Gav's Blog

As part of a project I’ve been working on recently, I had to do a brief scan of vendors providing alerting/warning systems. There will be more on this eventually, but for the time being, I wanted to put this list out there. This list is in no way comprehensive, but it did provide a good snapshot of the variety of services available. The most interesting services appeared to be RaveWireless, SquareLoop and Zingerang. The main point of difference appeared to be that they had actually developed specific applications for alerting, and in the case of RaveWireless they had actually integrated the alerting into a business-as-usual application for the campus environment.

• 3n Online
• Alertus
• American Emergency Notification
  
• Blackboard Connect
• CityWatch
• clearTXT
• CodeRED
• Contact One RegionCast
• Dialogic Communications
• e-sponder
• Emergency Notification Systems
• Emergeo
• GDACS
• Groupcast
  
• Hormann America
• Intrado
• MadahCom
• MessageOne
• Midland Radio
• MIR3
• PAETEC
• Rave Wireless
• Reverse 911
• Roam Secure
• Send Word Now
• SevereAlerts.com
• SquareLoop
• Thunder Eagle
• Twenty First Century Communications
• Universal Alert
• ViaRadio
• VoiceGate
• Zingerang

If you want something really frustrating, you should trying converting a word document that contains portrait and landscape pages to a pdf on a Mac using Adobe Acrobat. It won’t work. Which is strange for an operating system that has always prided itself on working properly and doing sensible things. For some reason OS X treats each section as a separate document, and you end up with only the last section being converted to pdf. Alas, I haven’t found a way around this yet other than reverting to an older Windows computer at work that has Adobe Acrobat installed on it. Here it works perfectly.

Always being one keen to live on the bleeding edge, I’ve been using the beta software for my Garmin Colorado. It has been great for driving around and recording tracklogs for the OpenStreetMap project.

One of the downside of using the beta software though, means that you can be exposed to bugs. I discovered that recently when attempting to open some of my recent GPX tracklogs and the software just refused to open them. After a bit of hunting, I found a relatively easy means of detecting errors and fixing them.

The tool to use is an XML validator called Xerces produced by the Apache Foundation. On a Mac, I download the appropriate binary package, and I copied the binary files in xerces/bin to /usr/local/bin, and the libraries from xerces/lib to /usr/local/lib. You can then run the program SAXCount that counts the number of elements in an XML file – the side benefit that we’re after is that it is good at detecting and reporting errors that many GPX applications are not capable of.

After working through a few minor problems on the NZ GPS forums, I had Xerces up and validating GPX – including with Garmin’s extensions. Note that if you get an error about trying to connect to Garmin’s server to download the schema, e.g. an error like…

Fatal Error at file , line 0, char 0
  Message: An exception
occurred! Type:NetAccessorException, Message:Could not open file:

http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3/GpxExtensionsv3.xsd

I believe this is a combination of Garmin redirecting the original link to a new location, and SAXCount not handling the redirect very well. If you strike this problem, this post in the forums has the fix. I’d basically recommend keeping a version of the fixed Garmin header ready to cut and paste into each GPX so that SAXCount can actually download each xsd. I’ve been using this one…

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><gpx
xmlns="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1"
xmlns:gpxx="http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3"
xmlns:gpxtpx="http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/TrackPointExtension/v1"
creator="Colorado 300" version="1.1"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1

http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1/gpx.xsd

http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3

http://www8.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3/GpxExtensionsv3.xsd

http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/TrackPointExtension/v1

http://www8.garmin.com/xmlschemas/TrackPointExtensionv1.xsd">

From there it is a simple step to validate.

SAXCount -v=always -n -s -f test.gpx

All going well you’ll get something back similar to.

test.gpx: 24 ms (7478 elems, 2498 attrs, 0 spaces, 38613 chars)

This means that everything checked out ok. Otherwise, it will let you know the lines that have errors, making it quick and easy to open in a text editor to edit or delete the corrupt elements. One trick I’ve noted is that by default, a Colorado GPX has no line breaks in it. A trick here is to search for /trkpt><trkpt and replace it with /trkpt>\r<trkpt – this will insert a linebreak, ensuring that each trkpt element starts on a new line and SAXCount can refer to it by line number for easier identification.

