On 21/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It'll come, it'll come. Dumping everything onto disk scans in the first instance. Just under two years doubling time. You won't be *able* to buy a disk smaller than a petabyte in twenty years.
Who is going to do the physical scanning?
Some dedicated fools, I expect.
Another issues is OS maps over 50 years old. All public domain but a pain to scan. It would be nice if the UK branch of wikimedia could do something but I doubt we could get hold of the equipment.
There *must* be efforts to this end. If not, it'd be an ideal project for Wikimedia UK to look at when it's operational.
[cc to wmuk-l]
- d.
On 9/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Some dedicated fools, I expect.
Microfilm scanning should be easy but I can't even figure out where to get the kit.
There *must* be efforts to this end.
A complete scan of maps around 1900 exists but the people who did it claim copyright and they do it in a way that that would probably hold up even if there was a Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp equiverlent in the UK. They base their claim on cropping and swiching over to modern grid references.
The people who are trying to create maps from GPS didn't get very far.
If not, it'd be an ideal project for Wikimedia UK to look at when it's operational.
The main problem is cost and amount of material. Remember OS has maps of up to 25 inches to the mile. and maps dateing back to 1801
The other is cost. The type of scanners required are not cheap. Somewhere in the £10,000s of thousands.
Geographicaly it might be worth seeing if southampton or solent university had one we could use but it gets somewhat complex.
On 23/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The other is cost. The type of scanners required are not cheap. Somewhere in the £10,000s of thousands.
The ten thousands of thousands? Fuck, that is a wodge.
Rob Church
On 9/23/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The other is cost. The type of scanners required are not cheap. Somewhere in the £10,000s of thousands.
The ten thousands of thousands? Fuck, that is a wodge.
Somewaht less if you are prepared to wait for something on ebay. They appear to be in the thousands. there appears to be a massive price jump once you go above A3 size.
On 23/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Somewaht less if you are prepared to wait for something on ebay. They appear to be in the thousands. there appears to be a massive price jump once you go above A3 size.
I'm risking being drawn back into discussion before I've finished a nice long break, but...
Couldn't Wikimedia UK hire one out, or something? Is that at all possible? If not, perhaps we could find someone who owns one, who might be willing to lend it to us?
Rob Church
On 9/23/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Somewaht less if you are prepared to wait for something on ebay. They appear to be in the thousands. there appears to be a massive price jump once you go above A3 size.
I'm risking being drawn back into discussion before I've finished a nice long break, but...
Couldn't Wikimedia UK hire one out, or something? Is that at all possible? If not, perhaps we could find someone who owns one, who might be willing to lend it to us?
Rob Church
You'd need a 36 inch colour scaner to do this on a large scale. Yes they can be hired. It might be posible to borrow one from the universities I suggested.
On 23/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You'd need a 36 inch colour scaner to do this on a large scale. Yes they can be hired. It might be posible to borrow one from the universities I suggested.
Borrowing from a higher education insitution might be a cheaper option; I would imagine there has to be one out there which would be willing to lend us their kit, or rather, allow one or two designated representatives to use it.
Rob Church
On 23/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You'd need a 36 inch colour scaner to do this on a large scale. Yes they can be hired. It might be posible to borrow one from the universities I suggested.
It should be reasonably easy to get a university onside with such a project.
- d.
On 23/09/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It should be reasonably easy to get a university onside with such a project.
David Gerard never has problems getting people to co-operate with him. David Gerard appreciates the value of a LART. ;)
Rob Church
On 23/09/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/09/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It should be reasonably easy to get a university onside with such a project.
David Gerard never has problems getting people to co-operate with him. David Gerard appreciates the value of a LART. ;)
You overestimate my negotiating skills just because they're better than yours. OTOH your code goes into MediaWiki a lot ;-)
Is there a suitable stash of the maps in question? Preferably at a university with such a scanner. I can start asking around my very close and dear Internet friends or something. So can all of you.
Getting required permission for the use ("we plan to copy and release them all as the public domain the OS says they are") may require closer negotiation with relevant staff, e.g. library staff. If needed, having Wikimedia UK publicise the wonderful work of the wonderful university in question might help sway the deal. I'm speculating off the top of my head here.
- d.
On 9/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/09/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/09/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It should be reasonably easy to get a university onside with such a project.
David Gerard never has problems getting people to co-operate with him. David Gerard appreciates the value of a LART. ;)
You overestimate my negotiating skills just because they're better than yours. OTOH your code goes into MediaWiki a lot ;-)
Is there a suitable stash of the maps in question? Preferably at a university with such a scanner. I can start asking around my very close and dear Internet friends or something. So can all of you.
