piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
tekim (2021-07-08 21:45:38+00:00): Thanks for your interest in OpenStreetMap.  

In OSM we map what is actually on the ground, and this trail actually does exist.  Further, the last time I was in the area, there was no signs stating that the public was not allowed to use it.  If there were we would tag it as access=no, but still not remove it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107659101
Geoskye (2025-09-21 04:20:01+00:00): is there a reason this is a node and not an area?
❤️‍🔥 (2025-09-22 13:05:50+00:00): i don't remember sorry. i've tidied and split the overlapping bush area, so this node is now an area. feel free to further refine it :)
archie (2021-07-08 21:34:05+00:00): Please adjust your imagebackground to avoid the offset you are producing. Procedure as described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_Imagery#ID. Do not change things which fit perfectly untill you have done proper adjustments. Thank you.
Cactooz (2021-07-08 21:48:45+00:00): The sea beacon that I moved is located inside of the forest in the position that I moved it to and not the old location. I've adjusted the image background so it matches the surrounding roads, houses and shoreline.
archie (2021-07-08 22:02:58+00:00): Then do a new adjustment. The buildings you editet have all the same offset - some meters. Do the adjustment against gps-tracks as described in the wiki.
Viki_travel_weak (2021-07-08 20:27:37+00:00): Visual mapping of Daniel Boone National Forest data per compared to official sources and map from USDA Forest Service https://www.fs.fed.us/ivm/index.html
https://www.fs.usda.gov/; Other legal sources for editing used in the josm based sources: 'Strava cycling and running heatmap', 'TIGER Roads 2020', 'U.S. Forest Roads Overlay', 'osm imagery based'.
Agus2019 (2021-07-09 01:42:47+00:00): Para prevenir bloqueo de woodpeck.
VictorIE (2021-10-22 15:29:51+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/962714959

gar=British War Office map ?
user_1566574 (2021-07-13 16:27:46+00:00): Salut !
Si ce sont ces piscines privées, ajouter access=private ?
Merci ! :)
withoutrope (2021-07-19 20:30:24+00:00): Bonjour,

merci pour l'information. J'adapterai en conséquence.

Cordialement
user_1566574 (2021-07-19 20:58:47+00:00): Nickel, merci ! :)
Excellent timing, je suis justement en train d'éditer la zone et de rajouter ces access=private. C'était sur ma liste...

