piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-02-26 23:42:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 99937185, 100070992, 99997135, 100055256, 100058492, 99957568, 100078635, 99928851, 99936501, 99933662, 100077151, 99931963, 99916567, 99995824, 99920457, 100004206, 99914643, 99971983, 100045393, 99984944, 100040592, 100065178, 100017843, 100047696, 100009955, 100053681, 99976407, 99925106, 100008137, 99918279, 100019925, 99913071, 99909562, 99998602, 100073172, 100011510, 100076236, 100012356, 100060014, 99934963, 100052006, 99929936, 99950558, 99926442, 100007606, 99986778, 100010667, 99937975, 99934266, 99927702, 99974307, 100028979, 99967051, 99988630, 99922115, 100075299, 100066737, 99942730, 100014483, 99981669, 100050023, 100068489, 99978311, 99962166, 100033207, 100043086, 100006944, 100038188, 100061412, 100026536, 100000622, 99955239, 99979989, 100035567, 100006138, 99941196, 100009280, 100005178, 99952838, 100069843, 100056872, 100063693, 99964568, 99990852, 99935974, 100031055, 100024280, 99935495, 99994432, 100077929, 99939913, 99969561, 100072078, 100022092, 99923650, 100074255, 100003021, 99959806, 99946324, 99911390, 99938870, 99932844, 100013287, 99944445, 100001819, 99931045, 99983365, 99992817, 100008684, 100015998, 99948413 where the changeset comment is: Reverting an undiscussed import in Saudi Arabia.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4775 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-02-26 23:42:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 99937185, 100070992, 99997135, 100055256, 100058492, 99957568, 100078635, 99928851, 99936501, 99933662, 100077151, 99931963, 99916567, 99995824, 99920457, 100004206, 99914643, 99971983, 100045393, 99984944, 100040592, 100065178, 100017843, 100047696, 100009955, 100053681, 99976407, 99925106, 100008137, 99918279, 100019925, 99913071, 99909562, 99998602, 100073172, 100011510, 100076236, 100012356, 100060014, 99934963, 100052006, 99929936, 99950558, 99926442, 100007606, 99986778, 100010667, 99937975, 99934266, 99927702, 99974307, 100028979, 99967051, 99988630, 99922115, 100075299, 100066737, 99942730, 100014483, 99981669, 100050023, 100068489, 99978311, 99962166, 100033207, 100043086, 100006944, 100038188, 100061412, 100026536, 100000622, 99955239, 99979989, 100035567, 100006138, 99941196, 100009280, 100005178, 99952838, 100069843, 100056872, 100063693, 99964568, 99990852, 99935974, 100031055, 100024280, 99935495, 99994432, 100077929, 99939913, 99969561, 100072078, 100022092, 99923650, 100074255, 100003021, 99959806, 99946324, 99911390, 99938870, 99932844, 100013287, 99944445, 100001819, 99931045, 99983365, 99992817, 100008684, 100015998, 99948413 where the changeset comment is: Reverting an undiscussed import in Saudi Arabia.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4775 .
Warin61 (2021-05-20 07:43:08+00:00): Hi,
Not really the right way to do this. 

These are the Princes Gardens Tennis Courts. 

Do you have an 'office'?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-06-13 17:42:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 106288172, 106291668 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some road merge edits in South Africa.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5046 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-za/2021-May/thread.html#1295 .
Timmy_Tesseract (2021-07-18 08:04:31+00:00): Good day. What is your source for this name change? KartaView does not have any available imagery in this area.
Vinu_Gowda (2021-08-04 12:50:33+00:00): Hello Timmy_Tesseract 
Good day! I referred to this https://kartaview.org/details/3421733/2/track-info  KartaView street imagery to make changes which was incorrect. I will be careful next time while naming the streets. Thanks for your suggestions.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2021-02-24 10:11:48+00:00): نرجوا منكم التوقف عن هذا الرفع الخاطئ
G_P_J (2021-02-24 17:12:30+00:00): Cześć, w adresach bez ulicy nie dodajemy tagu addr:city. Zastępuje go tag addr:place. Twoja manaizm wprowadziła duplikat tagu z nazwą miejscowości. Na przyszłość unikaj takich zmian. Usunąłem duplikat.
garfild1994 (2021-02-24 20:59:58+00:00): Dzięki, zapamiętam.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-02-26 23:42:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 99937185, 100070992, 99997135, 100055256, 100058492, 99957568, 100078635, 99928851, 99936501, 99933662, 100077151, 99931963, 99916567, 99995824, 99920457, 100004206, 99914643, 99971983, 100045393, 99984944, 100040592, 100065178, 100017843, 100047696, 100009955, 100053681, 99976407, 99925106, 100008137, 99918279, 100019925, 99913071, 99909562, 99998602, 100073172, 100011510, 100076236, 100012356, 100060014, 99934963, 100052006, 99929936, 99950558, 99926442, 100007606, 99986778, 100010667, 99937975, 99934266, 99927702, 99974307, 100028979, 99967051, 99988630, 99922115, 100075299, 100066737, 99942730, 100014483, 99981669, 100050023, 100068489, 99978311, 99962166, 100033207, 100043086, 100006944, 100038188, 100061412, 100026536, 100000622, 99955239, 99979989, 100035567, 100006138, 99941196, 100009280, 100005178, 99952838, 100069843, 100056872, 100063693, 99964568, 99990852, 99935974, 100031055, 100024280, 99935495, 99994432, 100077929, 99939913, 99969561, 100072078, 100022092, 99923650, 100074255, 100003021, 99959806, 99946324, 99911390, 99938870, 99932844, 100013287, 99944445, 100001819, 99931045, 99983365, 99992817, 100008684, 100015998, 99948413 where the changeset comment is: Reverting an undiscussed import in Saudi Arabia.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4775 .
user_5589 (2021-03-28 20:45:20+00:00): I removed the part of the old LNWR/LMS line in Leamington and Radford Semele because it is NOT visible on the ground. There is now a housing estate built over it in much of Leamington and industrial buildings at the Riccardo facility. Where there is now nothing visible on the ground then features should not be mapped.

