly useless, even at google. > > And despite Stephen White's and Schuyler Erles earlier comments > diminishing the importance of "red dots", besides 3D, another > important frontier is learn true geospatial analysis; learning to form > proper queries for the -specific- dots, lines or blobs from what is > growing into an immense web of geocoded data. e.g. a guy I know raised > a huge commotion in LA by showing the geographic distribution of > cancer near liquor stores that sell tobacco; demonstrating conclusive > evidence of a deadly correlation. ( Some of these stores are major > contributors to the election campaigns of city councilmen) > > This kind of simply geographic boolean query [ "lung cancer" "liquor > store" cigarettes near Los Angeles] is trivial to an experienced > google searcher, and common for a military intelligence analyst but > quite difficult for many users. Until we have -aggregated- geodata > this will be imposible capability for the rest of us, but immensely > powerful once we have achieved a critical mass of aggregated, indexed > community and professionaly created geodata and spatial media, and > learn how to form useful questions. > > e.g. a -comprehensive- map from many sources of [campsites near > topanga ca] > > imho > > Mike > > > > > > Anselm Hook wrote: > >> oh i'll take a look at fixing this - just trying to test the limits >> of the broader issue of letting people search for things... >> >> the broader issue was that of looking at mapmaker; this was mostly in >> that light of where the industry was as a whole >> >> -me >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:18 PM, SteveC <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> It's free as in 'you can fix it' :-) >> >> Yes there are niche sites as Richard says. And if the search sucks, >> sorry, but it's all open source and you can prod the authors or help >> them code it. I've cc'd David Earl who might be able to fix. >> >> David - could you make '"campsites near topanga, ca"' work >> please? :-) >> >> >> On 25 Jun 2008, at 14:55, Tom Longson (nym) wrote: >> >> > Currently I'm just not sure how to use OSM with these specific >> things >> > in mind. How do I use OSM to find campsites anyways? Does one >> have to >> > code a custom tool to do this, or is this part of openstreetmap's >> > website and I just haven't found it? The best I've been able to >> do is >> > type in "campsite" into the search, and get global results of >> > campsites, which doesn't solve my question of finding a campsite to >> > camp at this weekend within 100 miles of me. One of the ones I did >> > look at through OSM's search results, "Brewster's Cabin", is >> > unfindable via organic search >> > >> > Steve, are people building niche sites on top of OSM, like one >> that is >> > designed to only show trails and camps, or other things like >> that? It >> > seems like the best way to encourage this kind of behavior is to >> have >> > the massive clearinghouse horizontal (OSM), and then build up >> specific >> > verticals, such as campers, bikers, environmentalists, etc, possibly >> > as a category list on openstreetmap.org >> <http://openstreetmap.org> itself. I'm not sure people >> > even realize they can search for this kind of thing, or that >> they can >> > add it to OSM at all. I for one, would love to see >> openstreetmap.org <http://openstreetmap.org> >> > come up the next time I do a search for "campsites near topanga, >> ca". >> > >> > Would love to know what you think, >> > Tom Longson (nym) >> > http://truefalsemaybe.com/ >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 1:56 PM, SteveC <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> Naturally you added all this info in to OSM right? :-P >> >> >> >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 25 Jun 2008, at 12:12, Anselm Hook wrote: >> >> >> >>> Mapmaker seems helpful but not a solution for the problem of >> finding >> >>> out enough information about what one needs nearby; even if >> and when >> >>> it extends to places where most of us live. >> >>> >> >>> Base layer data aside - I just don't see how it could become the >> >>> comprehensive repository of place information. How is any silo >> >>> going to ever be able to answer a broad swath of the kinds of >> >>> questions that we have of it? Real solutions have to straddle >> many >> >>> data sources - mapmaker, openstreetmaps, trails.com >> <http://trails.com>, flickr, >> >>> fireeagle, ranger stations, gps add on packs whatever... >> >>> >> >>> I was reminded of this last week when I drove from Portland to San >> >>> Fran to Portland. I wanted to camp rather than staying at hotels >> >>> and I tried to search for campsites as I was visiting each >> area that >> >>> I considered camping in. My experience I think are typical of >> what >> >>> happens to most people when they are searching for something and I >> >>> think it shows that work remains: >> >>> >> >>> 1) On the way down we