piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Hjart (2015-08-20 06:39:47+00:00): Please note that coastlines are a special case and should not overlap anywhere (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline. I just had to fix Lilla/Stora Krokön. With named islands it may also be a good idea to add the tag place=island/islet (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place=islet)
SomeoneElse (2015-08-20 15:20:37+00:00): You're still adding information that at first glance appears to be licensed in a manner not compatible with OSM.  In http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33256350 you said you'd contact the data publishers and the wider OSM community; did either of these actions actually happen?
SK53 (2015-08-20 15:40:03+00:00): More to the point nearly all these hill databases are derived from copyright OSGB data. So even if the db owners gave permission, the data will contain OSGB derived data. That's why many heights come from NPE/Provisional 1:25k maps which are out of copyright. Equally most of this info can be merged with OSM without importing it, thus avoiding the awkward stuff about permissions/copyright on the OSM side.
CYM1988 (2015-08-20 21:47:19+00:00): Hi, I have spoken with the publishers about the data and the copyright issues surrounding its use in OSM. The elevation data used in the database was collected by surveying teams using GPS equipment of the organization itself, rather than from second hand data from OSGB. I'm aware that many databases of a similar nature aquire their data in this way, especially the smaller ones and as such was careful in my choosing of source material for OSM uses to avoid copyright trouble. Other information such as names and many of the elevation details are freely available on sources such as NPE /Provisional 1:25K maps as well as the database which colates this information into a readable database. The publishers are happy for data to be used in OSM, I have included an attribution addendum in changeset comments where I have used this data anyway (mention of the publishers title and website link) which is the preffered attribution method mentioned on the website in line with the licence. From feedback ive had from further enquiries within OSM, the main thing has been, as you mentioned to avoid OSGB data and derivatives and ask questions to the data publishers on where the source material they use originates, as well as their own licence requirments for use within OSM.
SomeoneElse (2015-08-20 21:57:22+00:00): Re the licence (see http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License for details) what licence did they make the information to you available under?   The "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License" mentioned on their download page is unlikely to be compatible with OSM as we can't guarantee downstream attribution on produced works (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3c._If_I_make_something_with_OSM_data.2C_do_I_now_have_to_apply_your_license_to_my_whole_work.3F ).  I would suggest discussing it on the talk-gb list at least https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb .
SomeoneElse (2019-11-09 10:14:38+00:00): To close this loop, there's a quoted reply from one of the people behind DoBIH (and subsequent discussion) at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-February/022501.html and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-February/022515.html .
5m4u9 (2015-09-04 02:47:56+00:00): otro error de layer=* tener cuidado de borrar elementos.
5m4u9 (2015-09-04 03:19:55+00:00): las urbanizaciones son áreas residenciales privadas no barrios. Usar landuse=residential
GerdP (2015-10-19 08:32:10+00:00): please review:
way 231880235
The tag highway=closed:residential
is rarely used. Consider highway=construction or just highway=residential with access=no and foot=yes if that matches better
Johnathan Conley (2015-08-20 04:25:27+00:00): camp mabry roads are military restricted