It would appear that my request for clarification around the status of the PPTA billboard that was released in early July is starting to attract some attention. This morning I was called by a reporter to discuss why I made a ‘complaint’, so I thought I should outline in my blog, under my terms, why I chose to do so.

But before I do, I would like to make one thing perfectly clear. This complaint was never anything spiteful against the PPTA. I support their message and their effort to achieve smaller class numbers. Unfortunately I cannot easily communicate this except via my blog. This was never about their message, rather it was about the Electoral Finance Act.

I first saw the billboard across the road from work the day it went up in early July. It is quite ironic to see the PPTA press release regarding the Electoral Commission’s decisions – PPTA billboard breaches EFA – Yeah Right – because this billboard in Riccarton has been a Tui advertisement for such a long time over the past few years.

My initial question was a simple and naive one, given that it is an election year, and the board was promoting education, an election year issue – shouldn’t it have had an approval address on it? So, I decided to bring a camera to work the next day and send it to the Commission for clarification.

I sent the following to the Electoral Commission via email on the 2nd of July.

Hi,

I saw an advert today, and I am interested as to whether it meets the requirements under the Electoral Finance Act.

The billboard advertisement on one of Christchurch’s busiest roads and has the Post-Primary Teachers Association logo on it and text like the following (I can get a photo tomorrow if required for clarification).

“How dense do you want them? Smaller classrooms are a no brainer”

It also has the PPTA logo on the board.

Does this count as third party advertising under the new act? It doesn’t directly indicate voting for a party, but I feel it does suggest voting for parties with a policy of smaller classroom numbers (whether right or wrong). Does the advertising need to have an authorised name on it, as I assume that it wouldn’t take many of these billboards around the country to cross a $12k threshold?

Thanks in advance for your help.

In less than 40 minutes I received a very prompt reply back.

Whether or no[t] the billboard is deemed to be an election advertisement will depend upon whether it ‘can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading a vote for or against a party or parties’.  Such interpretation is made on a case by case basis at a commission meeting.

We would need a photo of the bill board in order to consider it at the next meeting.

It is the commission’s policy to publicise decisions made at its meetings.  For context, the Commission’s decisions generally include an overview of the issues raised and the name of the person(s) who raised the issues.

It is also common for the party concerned to request a copy of the query and for the Commission to release that document.

Please let me know whether you have any objection to the release of your query, including your name.

So, like it or not, I had to submit it for a formal decision to be made at the next meeting of the Commission. As I wasn’t doing it for any spiteful or malicious reasons, I had no problems with providing my name and details. I sent the images in with the following email.

I have no objection to the release of my name and query, however I just want to make it clear that this isn’t a formal complaint – rather I am interested in the ambiguity around this advertisement, and just want to bring it to the Commission’s attention. I am actually supportive of the message the advertisement is sending.

The interesting aspect I feel is that it is raising a special interest concern, and this is in advance of any of the political parties having even published their complete education policies for the 2008 election (at the brief look at Labour and National party websites esterday – most have 2005 policies still listed). At this point then, it may not be seen to be suggesting to vote for a parties that support a particular stance on education. What happens then if a party does come out with a policy that supports lowering class sizes whilst the advertisement is running – would this mean that the status of the advertisement changes?

My key questions are probably:

1. Does the cost of this advertisement count towards the $12k threshold for PPTA as it is raising a special interest issue?

2. Does the advertisement require an authorised name and address even though it is a special interest issue?

3. Is the status of the advert likely to change if a political party announces an education policy supporting lower class sizes whilst the advert is running – at which point in time the advert would then be persuading a vote for a party or parties?