stopped near Crescent City and tried to >> find a >> >>> campsite by using the web - nothing seemed to pop up that was >> clear >> >>> and trustworthy. However by pure chance I found a brochure at the >> >>> closed Ranger Station that did have a little camping icon for a >> >>> place called Nickel Beach, and this turned out to be just great; >> >>> free, allowing fires, a short hike at sunset on a bluff over the >> >>> pacific ocean - it was great - although I didn't find it via the >> >>> web. >> >>> >> >>> 2) On the way back I tried to camp near Grants Pass but could not >> >>> find anything that I trusted even after searching the web for an >> >>> hour and driving around and so stayed at a hotel. The next >> morning >> >>> I found an outdoors weekly newspaper that did have a map of >> camping >> >>> sites in it - unfortunately a bit too late to be useful. >> >>> >> >>> I must admit, just now , trying to search for 'campground' using >> >>> wikimapia - does work: >> >>> >> >>> http://wikimapia.org/ >> >>> #lat=41.7067538&lon=-124.1209602&z=13&l=0&m=a&v=2 >> >>> >> >>> But note how Google Maps fails to reveal the non-commercial >> option: >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > http://maps.google.com/maps?um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=campground&near=Crescent+C > ity,+C > A&fb=1&view=text&sa=X&oi=local_group&resnum=1&ct=more-results&cd=1 > > <http://maps.google.com/maps?um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=campground&near=Crescent+ > City,+ > CA&fb=1&view=text&sa=X&oi=local_group&resnum=1&ct=more-results&cd=1> > >> >>> >> >>> Trails.com is totally useless here - although it does list several >> >>> other good choices... and anyway it is behind a 'please pay me >> wall' >> >>> that makes it unacceptable for general use. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > http://www.trails.com/advancedfind.asp?GeoSearch=1&lat=41.621564&lon=- > 124.11 > 5388&Distance=20&Activities=CP&area=14071 > > <http://www.trails.com/advancedfind.asp?GeoSearch=1&lat=41.621564&lon= > -124.1 15388&Distance=20&Activities=CP&area=14071> > >> >>> >> >>> Other sites do list campgrounds but since there is no map they are >> >>> totally useless. I just can't go and try search for every >> >>> possibility to find where it is so those possibilities become >> >>> unusable: >> >>> >> >>> http://www.redwood.national-park.com/camping.htm#bc >> >>> >> >>> So my feeling is that if my searches are typical, then we all >> still >> >>> have a ways to go... and Mapmaker seems like a part of the >> >>> ecosystem but not a panacea for my needs at least... the solution >> >>> seems to be some kind of better indexing with more precise >> location >> >>> information, more trust in some way... >> >>> >> >>> - anselm >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Ian White >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> finally, a topic worth discussing! if you want to see what the >> >>> future of a goog wiki-map world, india could be a good place to >> >>> look--sure, they've provided a valuable service in creating a base >> >>> map, but at what cost? anybody know if participants were paid or >> >>> volunteer? given GPS devices or loaners? any chance the underlying >> >>> map data will be released? if i were google, i sure as hell >> wouldn't >> >>> make it available to anybody else--damn smart and cheap way to >> get a >> >>> 'good enough' base map. i'm sure g recognizes that their 'go it >> >>> alone approach in a user-contributed world' ain't going to >> give them >> >>> NVT/TA quality data (love it or not, it is high quality) >> today, but >> >>> over time it's something that google may find it doesn't have >> to pay >> >>> any licensing fees for (not that NVT/TA derive much $$$ from the >> >>> interwebs--it's under 5% of their business). But...as g begins to >> >>> move more into different platforms (android, in car nav (don't >> >>> forget the VW deal), and direct acquisition of sat imagery (d! >> >>> on't forget this one: >> http://mashable.com/2007/07/21/google-image-america/) >> >>> , all your fears/hopes/dreams may come true! >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Ian White :: Urban Mapping Inc >> >>> 690 Fifth Street Suite 200 :: San Francisco CA 94107 >> >>> T.415.946.8170 x80 :: F.866.385.8266 >> >>> blog.urbanmapping.com <http://blog.urbanmapping.com> :: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> >> >>> ________________________________________ >> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> ] On Behalf Of James Fee [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:43 AM >> >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] MapMaker >> >>> >> >>> Why? To cut out the providers and control the data for themselves. >> >>> Who >> >>> wants to deal with NAVTEQ or others when they can just pay interns >> >>> to >> >>> drive cars around cities of the world and take pictures/GPS or get >> >>> Google fan boys