On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:15:47PM +, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 20:57, ael via Talk-GB
> wrote:
>
> > I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles
> > to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on brid
by
> hand)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95739504
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles
to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on bridleways.
Perhaps I have misu
github.com/navit-gps & https://www.navit-project.org/ etc.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
. Driveway
seems quite inappropriate.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:54:54PM +, ael via Talk-GB wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 09:11:32PM +, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote:
> >
> > something about myself, is to map and provide rendering for the area:highway
>
choice for a name, but something along those lines is
the only thing that I think the majority of mappers could reasonably
use widely.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
le.
I am all in favour of tagging PROWs even where there is nothing on the
ground, but in a way distinct from "proper" paths/ways.
Agreed: do not tag for the renderer, but do tag for the user.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
rs onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river
and added a note.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 02:21:43PM +, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 13:02, ael via Talk-GB
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:11:42PM +, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> > wrote:
> > > For anyone who's interested, I've just
ail Points" dataset from
> Geolytix ( https://blog.geolytix.net/tag/retail-points/ ).
I took a look and it flagged up
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3149722064
as having no name. But it has a perfectly good name?
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
n alone.
>
I just checked a couple of areas that I know, and the locations are
wildly inaccurate. Most of the "missing" defibs were inside buildings
which would not normally be entered by anyone doing OSM surveying. So
our coverage of publically visible defi
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 02:59:41PM +0100, ael wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:27:20PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> > I encountered https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/issues/4140
> > and it is hard to me how it should be decided.
>
> I ori
it isn't a "shop"? The trade tag is intended
for places that cater in a professional way to trade customers, but also
include ordinary retail.
I suppose that if there really are "shops" which are trade only one
could add a subtag like trade_only = yes.
places that do ordinary retail/DIY in addition to
serving trade customers. So trade.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
now. But it's not reliable enough for an unfiltered
> bulk import; there are duplicate entries, incorrect coordinates and
> incorrect or missing addresses.
And missing entries. Two charge points that I have mapped do not appear,
at least with a post-code search.
ael
__
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:58:53AM +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Do we map electric vehicle charging points?
Yes.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:30:00PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented usage of
> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
>
d that reverse dns doesn't work.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
do I need to investigate further?
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
ere destined to become highways or paths. I had to ask for a reversion.
I doubt that an AI system would be any better than Amazon humans.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
oned. But where an edit goes
ahead for good reason, the previous source tag should usually be
expanded rather than overwritten. IMHO.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:45:53AM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 18/3/20 1:42 am, ael wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote:
> > > > On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
> > > The
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 03:08:39PM +, ael wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 06:09:26PM +0000, ael wrote:
> > I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago.
> > These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and
> >
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 06:09:26PM +, ael wrote:
> I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago.
> These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and
>
> I have added a changeset comment.
> https://www.openstreetm
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote:
> > On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
>
> The inability to mark an object's location as "authorititive" has always
> seemed like a massive shortcoming of the pr
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote:
> > On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
>
> The inability to mark an object's location as "authorititive" has always
> seemed like a massive shortcoming of the pr
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 01:08:52PM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
> >
> > I have only just got around to looking in more detail, and discovered
> > that it is much worse than I had realised: vandalism.
> >
> > I have taken waypoints on ne
way better
then using imagery with the poor resolution, parallax errors and all the
rest, which is probably what the user used.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 04:18:02:PM +, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 16/03/2020 15:36, ael wrote:
> >
> > There has now been had one short reply essentially admitting tagging for
> > the renderer. I haven't replied as yet, but Andy has.
>
> In this case it looks lik
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 04:08:45PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>
>
> Mar 15, 2020, 22:36 by witwa...@disroot.org:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 09:18:59PM +, David Woolley wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/03/2020 18:09, ael wrote:
> >> > I have
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 09:18:59PM +, David Woolley wrote:
> On 14/03/2020 18:09, ael wrote:
> > I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago.
> > These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and
>
embankment there. But I suspect this is tagging for the renderer to
make ancient monumnets more obvious on the standard map.
I suggest that every one check their local historic sites for any
unjustified modifications.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing li
everal months each year in the area so I am getting
close to being regular.
ael/messpert
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.41900/-4.23429
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
problems when run on slow limited
machines? Developers may not notice because they are usually using
fairly powerful systems. An accidental drag may not show up for a second
or more and can be overlooked.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstre
rejected by
the list software, and maybe a bit antisocial for those with limited
bandwidth...
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
ive stations which are
usually small pillars a few cm high. Most (all?) are now "legacy"
but they ought to be much more accurate than the much older trig
points.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
had time to do much armchair imagery mapping. There are
maybe around 3 fairly active mappers in East Cornwall.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 12:49:47PM +0100, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> Maybe a compromise might be (assuming the licence is suitable) importing only
> the "designation" tag for entirely new footways (i.e. without a highway tag
> at all)?
An excellent idea, bu
hat good imagery evidence can sometimes do if there
are no local mappers.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
air distance and it probably won't happen. Anyone in that
area?