OS themselves should have a fairly complete set. I know they worked with the people producing the commercial version. If we stuck to 100 year old+ I see no reason why they should not work with us.
Getting required permission for the use ("we plan to copy and release them all as the public domain the OS says they are") may require closer negotiation with relevant staff, e.g. library staff.
Libraries are likely to only have maps of their local area. For stuff beyond that you would probably need central county archives and I haven't got around to investigating those yet
I doubt there will be any question over them being public domain. OS were very clear on that point
If needed, having Wikimedia UK publicise the wonderful work of the wonderful university in question might help sway the deal. I'm speculating off the top of my head here.
The other posible groups are OpenStreetMap people and various local history groups.
The other posible groups are OpenStreetMap people and various local history groups.
Indeed....
Gordo
On 9/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You'd need a 36 inch colour scaner to do this on a large scale. Yes they can be hired. It might be posible to borrow one from the universities I suggested.
It should be reasonably easy to get a university onside with such a project.
As I said southampton and solent university are the ones nearest to OS's base. I don't know if we have any contacts with those two.
Hello everyone
On Saturday, September 23, 2006, at 01:29 am, David Gerard wrote:
There *must* be efforts to this end. If not, it'd be an ideal project for Wikimedia UK to look at when it's operational.
What's the current status of Wikimedia UK?
I ask, as I recall being at some of the real and online meetings which were held to create Wikimedia UK. There was a great sense of passion then, and a great sense of urgency - we have to create this *now*, we have to incorporate *now*, we have to get this started *now*.
And huge progress was made with deciding what W-UK would be legally called, what the memo and arts would be, who the directors would be, conversations between then wiki foundation and the uk crew, etc etc etc. All done with great speed, enthusiasm and a real sense that there was a need, a call for urgency.
And now...? External progress seems to have slowed - other than the occasional post on this list, and the occasional media interaction (which was also happening pre-incorporation), there's no external signs of progress. The front page of http://wikimedia.org.uk/ has not been changed in months. Nor has, as far as I can tell, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
What's going on? Is there progress? Is help needed somewhere with something? There was a heck of a lot of enthusiasm and goodwill floating around in January, when WER, its directors and aims were finalised. It would be a great shame if that petered away.
Scott
___________________________________________________________ All New Yahoo! Mail � Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Hello
In the absence of other replies to this email, I noticed this in an email on foundation-l from Angela beesley@gmail.com (Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:21:56 +1000), in reply to a request from Erik on things he should do as a trustee:
"In conjunction with the chapter's committee, make sure every chapter is allowed official recognition and have a clear process for obtaining that (Wikimedia UK is still denied this recognition)."
What's the problem? Why the denial? Or is this something I should be asking on foundation-l?
Scott
On Saturday, September 23, 2006, at 02:29 am, Scott Keir wrote:
Hello everyone
On Saturday, September 23, 2006, at 01:29 am, David Gerard wrote:
There *must* be efforts to this end. If not, it'd be an ideal project for Wikimedia UK to look at when it's operational.
What's the current status of Wikimedia UK?
I ask, as I recall being at some of the real and online meetings which were held to create Wikimedia UK. There was a great sense of passion then, and a great sense of urgency - we have to create this *now*, we have to incorporate *now*, we have to get this started *now*.
And huge progress was made with deciding what W-UK would be legally called, what the memo and arts would be, who the directors would be, conversations between then wiki foundation and the uk crew, etc etc etc. All done with great speed, enthusiasm and a real sense that there was a need, a call for urgency.
And now...? External progress seems to have slowed - other than the occasional post on this list, and the occasional media interaction (which was also happening pre-incorporation), there's no external signs of progress. The front page of http://wikimedia.org.uk/ has not been changed in months. Nor has, as far as I can tell, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
What's going on? Is there progress? Is help needed somewhere with something? There was a heck of a lot of enthusiasm and goodwill floating around in January, when WER, its directors and aims were finalised. It would be a great shame if that petered away.
Scott
___________________________________________________________ Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 24/09/06, Scott Keir scottkeir@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
In the absence of other replies to this email, I noticed this in an email on foundation-l from Angela beesley@gmail.com (Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:21:56 +1000), in reply to a request from Erik on things he should do as a trustee: "In conjunction with the chapter's committee, make sure every chapter is allowed official recognition and have a clear process for obtaining that (Wikimedia UK is still denied this recognition)." What's the problem? Why the denial? Or is this something I should be asking on foundation-l?