to update their maps for free? >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> James Fee GISP >> >>> RSP Architects >> >>> 502 South Collge Avenue, Suite 203, Tempe, AZ 85281 >> >>> 480-889-2095 (w) >> >>> 602-819-2142 (m) >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of Landon Blake >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:38 AM >> >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] MapMaker >> >>> >> >>> Good point Kevin. In that case, Google's motive does seem a little >> >>> more >> >>> suspect, doesn't it? >> >>> >> >>> Why would anyone map Bermuda for Google if it was already mapped? >> >>> >> >>> Landon >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of Kevin Mayall >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:04 AM >> >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] MapMaker >> >>> >> >>> Let's not assume that the countries listed in Google Map Maker are >> >>> "unmapped regions of the world". Bermuda and Cayman, for example, >> >>> are >> >>> very well mapped. Google just doesn't own any data for them. >> >>> >> >>> Kevin (in Bermuda) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of Landon Blake >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:37 PM >> >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] MapMaker >> >>> >> >>> I just checked out the Google Map Maker web application this >> >>> morning. I >> >>> was pretty impressed with the simple interface. >> >>> >> >>> I've always admired the way Google can tackle a problem and >> design a >> >>> slick solution. I don't know how I'd live without my G-Mail. >> >>> >> >>> Still, there terms of use really bites the big one. Seems to >> me like >> >>> these terms would be a deal killer for a lot of volunteer mappers. >> >>> (I >> >>> sure won't be adding to there database. Why do that when you can >> >>> contribute to Open Street Map?) >> >>> >> >>> It seems like Google is ignoring a principle that can be drawn >> from >> >>> open >> >>> source software development: absolute control chokes voluntary >> >>> contributions. >> >>> >> >>> I do, however, think that mapping unknown regions of the world >> will >> >>> only >> >>> benefit society as a whole. If the data is publicly >> accessible, but >> >>> Google makes a dime, is that a horrible thing? They might end up >> >>> mapping >> >>> something that would have never been mapped otherwise. >> >>> >> >>> Imagine what Google could have accomplished if it had worked >> with an >> >>> organization like OSM to map unmapped regions of the world. >> It's too >> >>> bad >> >>> they were so short-sighted in this respect. >> >>> >> >>> The Sunburned Surveyor >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of SteveC >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:51 AM >> >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> Subject: [Geowanking] MapMaker >> >>> >> >>> What no mention of GMM on geowanking yet? And I was looking >> >>> forward to >> >>> the disucssion! >> >>> >> >>> http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=307 >> >>> >> >>> Best >> >>> >> >>> Steve >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Geowanking mailing list >> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Warning: >> >>> Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed >> against >> >>> defects including translation and transmission errors. If the >> reader >> >>> is >> >>> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >> >>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is >> >>> strictly >> >>> prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please >> >>> notify the sender immediately. >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Geowanking mailing list >> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Geowanking mailing list >> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Geowanking mailing list >> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Geowanking mailing list >> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Geowanking mailing list >> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> anselm 415 215 4856 http://hook.org http://makerlab.com >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Geowanking mailing list >> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >> >> >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Geowanking mailing list >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Geowanking mailing list >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >> > >> >> Best >> >> Steve >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Geowanking mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >> >> >> >> >> -- >> anselm 415 215 4856 http://hook.org http://makerlab.com >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Geowanking mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >> > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > > _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