user_5359 (2025-10-29 10:31:41+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/366614886. What is the mean of the tag M:flood_prone = no ?
SomeoneElse (2015-08-24 15:01:05+00:00): Can you explain the change that you made to http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311396423/history#map=17/52.70412/-1.08739 ?  It makes no sense to me.
jaimemd (2015-08-24 15:59:50+00:00): I corrected the spelling of a key I added myself in the changeset before. Sorry - I should have mentioned this.
SomeoneElse (2015-08-24 18:21:19+00:00): Thanks for that. The bit that was confusing me was the "passenger_lines=4" on one of the 4 parallel tracks here. Given that each line is mapped separately, I don't understand how there can be more than 1. Also, is there anywhere where what these tags mean is written down at all? Railway tagging seems to have reached its own Cambrian Explosion; it's getting difficult to follow what on earth is meant some of the time :)
jaimemd (2015-08-25 14:06:47+00:00): This is intended to tell that the 4 lines belong together to one route having 4 tracks. I tried to make a wiki entry for that and wrote something about this topic in my diary. I think the number of tracks is one of the most important features of a railway line besides gauge and electrification. However because this information does not fit perfectly to mapping the complete track network instead of the rail network there seems to be no easy solution. In this case I am trying to continue the work of the one who invented this tag although I am not wery happy with the verbalisation. Fortunately there is a rendering by ITO which i.E. helped to find my spelling error.
SomeoneElse (2015-08-25 14:21:13+00:00): Perhaps it would help if you could explain what exactly it is that you are trying to do?  I've read http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jaimemd/diary/20877 but am now more confused than I was before...
jaimemd (2015-08-25 14:46:07+00:00): Well, the story is indeed a little bit longer: Originally in osm there was one way for a railway line and tracks=* to indicate the number of tracks, but with two meanings: 1. the way represents * tracks and 2. the rail line has * tracks. This is not the same as one can see after starting to draw a way for each track. A few people including me were trying to still use the tracks tag in its second meaning but since the other one had been already fixed in the wiki this was considered vandalism and was reverted. That is why the passenger_lines track was invented for the same purpose. So my former arguments for the tracks tag are the same as now for the passenger_lines tag which I now use with approval of at least the german admins. After this I entered a wiki article and try to map the number of tracks per line in different parts of the world in order to find out if it will be accepted or at least tolerated. I admit that this is not a trivial thing but the only alternativ for me would be to use a printed  atlas which I thind osm should aim to replace.
jaimemd (2015-08-25 14:54:24+00:00): One thing making it complicated is that within stations of around junctions the number of tracks cannot be exacly determinded which I thind is not necessary. Stations an juctions do not need this tag. But since it is also difficult to exacly distinguish between stations and open lines the information will alway stay a little bit fuzzy which may be an annoyance for people who wand everything to be exact. The the topic is only interesting to a few people since railway infrastructure is not to be used by the general public instead of roads for example. However since this is a factor of capacity the number of tracks of certain rail lines receives some media coverage at least in Germany and Switzerland so I thind it is appropriate to have the information also in osm.
chillly (2015-08-22 10:30:07+00:00): This edit has added second station node at stations. There is only one station so there should only be one station in OSM.  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