We don't have charitable status as yet, so Wiki Educational Resources Ltd is still a private for-profit company of Alison, James, John, Andrew and me, legally speaking.
*twiddles fingers waiting for Charity Commissioner*
- d.
On 9/24/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/09/06, Scott Keir scottkeir@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
In the absence of other replies to this email, I noticed this in an email on foundation-l from Angela beesley@gmail.com (Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:21:56 +1000), in reply to a request from Erik on things he should do as a trustee: "In conjunction with the chapter's committee, make sure every chapter is allowed official recognition and have a clear process for obtaining that (Wikimedia UK is still denied this recognition)." What's the problem? Why the denial? Or is this something I should be asking on foundation-l?
We don't have charitable status as yet, so Wiki Educational Resources Ltd is still a private for-profit company of Alison, James, John, Andrew and me, legally speaking.
I think David means not-for-profit company (limited by guarantee).
Andrew
*twiddles fingers waiting for Charity Commissioner*
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
On 24/09/06, Andrew Walker keggers@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/24/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We don't have charitable status as yet, so Wiki Educational Resources Ltd is still a private for-profit company of Alison, James, John, Andrew and me, legally speaking.
I think David means not-for-profit company (limited by guarantee).
You are of course correct. (D'oh.)
- d.
On 24/09/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/09/06, Andrew Walker keggers@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/24/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We don't have charitable status as yet, so Wiki Educational Resources Ltd is still a private for-profit company of Alison, James, John, Andrew and me, legally speaking.
I think David means not-for-profit company (limited by guarantee).
You are of course correct. (D'oh.)
Don't worry, ladies and gentlemen. David Gerard has so much income from his subsidiaries, and his not-so-white-collar "businesses", that even He can't remember it all. ;)
Rob Church
Hello all,
Well, first, the result of the competition to hold Wikimania 2007 is in. London's candidacy - which we've been working hard on for the last few weeks - had a lot of support but was, in the end, unsuccessful, and Taipei in Taiwan was chosen as the host city for next year.
On other matters, For reasons which were publicised at the time we founded the Chapter here we chose to not include the word "Wikimedia" in the legal title because some people (David Gerard was one I recall) were concerned that if something untoward happened to the UK chapter then by having a different name it could be 'cut adrift' and a new one started. This meant that although we cleared the legal structure with the Foundation in advance because "Wikimedia" wasn't included in the name som complications have set in in getting us a formal agreement. Complicated by a decision of which we wre advised in the Spring that we couldn't be made 'official' until there was a proper Trademark agreement set up and that hadn't happened. Since then some newer Chapters have been recognised and we've been trying to ascertain exactly what is happening - and receiving some different replies through different routes.
I will say thuogh that the recent interest on this list about the status question has resulted in some activity and I'm hopeful that at the Wikimedia Board meeting and 'retreat' that is happening next month in Frankfurt - to which James and myself have been invited - we shall be able to progress it to a satisfactory conclusion.
On other matters, we've had some abscence of action by one of the directors who has neither been pro-active in sorting out what they've need to nor responded regularly to contact. I'm not going to detail it further here, suffice it to say we are considering how best to progress this, which might include looking for a replacement. Althugh delaying some activities we are still progressing with others.
On the 'external' side, we have been contaced by a major PR firm who would like to offer their services to us pro bono. I met with them in July and whilst I was impressed by what they could offer I feel it might be sensible to first see who else might be interested in working with us (and any of you in that industry please feel free to contact me directly.
Finally, although London did not win the bid to host Wikimania (you can read the full bid at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/London ) it was very useful research and has showed us that there are quite a few organisations who would be interesting in working with us to raise the profile of the Wikimedia projects and attracting new editors, especially from the non-English language citizens we have.
Regards
Alison
====================================================== Alison Wheeler Chair, Wikimedia UK e: alison.wheeler@wikimedia.org.uk d: 020 7419 1017 m: 077 1017 2564 Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki Educational Resources Ltd, company limited by guarantee #05708269
Imagine a world in which every person can have free access to the sum of all human knowledge We're making it happen. Will you help us?
On 25/09/06, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
Hello all,
Well, first, the result of the competition to hold Wikimania 2007 is in. London's candidacy - which we've been working hard on for the last few weeks - had a lot of support but was, in the end, unsuccessful, and Taipei in Taiwan was chosen as the host city for next year.
(...)