Bonne semaine !
user_11435438 (2021-07-10 14:12:59+00:00): Hello. This relation is the part of 墨脱县(Mêdog County) which controlled by IN, and it named Loyul. The name Loyul is already tagged in alt_name:en. So the name Mêdog should be keep in name:en, see https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nyingchi_Counties.png.  Loyul is not Mêdog, now almost whole Loyul controlled by IN, but only half Mêdog controlled by IN. The boudary of Loyul(珞隅) see https://bkimg.cdn.bcebos.com/pic/7dd98d1001e93901aa435f4c71ec54e736d1967b . If you want a relation named Loyul, you should create another one, instead of rename Mêdog to Loyul, they are different.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107660916
user_11435438 (2021-07-10 14:22:29+00:00): In addition, 墨脱县 Mêdog County was established in 1959, so reference to the 1930s data is of little significance. On the other hand, you should not rename the disputed area which is disputed by CN to a name that conforms to Indian custom, this behavior is like renaming South Tibet to Arunachal Pradesh (of cause, it's inappropriate). Both Mêdog and South Tibet is disputed by CN.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107660916
Beau Jonckers (2025-06-04 21:02:17+00:00): Hallo Jenseblume Ich habe diese Wiese in Teile aufgeteilt und die Straßen und Gärten aus den Wiesen entfernt. Jetzt liegen zwei Flächen übereinander. Ich kann die einzelnen Flächen noch zu einem Multipolygon zusammenführen. Sollte etwas nicht stimmen oder Wenn etwas verbessert werden kann, würde ich gerne davon erfahren? Straßen  und solche Sache mache ich dann später.
Jenseblume (2025-06-05 08:30:40+00:00): Hi Beau,
ich würde da jetzt nicht mehr einsteigen wollen, bei Micomapping bin ich raus.
Schau einfach, dass am Ende keine Flächen verloren gehen.
Grüsse und viel Spass noch beim mappen!
Beau Jonckers (2025-06-06 19:28:41+00:00): Hallo Jenseblume,
Danke für die Antwort.
Was ich gemacht habe, könnte man vielleicht halbwegs als Micro-Mapping bezeichnen.
Dass nicht alle das gerne machen (oder mittlerweile lieber andere Dinge machen), kann ich gut verstehen.
Ich lasse selbstverständlich keine Fläche verloren gehen.
Das meiste ist und bleibt Wiese.
Ebenfalls viel Spaß beim Mappen!
jonashoffmann (2022-12-10 21:23:12+00:00): Hola bobeeze,
he visto que has cambiado muchas caminos en la zona a "highway=service". Como ves por el etiqueta "service=" en https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:highway%3Dservice es para caminos cortos del acceso.
He ido con la bici hoy y a mí parecen más a "highway=track" (caminos para fines agrícolas, carriles forestales). 
Saludos, Jonas
bobeeeze (2022-12-10 23:27:31+00:00): Probablemente tengas razón. En cuanto pueda lo miro. Además justamente he ido por esta zona esta mañana y he apuntado algunos cambios que habrá que hacer. Saludos
Artasen (2021-07-13 15:17:03+00:00): Thanks for naming this highway. It is in fact an unsurfaced unclassified road PROW Ref U5230 103 according to Cumbria C. C. definitive map. and although it may be unsuitable for most cars I'm sure a 4wd vehicle could manage it. (I think I remember driving it in a road rally in the 1970's) The tracktype should also probably be grade 4 or even 5.
See; https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype?uselang=en-GB
Bodian (2021-07-13 16:39:22+00:00): Cheers Artasan

Wouldn't fancy it even in a 4WD today - it's sort of hollowed out, overgrown from the sides, and hasn't really been maintained for many years.  But, yes, I suspect you could just about get one of the narrower 4WD vehicles up.  Could do with a Grade 6 (or 7) really.  It's an interesting lane, somewhere I have a copy of a Quarter-Sessions Ruling from 1820 or sometime similar.  Because the parish boundary runs up the middle of the road, no-one knew which parish was meant to maintain it.  The Judge decided that one parish should maintain the bottom half, and the other parish the top half - and that a 'certain stone' would be placed at the point where this changed.  That stone is still there today - as a triangular boundary stone.  At the top end of the road there is a stone carved direction sign to Grange - but difficult to see nowadays.

All the best.
Artasen (2021-07-13 16:50:53+00:00): Wow that's interesting. Why dont you add it as a note to the lane? Although I was under the impression that today Cumbria C. C. is responsible for maintaining these odd byways, and doint a rather inadequate job too.
Artasen (2021-07-14 14:37:39+00:00): There are some tags for marker stones https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:marker%3Dstone   just the thing to add to the map before they get buried forever.
Bodian (2021-07-14 21:19:26+00:00): Thanks Artasen - I shall do both those suggestions.  I'll do the marker stones now, and add the quarter sessions stuff when I find the copy of the document again.  Yes - CCC maintain the byways/roads now.  It was parishes till 1894, then District Councils till 1929, then County Councils!.  All the best.
frydzio (2021-07-09 10:40:55+00:00): Nie wiem czy jest sens dodawać nieistniejące w terenie adresy. Teren jest obecnie niezabudowany, planowana jest tam budowa budynku usługowego. Inwestycja jest dopiero na początku uzyskiwania decyzji środowiskowej. Wniosek złożono 21 maja https://bit.ly/2UBjxN4, a najnowsza informacja z 7 lipca wzywa inwestora do uzupełnienia wniosku https://bit.ly/3xvW2nd. Tak więc poczekamy jeszcze trochę na realizację.
syntex (2021-07-09 12:05:10+00:00): Jeśli już są nadane, to dlaczego by ich nie dodać?
frydzio (2021-07-09 12:20:38+00:00): To raczej luźna uwaga. Jedną z zasad projektu jest mapowanie tego co widoczne. Nadane adresy nie są widoczne w terenie i nikt ich nie będzie jeszcze przez długi czas używał.
syntex (2021-07-09 12:31:59+00:00): A w przypadku gdy budynek ma punkt adresowy nadany, ale nie ma tabliczki to byś wtedy nie dodawał adresu, bo go nie widać w terenie? Sporo jest adresów nadanych na działkach bez zabudowy
Sandal man (2021-07-09 20:13:59+00:00): Hola, gracias por ajustar el osm pero estás cometiendo algunos errores.
¿Le gustaría echarle un vistazo a https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/
El editor también le advierte antes de que cargue el cambio.