trushnam (2015-08-21 06:10:24+00:00): road for railway station access
BeKri (2015-08-20 10:23:24+00:00): Servus,
wenn Du in der Noder Strasse das construction rausnimmst,
trägst Du dann bitte auch die neuen Häuser ein, die da gebaut wurden ???
Die jetztigen Gebäude sind als Collapsed markiert ...(damit sowas nicht passiert).
Ausserdem gibt es jetzt 14a-c.
SomeoneElse (2015-08-24 08:17:38+00:00): Rather than just using a changeset comment of "remove self intersections" it would really help if you could explain exactly what problem you fixed, explain why it was a problem, and explain how you fixed it.
Cheers,
Andy
trushnam (2015-08-20 08:42:09+00:00): road for railway station access
Hjart (2015-08-20 09:09:31+00:00): Der kan med fordel bruges væsentligt færre noder end du gør her. Jeg siger dette fordi jeg nødigt vil se din praksis brede sig for meget. Mange af os kopierer lystigt OSM data frem og tilbage i forskellige sammenhænge og hvis din praksis her breder sig for meget ender det med at vi bliver nødt til at filtrere alle de her landuse (mm) polygoner ud for at filerne ikke skal blive for voldsomt store.
mavl (2015-08-20 16:58:02+00:00): Здравствуйте.
Тег amenity=fuel для линии http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111781890/history лишний, потому что эта заправка уже обозначена точкой http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1272683254.
mavl (2015-08-20 17:01:58+00:00): Это импорт?  
Линия http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366635317 добавлена поверх линии http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111781888. Одну из них пришлось удалить.
chnav (2015-08-20 17:07:44+00:00): Это не импорт, моя ошибка, извиняюсь. Я скачивал дороги через OverpassAPI, пока искал и проверял отремонтированную Бердюжку - забылся, решил порисовать новые объекты. Отсюда появился двойной объект с новой геометрией т.к. старого я просто не видел.
mavl (2015-08-20 17:12:00+00:00): Понятно. Линия http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366635312 без тегов. Если не трудно, добавьте ей теги. Иначе придётся её удалить.
chnav (2015-08-20 17:32:56+00:00): Удалил. Была вспомогательная линия.
Проверил, вроде больше ничего не накосячил.
mavl (2015-08-20 17:39:31+00:00): Хорошо. Спасибо.
Peilscheibe (2015-08-20 13:33:12+00:00): Nur mal so gefragt: warum sollte das residential sein, wo es doch keine Wohnbebauung gibt?
Jojo4u (2015-08-21 05:53:05+00:00): Weil ich residential weiter fasse als "Wohn"häuser. Das sind normale Anliegerstraßen ohne Verbindungsfunktion. Die Verkehrsbedeutung ist genau gleich wie bei einer Wohngebietsstraße. Zumindest laut deutschem Wiki ist das konform (nicht von mir editiert), das englische hat immer noch "residential" drin.
Jojo4u (2015-08-21 06:09:23+00:00): Wie du immer sagtest, wir mappen nach Verkehrsbedeutung ;)
Peilscheibe (2015-08-22 13:51:57+00:00): Also könnte man da auch landuse=residential hinmachen? Nun, ich lese im Wiki das Wohngebiet heraus. Und ich lese dort, dass einer von mehreren Anwendungszwecken für unclassified exakt für Straßen im Industriegebiet ist. Und residential ist das nicht. Ist verstehe Deine Intention hier immer noch nicht.
Jojo4u (2015-08-22 20:17:53+00:00): Landuse hat nichts mit highway zu tun. Warum sich die Verkehrsbedeutung eines highways daran bemisst ob Wohnhäuser oder andere Häuser daran stehen erschließt sich mir nicht. Meine Intention: unclassfied = Verbindungsfunktion, residential = keine.
Peilscheibe (2015-08-24 16:33:41+00:00): Also ich hab das jetzt alles nochmal nachgelesen, hauptsächlich hier:
1. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dresidential
2. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
3. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tagging_samples/urban#Residential
4. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attributierung_von_Stra%C3%9Fen_in_Deutschland#Sonstige_untergeordnete_Stra.C3.9Fen_2