Finally, although London did not win the bid to host Wikimania (you can read the full bid at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/London ) it was very useful research and has showed us that there are quite a few organisations who would be interesting in working with us to raise the profile of the Wikimedia projects and attracting new editors, especially from the non-English language citizens we have.
I note the announcement for WM07 said that WM08 would be bid for and decided on this winter (presumably so we can get 18, not 10, months lead-time for these events in future); are people planning to roll-over the London 2007 bid for the 2008 contest?
On Mon, September 25, 2006 01:14, Andrew Gray wrote:
I note the announcement for WM07 said that WM08 would be bid for and decided on this winter (presumably so we can get 18, not 10, months lead-time for these events in future); are people planning to roll-over the London 2007 bid for the 2008 contest?
Yes, it is intended that bidding for WM08 will open shortly, however as we noted in our bid for WM07 we consider it to be almost impossible to bid for a conference more than 12 months away as we (a) can't get prices, (b) can't get primises - universities have told us that they can only book for the next year for their facilities and halls of residence, and (c) the statement was made on the release of the decision that it was, in part, made because Taipei had already raised substantial sponshop (or at least they professed to having done so). We've found that whilst we can get some "provisional intent to support" before being awarded the conference we can't get anything substantial and *definite* in advance, let alone two years in advance. After all, what marketing campaign is going to commit to something over two years out that might not even happen.
Anyway, for the moment it is time for a rest and recuperation from the intensse work the team has undertaken - and I'd especially like to add a personal thankyou to Sam Kuper for all his work.
Alison
Just to be clear from the WMF board side, there is absolutely no reluctance or problem with the approval of the UK chapter, and even I am not 100% sure what the status is ("different replies through different routes" is Alison's very apt description).
Because we now have Brad as fulltime legal counsel, doing a trademark agreement is something that can happen in a timely fashion, so I am confident that whenever whatever technical hurdles are cleared somewhere, this can easily happen in a timely fashion.
--Jimbo
Alison Wheeler wrote:
Hello all,
Well, first, the result of the competition to hold Wikimania 2007 is in. London's candidacy - which we've been working hard on for the last few weeks - had a lot of support but was, in the end, unsuccessful, and Taipei in Taiwan was chosen as the host city for next year.
On other matters, For reasons which were publicised at the time we founded the Chapter here we chose to not include the word "Wikimedia" in the legal title because some people (David Gerard was one I recall) were concerned that if something untoward happened to the UK chapter then by having a different name it could be 'cut adrift' and a new one started. This meant that although we cleared the legal structure with the Foundation in advance because "Wikimedia" wasn't included in the name som complications have set in in getting us a formal agreement. Complicated by a decision of which we wre advised in the Spring that we couldn't be made 'official' until there was a proper Trademark agreement set up and that hadn't happened. Since then some newer Chapters have been recognised and we've been trying to ascertain exactly what is happening - and receiving some different replies through different routes.
I will say thuogh that the recent interest on this list about the status question has resulted in some activity and I'm hopeful that at the Wikimedia Board meeting and 'retreat' that is happening next month in Frankfurt - to which James and myself have been invited - we shall be able to progress it to a satisfactory conclusion.
On other matters, we've had some abscence of action by one of the directors who has neither been pro-active in sorting out what they've need to nor responded regularly to contact. I'm not going to detail it further here, suffice it to say we are considering how best to progress this, which might include looking for a replacement. Althugh delaying some activities we are still progressing with others.
On the 'external' side, we have been contaced by a major PR firm who would like to offer their services to us pro bono. I met with them in July and whilst I was impressed by what they could offer I feel it might be sensible to first see who else might be interested in working with us (and any of you in that industry please feel free to contact me directly.
Finally, although London did not win the bid to host Wikimania (you can read the full bid at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/London ) it was very useful research and has showed us that there are quite a few organisations who would be interesting in working with us to raise the profile of the Wikimedia projects and attracting new editors, especially from the non-English language citizens we have.
Regards
Alison
====================================================== Alison Wheeler Chair, Wikimedia UK e: alison.wheeler@wikimedia.org.uk d: 020 7419 1017 m: 077 1017 2564 Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki Educational Resources Ltd, company limited by guarantee #05708269
Imagine a world in which every person can have free access to the sum of all human knowledge We're making it happen. Will you help us? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
At 02:29 +0100 23/9/06, Scott Keir wrote:
Hello everyone
On Saturday, September 23, 2006, at 01:29 am, David Gerard wrote:
There *must* be efforts to this end. If not, it'd be an ideal project for Wikimedia UK to look at when it's operational.
What's the current status of Wikimedia UK?