Saludos Jan
Bexhill-OSM (2021-07-08 23:18:20+00:00): Hi, correct me if I am wrong, but I assumed that by adding the designated foot and cycle path that goes along south of this road, routing for foot traffic could be removed from the road itself?  Thanks,
Alex
Mike Baggaley (2021-07-09 06:42:47+00:00): Hi Alex, foot=no should only be specified if there is a sign indicating no pedestrians. It is perfectly legal to walk in the road in the UK. Renderers may also build maps that do not include sidewalks.

Cheers,
Mike
Bexhill-OSM (2021-07-10 13:52:14+00:00): Thanks for the clarification Mike, much appreciated :)
SomeoneElse (2021-07-10 17:59:11+00:00): Hello,
You've re-added a name to http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=777004647 .  I suspect that what's happened is that you haven't checked up-to-date OSM data.  The source of that name, as can be seen on an adjacent way http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=128495100 , was https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Botogav , and they've currently blocked been asked to explain their actions at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5203 .
Best Regards,
Andy
Jeff Underwood (2021-07-12 20:00:26+00:00): Hi Andy,

Yes, you are correct that this check was based on a pbf where the road names were still present. Thank you for pointing out the error. I removed the invalid name and will discuss with my team to look out for similar instances.

Thanks,
Jeff
JJIglesias (2021-07-09 04:21:02+00:00): Un reservorio (Embalse) se produce cuando un rio o corriente de agua es retenida de alguna forma artificial para formar ese Reservoir o Embalse, de resto se los llama Basin (Cuenca o Atajao) para retener agua de lluvia o formar un estanque artificial
JNakatomo (2021-07-08 23:22:02+00:00): I no longer need review for this edit since I reverted most of the non-trivial edits.
Lee Carré (2021-08-01 12:59:06+00:00): Having reviewed them, several were closed without being (properly) resolved (best to leave them open), or the changes didn't match what was surveyed. Have reopened the incomplete / incorrect ones.
Anton Khorev (2021-07-26 16:31:14+00:00): Additionally I reverted the part of 107513923 that introduced a break in "Obispo Lazcano"  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108635921
threefoursixninefour (2021-08-07 15:55:44+00:00): Hello, many thanks for improving this local area but at the St.Margarets Roundabout, for example, would it be possible to not have the split where the main road divides into the oneway roundabout link roads (e.g. as at node 1187899289) turning away at such a sharp angle?  Some routing applications think that this is an actual left turn and give spurious directions.  The smoother transitions as they were before this changeset gave the correct directions.
MacLondon (2021-08-09 19:23:11+00:00): Hi. I've done some slight adjustments on both sides of the roundabout to slightly 'favour' a straighter route for forward directions.

The mapping should reflect actual physical separation though. I can't remember how the layout used to be mapped here, but I suspect the physical separation of carriageways was exaggerated and either didn't permit access to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/850929142 or didn't reflect that the single carriageway ends to the east of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8905731637