I have attached two photos, and a KML file that can be opened in Google Earth to identify the position of the billboard. It was only placed at the start of this month.

I was sure when the next meeting of the Commission was go to be, so I then forgot about it, well, other than every time I saw the billboard, including the one in Wellington when I was up there last week. I assume there is another one in Auckland as well.

At one point whilst I was waiting, I found an interesting page on the Elections website that outlines the Guidance on the Value of Advertising Space. Now, assuming each billboard is say, 15 sq m, and there are three billboards, then according to the Guidance, this is costing the PPTA $270/day for three similarly sized billboards. For 31 days of advertising, this amounts to ~$8,370. We’re now 6 days into August, so I am assuming that this campaign is now at the ~$10k mark. The relevance of this is how close it is to approaching the magic $12k figure for registering as a third party – but if you’ve read the decision, you’ll know that this isn’t an issue, maybe not yet. Assuming there are 3 billboards of similar size, the $12k threshold will be hit around the middle of August.

On the first of August I received an email from the Commission advising me of the decision in advance of the release of a pile of decisions. I was happy with the decision as it stands and in light of what I have learned, agree with it. There is however the hint of a warning contained within that I find interesting.

But first, the Electoral Commission’s decision.

Subject
PPTA (Post Primary Teachers Association) billboard “How Dense do You Want Them?”.

Issues raised
Gavin Treadgold noted that as most parties have not issued their education policy that it may not be seen to be suggesting to vote for parties that support a particular stance on education.  He asks what would happen if a party came out with a policy that supports lowering class sizes whilst the advertisement is running and would the status of the advertisement change?

Statutory provisions
Section 5 of the Act defines an election advertisement to be, in summary, any form of words and/or graphics that could reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote in a particular fashion.

Comments from PPTA
In a letter of 21 July 2008, Bronwyn Cross of the PPTA said, with supporting material in substantiation, that this campaign is “business as usual” for the PPTA and ‘would have continued regardless of whether 2008 was an election year or not’.

Electoral Commission’s Determination
The Electoral Commission has considered the requirements of the Act along with the items listed as exhibits (below). In the view of the Electoral Commission the billboard states a policy position and is not presently directed at the election and therefore is not presently an election advertisement within the meaning of section 5 of the Act.
For the above reasons it is the view of the Electoral Commission that the PPTA (Post Primary Teachers Association) billboard “How Dense do You Want Them?” does not contravene the Electoral Finance Act 2007 at present.

As previously mentioned, an entirely reasonable and understandable decision. But, there is a significant but.

There is what I think is a not-so-subtle hint from the commission in the wording of the determination.

The Electoral Commission has considered the requirements of the Act along with the items listed as exhibits (below). In the view of the Electoral Commission the billboard states a policy position and is not presently directed at the election and therefore is not presently an election advertisement within the meaning of section 5 of the Act.

For the above reasons it is the view of the Electoral Commission that the PPTA (Post Primary Teachers Association) billboard “How Dense do You Want Them?” does not contravene the Electoral Finance Act 2007 at present.

The couching of the wording of the determination should be ringing a few warning bells now. The Commission appears to have been very careful in their wording of determination to cover future and as yet unforeseen circumstances. What happens if a political party, between now and the election releases an education policy that includes reducing class sizes, or increasing the teacher:student ratio? Well, I believe at that point this billboard would then need to be reviewed by the Commission to determine if the PPTA billboard is now seen as the PPTA ‘supporting’  voting for parties with such a policy. I can’t presume anything at this point, and it may be that even if a policy is announced by a party or three that the advert is not seen as promoting voting for a particular party. I certainly can’t make that call.

But I disagree with PPTA President Robin Duff claiming that the complaint was “ludicrous”. No, not the complaint, just the Electoral Finance Act. I do agree with Robin that messages such as this “shouldn’t grind to a halt because it is election year”, however, things may get a little sticky when party policies around education are released.

Other linkies:

• Discussion on Kiwiblog
• NZ Herald
• NoRightTurn