I ask, as I recall being at some of the real and online meetings which were held to create Wikimedia UK. There was a great sense of passion then, and a great sense of urgency - we have to create this *now*, we have to incorporate *now*, we have to get this started *now*.
And huge progress was made with deciding what W-UK would be legally called, what the memo and arts would be, who the directors would be, conversations between then wiki foundation and the uk crew, etc etc etc. All done with great speed, enthusiasm and a real sense that there was a need, a call for urgency.
And now...? External progress seems to have slowed - other than the occasional post on this list, and the occasional media interaction (which was also happening pre-incorporation), there's no external signs of progress. The front page of http://wikimedia.org.uk/ has not been changed in months. Nor has, as far as I can tell, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
What's going on? Is there progress? Is help needed somewhere with something? There was a heck of a lot of enthusiasm and goodwill floating around in January, when WER, its directors and aims were finalised. It would be a great shame if that petered away.
Scott
There has been some effort put into the bid for Wikimania 2007 by Alison Wheeler and James Forrester.
The announcement of which city will host Wikimania 2007 is due today.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007
I was on the IRC yesterday, but I since I did not contribute to the London bid, I just asked questions of some of the other bidders.
Gordo
On 23 Sep 2006, at 01:29, David Gerard wrote:
On 21/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It'll come, it'll come. Dumping everything onto disk scans in the first instance. Just under two years doubling time. You won't be *able* to buy a disk smaller than a petabyte in twenty years.
Who is going to do the physical scanning?
Some dedicated fools, I expect.
Another issues is OS maps over 50 years old. All public domain but a pain to scan. It would be nice if the UK branch of wikimedia could do something but I doubt we could get hold of the equipment.
There *must* be efforts to this end. If not, it'd be an ideal project for Wikimedia UK to look at when it's operational.
How can one get hold of these maps? All my OS maps are much more recent.
On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
How can one get hold of these maps? All my OS maps are much more recent.
Depends on the degree to which you want to follow this. For complete UK covering scans we would probably have to talk to OS themselves (they appear to be very nice people going by how helpful they have been on the phone). At a lower level parents/grandaprants may be an option (that is where I go mine from although I haven't finished uploading yet:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Old_Ordnance_Survey_map_images
You local liberies are also likely to have a number of old maps. Local history museams may do also.
On 23 Sep 2006, at 11:58, geni wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Category:Old_Ordnance_Survey_map_images
Should this be called Felixstowe: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Filixstowmap1940.jpg ?
On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
Should this be called Felixstowe: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Filixstowmap1940.jpg ?
Probably but I never claimed to be able to spell.
On 23 Sep 2006, at 12:36, geni wrote:
On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
Should this be called Felixstowe: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Filixstowmap1940.jpg ?
Probably but I never claimed to be able to spell.
I'd move it myself if I knew how - it would make searching for it easier.
PS You wouldn't happen to have one of Wimbledon, would you? It has grown a lot in the last 50-100 years, and I'd like to see what my grandparents could have had for a song a few years back!
On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 23 Sep 2006, at 12:36, geni wrote:
On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
Should this be called Felixstowe: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Filixstowmap1940.jpg ?
Probably but I never claimed to be able to spell.
I'd move it myself if I knew how - it would make searching for it easier.
Images can't be moved they have to reuploaded. The file names are not great descriptions in any case since they were mostly chosen in order to be unique.
PS You wouldn't happen to have one of Wimbledon, would you? It has grown a lot in the last 50-100 years, and I'd like to see what my grandparents could have had for a song a few years back!
No I've got a little of south east london but nothing of the southwest.
On 23/09/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 23 Sep 2006, at 12:36, geni wrote:
On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
Should this be called Felixstowe: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Filixstowmap1940.jpg ?
Probably but I never claimed to be able to spell.
I'd move it myself if I knew how - it would make searching for it easier.
Can't move images (yet)... reupload is the only useful solution, or wait for transwiki (which should have a local rename function as a side-effect) and fix then.
PS You wouldn't happen to have one of Wimbledon, would you? It has grown a lot in the last 50-100 years, and I'd like to see what my grandparents could have had for a song a few years back!
I spotted a Reference Atlas of London in a Bristol bookshop today, dated 1940; if I get the chance I'll go back and see it if it's Ordnance Survey, and if so nab it...
On 23/09/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I spotted a Reference Atlas of London in a Bristol bookshop today, dated 1940; if I get the chance I'll go back and see it if it's Ordnance Survey, and if so nab it...
Which bookshop?
Rob Church
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org