The angle didn't look like it should provoke a turn left instruction in some apps. It seems like this is more a routing app issue than a mapping one though.
Violaine_Do (2021-07-09 19:55:14+00:00): Iaorana e Maeva! Tu as modifié l'emprise du bâtiment , peux tu expliquer pourquoI? L'imagerie Maxar (très récente) indique pourtant que l'ancienne géométrie serait la bonne.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107665272
PRO-BLAST (2021-07-09 20:06:01+00:00): Ia ora, je n'ai peut-être pas utilisé la bonne méthodologie pour signaler que le tag "Pacific Cuisine" sur les 3 bâtiments est erroné. D'une part cette entreprise n'existe plus, d'autre part elle ne couvrait pas les 3 bâtiments mais un simple slot du bâtiment de gauche. Le but de la manoeuvre est de compléter chaque slot en y mettant la bonne entreprise (chose que je dois m'atteler à faire) pour qu'au final chaque bâtiment soit couvert. Tu suggères une autre méthodologie?
Violaine_Do (2021-07-09 21:39:15+00:00): En fait la tu as supprimé l'emprise/la géométrie du bâtiment. Si tu as plusieurs bâtis différents collés les uns aux autres (mitoyens), ça fait sens de les dessiner un par un. Par contre si c'est un grand bâti partagé entre plusieurs entreprises, il faut garder l'emprise globale pour le bâtiment (tu supprimes alors juste le tag name=...). Puis après tu indiques la localisation des entreprises une à une. Le plus simple pour faire ça est de dessiner un point par entreprise.
Violaine_Do (2021-07-09 21:41:33+00:00): Je peux faire un revert pour revenir à l'état d'avant, et tu refais la manip ? La géométrie était précise car issue des données de l'urba. Donc vaut mieux aussi faire ça que redessiner à la main.
PRO-BLAST (2021-07-09 22:17:33+00:00): Pas de souçis. Tu as visiblement plus d'expertise que moi. Feu!
Violaine_Do (2021-07-09 23:54:53+00:00): ok, c'est fait, j'ai supprimé le tag name au passage, je te laisse rajouter les commerces/industries du coup, en créant des points, bon mapping!
skyper (2021-07-09 01:13:02+00:00): Datensatz der NVBW GmbH (https://www.nvbw.de/open-data)
Z-26 (2021-07-09 01:57:46+00:00): 其实我画到了陈村东www
f_husni (2024-02-13 03:16:21+00:00): Hallo Purba Oktaviani. saya melihat anda menambah tag motorcar=no pada ruas "Gang Polewali". jika dilihat menggunakan satelit imgagery. jalan tersebut terlihat lebar dan bisa diakses oleh mobil.
gpserror (2021-07-09 13:29:46+00:00): Is there a need to retain buildings that were destroyed in the flood, and then rebuilt with a completely new one?  Perhaps at best the history should be kept with the new building but it seems best to let go of the past and just leave it in the logs?
tekim (2021-07-09 13:53:29+00:00): Sorry for not contacting you first (or at least earlier).  Normally I would agree with you, no reason to have buildings that are long gone. Unfortunately some of the imagery sources available in OSM still show these buildings (Esri World Premium Imagery (Clarity) Beta still shows the building in question).  While local experienced OSM mappers like you and I know about the fires and floods this area has experienced over the last decade or so and would check multiple sources in attempt to determine what is actually on the ground (and/or we have actually visited the area many times), my concerned is that newer folks from outside the area would just look at one source, and add the buildings back in - or worse yet, delete your and my good work and replace it with outdated data.  Hopefully all imagery sources will eventually be updated so as to not show these old buildings, and then these removed:building=* features can be removed.  It is a weakness of these imagery sources, with the exception of Bing, they do not show the collection date.  Even Bing normally shows a very large range for the collection date.
gpserror (2021-07-09 14:30:17+00:00): Yeah I got tricked by old imagery before, but now at least I try to see if things exist anymore.  How often are incorrect buildings added here?

I figured that since there was a larger building was built on top of the old one it was sufficient to delete the small one, and people would generally assume things get bigger as time progress (build back bigger!)  Perhaps there needs to be a client side warning in iD that Esri Clarity is oldest for pretty much every situation.

Anyway I only edited this region as I may go up there this weekend and noticed a lot of discrepancies. And then I remembered the flood and did research to find the current configuration.