Ich nehme mal die einschlägigen Formulierungen heraus, exeplarisch für die restlichen Ausführungen auf diesen Seiten.
Aus 1.: "This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas"
Es geht hier also um die Bedeutung von "residential". "Residential" hat etwas mit residents, Bewohnern, Wohngebiet zu tun. Hier: highway=residential in residential areas. Das sind Wohngebiete. Es ist nirgendwo die Rede davon, highway=residential in Industriegebieten anzuwenden.

Schauen wir weiter nach 2.: "In an urban context, unclassified roads [...] are commonly found in industrial, retail, or commercial areas"
"Unclassified" wird und wurde schon immer - nicht ausschließlich aber hauptsächlich - verwendet für:
1. außerörtliche Straßen, die irgendeine Verbindungsfunktion haben, aber nicht in der hierarchischen Klassifikation ab tertiary aufwärts eingeordnet sind. Daher die Bezeichnung "unklassifiziert".
2. im Prinzip für den ganzen Rest, auch und gerade innerorts für alles, was nicht in eine andere Kategorie passt. Dazu gehören explizit auch Straßen in Gewerbe- und Industriegebieten, s.o..

Das sehe ich nun im Widerspruch zu dem tagging, das hier und anderswo in Stuttgart angebracht wurde.

Um einen Eindruck davon zu gewinnen, wie eine Taggingpraxis aussieht, die nicht von Übersetzungsfehlern (wie wir sie IMO im Wiki zuhauf haben) und Interpretationen von Sprachgebräuchen beeinflusst ist, habe ich einfach mal willkürlich nach Manchester geschaut: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/b5C
Oder nach Birmingham: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/b5E
Man sieht dort, dass (innerorts) highway=unclassified recht konsequent für alle Straßen in Gewerbe- und Industriegebieten verwendet wird, (nur) durch die Wohngebiete führen highway=residential.