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
cks. And its offsets don't match those for
Maxbox. I think it is marked "beta" presumably in case of these sorts
of problem.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
s are
no more than construction tracks as yet. Nearly the whole of that site
was mapped before any imagery was available from multiple visits with
fairly accurate gps. Those gps tracks are public and can be inspected.
It is overdue for another visit.
ael
_
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:20:31PM +0100, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 29/07/2019 11:21, ael wrote:
> > In the case that I mentioned, it was certainly not from their own GPS
> > logs.
>
> A few examples I came across while looking at these with a DWG hat on were
> also no
se that I mentioned, it was certainly not from their own GPS
logs. The construction area was inaccesible, even on a bicycle. It
was definitely armchair mapping.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
regular gps surveys.
Sadly, it is not only Amazon armchair mappers who neglect to do basic checks
before changing things.
So, yes, I have some concerns. But maybe they are doing useful work in
area without local mappers. Perhaps they should be encouraged to be more
c
ng extra to improve the database.
>
> > and (in my opinion) should not impede mapping progress.
>
> Existing tags work, Changing for the sake of change is irrelevant. PTv2
> needs to be rescinded.
+1
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:49:04PM +0100, Neil Matthews wrote:
> Add a note on the main OSM site - maybe with expected finish date of
> road works -- might help as a reminder.
Oh yes. I ought to do that. I seldom generate notes, so I forget about
them
t. Except, as you say :-
> I'm not entirely sure how well supported that is by routers etc though.
If I was confident that routers handled it, I would update the tagging.
Anyone know how widely it is supported?
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@opens
s that is a good idea. I was looking for an end-date, but
'negating' the tag - switching to construction - and the using
opening_date as the negation of "end_date" is neat. Hope routers parse
that sort of thing.
ael
___
Talk-G
access tag as soon as the bridge re-opens if you get
there first.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
ent. The panels themselves are quite
low potential, I think, but maybe if they are strung together in
series, there can be hazardous voltages.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
of that comment is that I am not aware of any very local
mappers.
Anyway, have I overlooked a way to tag a temporary restriction like
this? I have put a note in my dairy to remind me to check the tagging in
a week or two, but I could still forget ... which would be unfortunate
:-)
ael
ink that you underestimate the problem for someone who knows little
of computers, has no knowledge of coordinates and trigonomentry, and
has minimal understanding of maps.
I strongly suspect that most OSM contributers have far more education than
a
e explicit
actions surrounded with warnings, to allow coincident ways to share
nodes - apart from the obvious exceptions like junctions ?
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
near Manchester.
I am normally extremely respectful of other mappers' work, but this is
one area where I find that it is just too difficult to avoid possible
minor damage. Maybe I just haven't found the right tools.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
it seems very natural.
I would have thought that this a common situation, so I am a bit bemused
that it doesn't seem to be covered anywhere. Or am I missing
something blindingly obvious?
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.
them unmodified rendering them incorrect. They should append
";navads_shell" or some such if the import goes ahead.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
/maps/map/map.html#zoom=18=51.344207=-2.344501
Oops. Sorry. I didn't scroll down far enough to notice that the point
was already made!
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
highly significant particulary where they cross roads.
Just because the railway is dismantled or abandoned does not mean the
bridges have magically evaporated.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:51:18PM +0100, Kevin Peat wrote:
> >Anyway, I take it that no one is objecting to my changes and wanting to
> >revert them?
> >
> >ael
> >
> >
> >___
> >Talk-GB ma
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:04:32PM +0100, Elizabeth Oldham wrote:
> On 25/09/17 17:13, ael wrote:
>
> > Well, surely this make the tag so general as to be pretty useless. The
> > original meaning was pretty specific and useful. "Moor" or something
> > equiva
eral as to be pretty useless. The
original meaning was pretty specific and useful. "Moor" or something
equivalant is well understood (in the UK, at least) and is useful as
a broad description where detailed mapping is absent.
Anyway, I take it
gs, I would go for
natural = grassland;wetland as the best approximation despite the
fact that not everything is wet nor is grass.
Of course, it only makes sense for coarse-grained approximate mapping,
and more localised accurate tags are the ideal.
Should "moor" or someth
: I didn't find anything on a quick search of the OpenStreetCam
site.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
b/2017-February/019903.html
> ).
I do hope that this can be stopped sooner rather than later. It caused
huge problems around Bodmin Moor. By the time people had noticed, the
large changes were entangled with later edits and it was really
difficult to correct things without destroying later useful work.
Not sure this is the right list, but I guess admins are on this list.
We have a spammer:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Digital%20Torque%20Wrench
who just "added me as a friend".
Can someone remove and block the account?
Thanks,
ael
_
m fairly confident that I only discovered
them by accident. And none of the 3 suggested causes applies in my case.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
gt; is maybe a better option.
>
That sounds much better, although maybe there is a need for a new
restriction tag.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:00:15AM +0100, David Woolley wrote:
> On 29/03/17 21:32, ael wrote:
> > and, for good measure, hgv=permissive.
>
> Permissive sounds wrong to me. Permissive basically reflects the rights of
> the land owner, and for users is the same as yes.
Well
knowledge of my invented
rest_area value might direct other vehicles there.