Alas still undecided whether I'll go due to gas prices...
tekim (2021-07-09 14:51:23+00:00): We had an effort last fall to map in order to support the fire fighting efforts, mainly buildings and driveways.  This was requested specifically by one of the firefighters who is involved OSM, rsavoye.  He is a normally a volunteer fire fighter in rural boulder county, but was deployed here for the Cameron Peak Fire.  Incidently, their whole department uses OSM and OSMAND (phone/tablet navigation app based on OSM).

Anyway, the effort brought in a lot of inexperienced and new mappers.  I don't recall if I ever saw a case where someone deleted a newer building to replace with an old one, but I did see lots of cases where old buildings were mapped - even though I told people to check multiple sources of imagery.

Hope you are able to make it up to the area this weekend.  If you are planning on hiking, most of the trails in OSM should be in good shape.  Many have been aligned to the Strava Global Heatmap.  Still some bridges, fords, and trail signs to add, along with more tagging detail.

I did just notice that CR 43 in the area needs to be realigned as it was rerouted sometime after the flood. So much to map, so little time...
gpserror (2021-07-09 20:31:23+00:00): yes indeed...also waterway/highway collisions need to be addressed too..  West Creek itself has shifted too.
DressyPear4 (2021-07-09 15:07:21+00:00): Olá não adicione pequenos locais como cidades, veja mais em
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place
prudhraj (2021-07-15 11:33:19+00:00): Hi "SpeedMcCool", please help us understand the reason behind deleting the following roads - wayid's: 
919970008, 
892158835, 
892158834, 
862496568, 
756208369, 
753803569, 
752160914, 
752160913, 
752160912, 
752160911, 
746593184, 
743265623, 
739786317, 
373222470, 
48306683, 
18286456, 
18283635, 
18283605, 
While mapping these road segments, we have considered all the OSM norms.
SpeedMcCool (2021-07-15 17:02:23+00:00): See discussion at https://osmcha.org/changesets/108002745/. I have readded some since deleting the originals. I will no longer delete originals since that seems to have drummed up discontent.
Taksine (2024-09-30 14:56:29+00:00): 你写错啦，Muztagh指的是慕士塔格山，不是冰川的意思，这是个山脉。
Rainero (2021-08-04 21:13:53+00:00): Danke fürs Korrigieren! 
Ich habe nachgeforscht, warum der JOSM-Validator mir das nicht angezeigt hat. "Überlappende Gebiete" war auf die Ignorierliste gerutscht. Keine Ahnung wie und warum, aber nun ist das wieder aktiv.

Viele Grüße,
Rainer
kartonage (2021-08-05 05:52:27+00:00): Kein Problem!
Bei building:parts kann der Validator zwar manchmal etwas sehr pedantisch werden, aber in der Regel kann man zumindest mal gucken ob nicht doch irgendwas nicht verbunden ist.

Beste Grüße
Kevin
L'imaginaire (2021-07-09 09:49:00+00:00): Dag Bart,
Ik vermoed dat je met jouw wijziging de route tussen 35 en 52 zichtbaar wilde maken op de fietslaag van osm.org. Dat zal niet lukken door een colour-tag toe te voegen. De reden waarom de route nog niet zichtbaar is op de fietslaag, is volgens mij omdat ze nog niet is toegewezen als lid van een netwerk. Ik zal dit in orde brengen, maar eerst even uitzoeken tot welk netwerk de route effectief behoort.
Bart Julien (2021-07-10 04:13:49+00:00): Hallo
Jouw vermoeden is juist.
Vroeger wel al een melding gemaakt over iets maar dit was de eerste keer dat ik probeerde een aanpassing te doen.
Volgende keer me misschien houden bij melden.
Dit is een onderdeel ven het netwerk Oost Vlaanderen.
Het knooppunt tussen de twee (nummer 74) is dan van een ander netwerk.
Dat zou van het netwerk van stad Gent zijn dat nog in aanleg is.
In de toekomst zouden ze naar elkaars knooppunten verwijzen.
Maar voorlopig is daar op het veld nog niets van te merken.
Dank voor de reactie
L'imaginaire (2021-07-10 05:25:51+00:00): Bedankt voor de extra uitleg. Super dat je zelf aan de slag wil gaan in OpenStreetMap, alleen heb je er een van de meest complexe uitdagingen uitgekozen om mee te beginnen :-)