Also genau so, wie es auf den zitierten Seiten dokumentiert ist. Was gäbe es also für Gründe, hier von der üblichen Praxis abzuweichen?
SomeoneElse (2015-11-22 22:10:05+00:00): Hi,
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366639854 , and quite a few to the west of it, are "building=re".  Was that supposed to be "building=residential"?
trigpoint (2015-11-23 18:02:26+00:00): Those are definitely residential buildings
rwxrwxrwx (2015-09-03 14:22:53+00:00): historic=plaque -- это табличка на доме?
Takuto (2015-09-08 06:27:09+00:00): Да, мемориальная табличка. По крайней мере мне так показалось.
rwxrwxrwx (2015-09-08 06:56:33+00:00): На яндекс панорамах видно, что там написано.
https://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVgLyXYq
Takuto (2015-09-09 08:02:22+00:00): Вот спасибо, про Яндекс панорамы то я и забыл! 
Добавил в ОСМ и на openplaques.org:
http://openplaques.org/plaques/40155
Ondřej Lopatka (2026-01-04 15:11:59+00:00): Hello, may I ask how did you cout the step count for a conveying? Thanks, Ondřej L.
gausserrorfunction (2018-01-05 14:16:09+00:00): Moin, Du hast Way 366666837 angelegt, was hat es denn damit auf sich? Falls das ein ehemaliger Weg ist, wäre als Tagging m. E. historich:highway=path korrekt... So ist es ein Kartenfehler ;)
fuku_fuku (2015-08-26 11:10:55+00:00): こんにちは。OSMは多くの方々が実際の地形をもとに書いて、共有している地図です。
架空の道路や街などの編集はしないようお願いします。架空の地形は削除致します。
fuku_fuku (2015-08-26 11:23:11+00:00): 正直、地方の福島、いわきで編集しているOSMユーザーは少なく、通常のOSM編集であればlovetokyoshigeさん、歓迎いたします。
よろしくお願い致します。
mavl (2015-08-20 17:20:26+00:00): Здравствуйте.
Вы добавили линию улицы http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366662565/history поверх существующей линии http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/248731475/history. Это ошибка топологии. Если улица одна, то и линия должна быть одна. Старая линия улицы сейчас удалена. Теги с неё пересены на вашу новую линию. Тег oneway=no обычно используют только на дорожных развязках. На обычных улицах его не ставят.
GerdP (2015-10-02 04:08:50+00:00): Tüschener Weg hat jetzt 
highway=service;residential
und läuft laut Bing quer durch
Grünflächen. Ist Bing hier nicht mehr
aktuell? Und ist der Weg tatsächlich Teil
der Buslinien?
Watertower (2015-10-05 07:46:31+00:00): Bing ist nicht mehr aktuell, da die Klinik die Verkehrsführung geändert hat. Zudem gibt es die Besonderheit, dass ein Abschnitt des Tüschener Wegs durch zwei Schranken zur Privatstraße wird. Diese Privatstraße dürfen nur die Anwohner, der LKW Verkehr der Klinik und der Bus passieren.
GerdP (2015-10-05 08:17:22+00:00): okay, dannn würde ich den 
privaten Teil als 
highway=service
und den anderen mit 
highway=residential
mappen.
GerdP (2015-10-16 07:25:39+00:00): nicht einverstanden?
Im Moment fehlt der Weg einfach auf der Karte, weil 
highway=service;residential
keinen Sinn ergibt.
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-08-24 06:25:03+00:00): Proszę uwzględniać prawidłowy sposób tagowania adresów w miejscowościach bez nazwanych ulic: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=210760#p210760
MatthewFazio (2015-08-20 13:38:10+00:00): Mancano i changeset
MatthewFazio (2015-08-20 13:39:28+00:00): Cose che un bivacco, ti fa pensare sia un rifugio??? Sei gentilmente pregato di rispondere.
szutkes (2015-08-26 21:32:28+00:00): Czy droga "do nikąd" ma być trzeciorzędna? Sąsiedzka jest taką ulicą... Moim zdaniem powinna zostać jako lokalna.
szutkes (2015-08-26 21:36:48+00:00): Czy jesteś pewny, że Jesienna na odcinku przy cmentarzu jest asfaltowa i utwardzona? Jeśli tak, to nie mam więcej pytań :)
deleted_account (2015-08-26 21:42:00+00:00): Tak jestem pewien, zmiany dokonane na podstawie wizyty w terenie.
szutkes (2015-08-26 21:45:59+00:00): Ok, to luz.
MatthewFazio (2015-08-20 13:58:31+00:00): alpine hut significa rifugio, per rifugio si intende un luogo dove si può pernottare e mangiare (pagando), perché non pubblico, ma privato (essenzialmente un hotel di montagna). Sei mai andato al Timpa Rossa?
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-02 15:13:25+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3679355925/history has access:vehicle that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
Would using vehicle access tag (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:vehicle ) be fitting at least equally well?
R0bst3r (2024-02-02 16:46:41+00:00): Seems equivalent.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2015-09-16 22:05:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 34072137 where the changeset comment is: Reverted at request of author due to use of Google Maps as Source
Durko_freemap (2015-08-22 10:14:20+00:00): Zdravim Vas, doplnil som v Sarovciach  addr: tagy v zmysle http://wiki.freemap.sk/cislabudov. Aby ste nemusel pracne obchadzat a odpisovat cisla z budov, odporucam Vam pridat sa k tomuto projektu (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kaporskaddress_bot, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sk:KaporSKAddress). Durko
sza2 (2015-08-23 20:22:01+00:00): Hi Durko,