I think these restricted parking lanes are fairly common.
I not very comfortable with using rest_area for laybys, anyway, but that
seems to be the current recommendation on the wiki.
Is there a better
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 06:57:58PM +, Chris Hill wrote:
> On 24/03/2017 17:58, ael wrote:
> > I have just noticed a newish mapper who has added many footpaths around
> > Oxfordshire apparently using Bing but with changset comments
> > "from countryside access map&qu
ed a visit, and asking
about that map.
Is this likley to be legitimate?
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
uld urge you to make some
sort of comment, even if brief, and maybe repetitive where you are doing
similar things.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
So he was communicating back then (Feb 2016) at least once.
He didn't comment on the fact that I knew the area rather well and had
extensively surveyed with gps and photography
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
will have time to do a thorough job any time soon.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
lematical. I didn't touch adjacent areas
although I was sure they were wrong.
In the light of these discussion, I now feel more bold about perhaps
just deleting more of this junk unless someone/ some group undertakes
bulkish reversion.
ael
___
Tal
heath: that was almost 1 year ago, so this has been going on for
a long time.
The mapper replied politely saying that he had used Bing imagery, but
conceded that "moorland" was more accurate. But added that moorland was
not rendered.
I commented back then on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changes
sponse.
Anyway, I suspect that this is a problem over large areas.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
d there is always a flow of some sort, either
> from the A1 or from the side roads.
>
So far no one has mentioned the hazard tag. Surely that is the obvious
and flexible solution here?
I have tagged some dangerous open mine shafts in Cornwall with
hazard=yes. Being too strict about what is &q
skeard Cornwall. The address is Coldstyle
Road, but searching the fhrs data for the name with or without the
street name returns no results. Perhaps I misunderstand
osm-unmatched-no-postcode-379.gpx ? Am I wrong in assuming this only
includes places with an FHRS rating?
ael
___
Perhaps we should have something like "notname", "wrongdisplay" perhaps,
to alert the FSA in such cases?
I am not too serious since we are only providing the id rather than the
absolute value of the rating, and we don't want to alienate companies,
even when they may not be the mo
y as yet.
Is anyone familiar with this App and whether the mapping is legitimate?
The user has not uploaded any gps traces which may or may not be
relevant.
I have my own gps Waypoint for the cafe (I was about to add the fhrs:id)
so I can remap it the current version i
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:49:32PM +0100, ael wrote:
> I have just found a local cafe added to OSM by "MAPS.ME android 6.2.5-Google",
> at least that was the "created by" tag.
I think that I may now have answered my own question. Digging into the
Knowledge base on the
treetmap.org/node/2513244479
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
I have just searched on the wiki looking for a tag for a (metal) scrap
yard. I tried scrap yard, recycling and waste disposal among others.
What is the right tag (for an area)?
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 09:09:00PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 27/06/16 20:27, ael wrote:
>
>
> Nothing in the GPX upload page has been changed for years.
>
> > I have just had to waste time clicking up and down a tree of stupid
> > (sorry) icons instead of
already takes too much of my
time.
Apologies for being grumpy: or maybe I have just overlooked something?
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
s you can see there, their email address is
witney.libr...@oxfordshire.gov.uk .
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
e unless it
was using diffferential gps. But my experience of many armchair mappers
is that they just ride roughshod and ignore source tags and the like.
To be fair, the editors don't help with this, and it can be tedious and
time consuming to review the history
ide a
proper explanation. The sheer scale is highly suspicious.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
to use the tag to record that
there are other tracks.
I agree that this is not going to be common, but it still seems to have
utility.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 06:41:23PM +0100, Phil Endecott wrote:
>
> How would people find this for tracing compared to photo imagery?
It looks excellent, at least at first glance. Thanks so much for all the
work.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
T
there, it was embarrasing when showing openstreet(map)
to newbies to have to explain that the many significant (often low)
bridges in the area carrying abandoned mining railways over roads were
mapped, but not visible.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 05:22:53PM +0100, ael wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:22:48AM +0100, Jason Woollacott wrote:
Looks like there has been an issue with changeset 30821940 Which seems to
have added the A30 through the whole of Cornwall on an incorrect route.
https
and has only contributed two edits. However,
there is a tag 'proposed:highway=no' which I don't understand, so
perhaps that is just a mistake and it should be proposed:highway=yes?
I suggest that someone who knows the area should check and maybe contact
the mapper to clarify.
ael
and if and when I remember or have
time I may check properly. Casting my eye down the list, I can only see
one that I don't immediately recognise as something I have mapped.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https
=post_office
to the to the same node as the shop tag? Or add a second node? Or
something else?
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Dan S wrote:
2014-10-25 17:48 GMT+01:00 ael law_ence@ntlworld.com:
I have made a large update to the UK retail chain page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Retail_Chains
I am not sure that this is on topic here, but I didn't see
the semantics, but I don't think that
would be very obvious to the average user, who may not be a mapper at
all. He/she needs to know he has to go inside WHS to find the Post Office.
I suppose the obvious rendering would be as you suggest: WHS as an area
containing the PO. Ho hum...
ael
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