We hebben de situatie met de twee (gedeeltelijk overlappende) netwerken deze week besproken, zie https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2021-July/011289.html Eerste stap zal zijn om de stukken van het netwerk van de provincie Oost-Vlaanderen te herstellen waar die 'gebroken' zijn.
L'imaginaire (2021-07-12 18:36:53+00:00): Ondertussen is de route zichtbaar op de fietslaag van osm.org: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.0551/3.7864&layers=CN
prudhraj (2021-07-15 11:29:25+00:00): Hi "SpeedMcCool", please help us understand the reason behind deleting the following roads - wayid: 
892236326, 
892236325, 
862398623, 
862398622, 
862398621, 
821278641, 
818256554, 
816728585, 
804097363, 
755863173, 
753214120, 
752971737, 
752284195, 
752284194, 
752284193, 
752284192, 
752284191, 
748634496, 
743260319, 
742096929
While mapping these road segments, we have considered all the OSM norms.
SpeedMcCool (2021-07-15 17:02:45+00:00): See discussion at https://osmcha.org/changesets/108002745/. I have readded some since deleting the originals. I will no longer delete originals since that seems to have drummed up discontent.
Allison P (2021-07-09 18:29:13+00:00): Hi! I've left a couple of comments on some of your other changesets because they introduced some sort of issue. Can you take a look? Thank you.
Captain_Frozenmoon (2021-07-09 20:45:06+00:00): Oh I see them! Sorry I don't check my email often and I assumed that if someone commented on my edits it would show in "My Messages"
ravali_78 (2021-07-12 03:26:26+00:00): Hi nmQ6x3sM,
As per the ground truth i have fixed the alignment of dragged nodes.Kindly check with WAY: 28103122,https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107803679.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107673439
ToniE (2021-07-09 07:08:25+00:00): Hallo Polarmetrie,

willkommen bei OSM.

auf highway=tertiary ist Fußgängern normalerweise erlaubt zu gehen.

Ich sehe hier an einigen Stellen aber auch sidewalk=, gehe dann davon aus, dass dieser benutzungspflichtig ist.

Stehen hier entsprechende (Verbots-)Schilder?

Wenn nein, dann ist foot=no falsch.

foot=yes ist in dem Fall auch überflüssig.

Viele Grüße,
Toni
ToniE (2021-07-09 07:11:20+00:00): Hallo Polarmetrie,

access=no sperrt alle Teilnehmer: foot, bicycle, horse, snowmobile, ... und motor_vehicle

Ich habe das entspr. deinem CS-Comment auf foot=no gändert

Bzgl. foot=no: stehen hier enstprechende Verbotsschilder?

Wenn nein, dann ist foot=no falsch.

Viele Grüße,
Toni
PaulMee (2021-07-09 05:44:27+00:00): This Changeset needs to be undone/reverted/deleted.
iWowik (2021-07-09 05:56:37+00:00): День добрый!
Вы по-прежнему  неверно вносите адресную информацию.
Я об этом вам уже писал неоднократно:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107470828

Соблюдайте принятые правила.
Названия улиц пишутся полностью и в определенным ("естественным") порядке слов.

Тут вы не пишете слово улица
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/961575452/history

А тут пишете его с сокращением и в начале, а не в конце.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/962805908

Исправьте, пожалуйста, свои правка.
mavl (2021-07-10 08:26:23+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок заменил правильные теги (детских лагерей, населённых пунктов) на тег промышленной территории (landuse=industrial). Детские лагеря и населённые пункты не являются промышленными территориями. Этот пакет правок портит правильные данные.  
  
Этот пакет правок полностью отменён.
user_11418917 (2021-07-09 08:23:25+00:00): Reverted! Please don't add your trible's name to the road, add the read street name or the street number.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107675468
WoodWoseWulf (2021-07-30 21:54:15+00:00): Welcome back to OSM!
Please do not add fictional features to the map.