Unfortunately I don't speak Slovak language.

Thanks for the information. I had no time to read (and understand) all the linked resources. But as far as I understood from the English language wiki page, there is a method for importing the house / building numbers automatically.

BTW, I realized that the polygons of the buildings seems not 100% accurate. I found for example that sometimes there are less buildings in a street in OSM database than in the real life.

So, long story short, do you recommend not to continue updating house numbers, since it will be applied automatically in the near future?

Anyway, I did not plan to work on other areas except Sarovce. I usually spend a short time in that area a few times a year, and I just thought that in my free time I can improve the database a little bit.

Thanks,

BR,

/sza2
Durko_freemap (2015-08-24 06:54:06+00:00): Hi sza2, any help is appreciated, i plan to import Šarovce (about 9/2015). Import is a semi-automatic, human intervention is required :o). If you still have a number of buildings, write them to 20.09.2015. Thank you. Durko
Šarovce (http://addrtool.osm.margus.sk/homepage/municipality/502804)
en. wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/KaporSKAddress)
trigpoint (2015-08-20 22:42:45+00:00): Kind of wondering what this has fixed, you seem to have removed perfectly valid is_in tags and a source tag. Please explain.
Noro Hibu (2015-08-21 08:32:26+00:00): If you use it and think I am wrong, you can restore it. Read discussions about is_in in wiki. I support point of view where these tags are useless.
SomeoneElse (2015-08-21 09:08:32+00:00): (unrelated to the content of the change here) could you _please_ use more meaningful changeset comments?  Just saying "fix" simply says "I don't care about communicating with other mappers"  OpenStreetMap is a big project and we all need to work together; and meaningful changeset comments are a real help in achieving that.
Noro Hibu (2015-08-21 09:11:37+00:00): When I do big changes I write more info about what I did of course. But when I edit 1 node! as in this change I think it's not difficult to see history.
trigpoint (2015-08-21 09:12:15+00:00): You have also deleted the source tag, how is that useless?
SomeoneElse (2015-08-21 09:13:15+00:00): (re changeset comments) Indeed, but almost all places where changeset comments appear don't show the history as well (on the history list in P2 does to my knowledge).
SomeoneElse (2015-08-21 09:13:46+00:00): (s/on/only/ in my last comment)
Noro Hibu (2015-08-21 09:14:44+00:00): You are wrong. I didn't delete "source" tag.
trigpoint (2015-08-21 12:14:25+00:00): Sorry, misread it
Hjart (2015-08-20 16:25:12+00:00): Man må formode at disse stier udelukkende er beregnet til fodgængere. Dvs at hvis man ikke decideret arbejder på kirkegården må man ikke anvende cykler eller andre køretøjer, bortset fra måske barnevogne eller rullestole. Derfor vil jeg mene at footway er det korrekte at bruge her. Vejtyper klassificeres ikke efter underlaget, men efter anvendelse (cirka... det kan være noget forvirrende). Vi har jo masser af unclassified & residential både med og uden asfalt og i "tredje verdens lande" kan man finde masser af rene jordveje der er klassificeret som både secondary & primary fordi de faktisk er de primære færdselsårer mellem diverse byer/områder.
pyram (2015-09-10 11:43:54+00:00): Hallo fraq42,
ich wollte nur zur Sicherheit nachfragen: Deine Straßeneintragungen hier in der Gegend sind komplett ohne Ortskenntnis? Jedenfalls war das hier bei meinem letzten Besuch so nicht nutzbar wie Du das eingetragen hast (also mehrere Verbindungen existieren so nicht (mehr) und viele der "residentials" sind Privatwege (mit Tor an der Straße), die man also nicht zur Zufahrt an den Strand nutzen kann. Leider waren die OSM-Daten hier oft nur wenig hilfreich, weil entweder fehlend oder falsch :-(
dolphinling (2015-08-20 22:12:07+00:00): Reverted in changeset 33472229.

You've made some of these changes before, for example in changeset 32940036. They don't match reality. For example, for the parking lot on Trinity Campus at UVM, every available aerial imagery I can find shows what is currently mapped in OSM, and I personally verified that it's correct a few months ago, but you've tried to change it several times.

Why are you trying to put this incorrect data in?
dchiles (2015-08-20 16:56:58+00:00): Is this really a restaurant? Looks like a residential neighborhood.
Hjart (2015-08-21 18:40:39+00:00): Det ser ud til du har ødelagt en multipolygon med det her. Jeg prøver lige at fikse den
baspng (2017-01-22 17:47:36+00:00): teste.
maraf24 (2015-08-25 22:34:15+00:00): website zawsze z http:// na początku
rickmastfan67 (2015-12-05 00:26:09+00:00): Can you please use a proper 'source' tag?  If you're adding data via 'mapillary', that doesn't count as a 'survey', as a 'survey' means you physically visited the place.  So, can you please change future similar changesets to have 'mapillary' as the source instead?
wegavision (2015-12-05 02:45:42+00:00): Survey means that I made the pictures. If I use other pictures from 
mapilary I use source=mapillary.
But you are right, here I made a mistake:survey=mapillary
rickmastfan67 (2015-12-05 02:51:05+00:00): Ah, ok.  Just have a backlog of changesets that intersect my town that I've been going through and this just happened to have the BB that intersected my RSS watch area.
Hjart (2015-08-20 20:07:26+00:00): Jeg redigerede landuse=residential polygonen omkring Agtrup/Sdr Bjert ca kl 2 i nat (for 20 timer siden) og dette rettesæt ser ud til stort set at have reduceret min fine redigering tilbage til det gamle. Brugte du data fra i går da du redigerede videre i dag? Bemærk venligst at det oftest er en rigtig dårlig ide.
Hjart (2015-08-20 20:12:18+00:00): Efter at have kigget yderligere på hvad du har lavet og konstateret at du har ødelagt mere end godt er overvejer jeg stærkt at revertere dette rettesæt.
Hjart (2015-08-20 20:14:13+00:00): Det er altid en rigtig god ide at hente friske data når det er er mere end en time siden du sidst har redigeret et område.