Do NOT restore this railway as an OSM way where it has been totally destroyed and removed from the landscape. OSM is for mapping current features and is not for showing inaccurate, outdated information such as totally razed structures and routes.
ScottWalkerAU (2021-02-24 11:02:49+00:00): Hi - nice sidewalks. I'd consider marking them with footway=sidewalk as well (pavement preset in iD) seeing as they run parallel with the roads
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99895326
user_5359 (2021-02-25 05:28:16+00:00): Willkommen bei OSM! Genereller Hinweis: Es darf nicht von anderen Karten (insbesondere von Google Maps) kopiert werden! 
Theoretisch müsste Deine Änderung revoltiert werden und eine Notiz geschrieben werden, dass sich der Inhaber geändert hat.
shonesh (2021-02-25 09:34:04+00:00): Hallo user_5359, danke für den Hinweis.
Ich habe nochmal nachgeguckt und alle meine ergänzten Infos gibt es auch auf der Website von dem Friseur zu finden. Die Website wäre als Quelle okay?
Ps: Danke für den Hinweis, bin noch neu hier und freue ich zu lernen, was ich hier beachten muss :-)
user_5359 (2021-02-25 09:40:48+00:00): Wenn Du Vorort warst und den anderen Namen gesehen hast, kannst auch eine Suchmaschine verwenden und Details einzutragen. 

Aber Google Maps und OSM (gilt übrigens auch für andere Kartenwerke, weil es die Google Maps Nutzungsrechte verbieten) "neben"einander zu legen und dann nach Unterschieden zu suchen und der Google Eintrag als Master zu nehmen, ist schlicht weg falsch.
shonesh (2021-02-25 11:06:49+00:00): Alles klar, vielen Dank.
shonesh (2021-02-25 11:14:26+00:00): Und fürs Protokoll:
Ich bin laufe dort regelmäßig vorbei, weiß also von der Umbenennung und bin sicher, dass die geänderten Daten korrekt sind.
rocky2109 (2021-02-24 12:42:32+00:00): Updated road name to match nearby road names #MSFTOpenMaps #AtlasChecks
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99896835
Kovoschiz (2021-02-24 11:32:27+00:00): Checking the history, now I see the issue here is that one was originally for the Lei Yue Mun Villages group, the other for the area. It's not straightfoward to characterize this relationship as to how a "village" (or `=hamlet`) should be modeled.
Kovoschiz (2021-02-24 11:42:17+00:00): The other issue is often Sam Ka Tsuen is referred to as the representative village of Lei Yue Mun
Kovoschiz (2021-02-24 12:08:16+00:00): For Nominatim specifically, the problem is `=village` & `=hamlet` are ranked 18, while `=suburb` to `=quarter` & `=neighbourhood` are 20 to 22.
Richard (2023-05-10 09:35:52+00:00): Please don't use bridge=yes when there actually is no bridge any more. bridge=yes means "yes there's a bridge". Thank you. :)
SHARCRASH (2021-02-24 10:58:31+00:00): + new elements
spiregrain (2021-02-25 08:57:53+00:00): Hi there - something seems to have gone wrong with the Lagan.   I *think* this changeset has something to do with it - ways 910444384 337973137 and 910444384 were all touched and form part of the side of the Lagan.
spiregrain (2021-02-25 11:34:46+00:00): I've re-added them in this changeset - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99973167
DDROMAGNY (2021-03-17 09:57:59+00:00): Pourriez vous préciser si ce parking est payant ? (fee=yes/no) ? Merci 
#CDT40
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99898165
Ser9ei (2021-03-01 17:03:52+00:00): Тег name вносятся только официальные названия. Ещё раз настоятельно рекомендую сначала читать Wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name

Исправьте, пожалуйста, свои "незаконные" правки.
eggie (2021-02-24 12:05:50+00:00): Dag Brandweer.. Millieupark Roggel-RD Maasland staat nu dubbel vermeld. 
Denk beter één verwijderen.
MVG
eggie
DDROMAGNY (2021-03-17 09:54:06+00:00): bonjour, serait-il possible de préciser si ce parking est payant ? (fee=yes/no)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99898550
DDROMAGNY (2021-03-17 09:54:15+00:00): #CDT40
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99898550
DDROMAGNY (2021-03-17 09:59:23+00:00): Bonjour, pourriez vous préciser si ce parking est payant ? (fee=yes/no) 
Merci #CDT40
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99898827
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-06-05 13:26:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 105882167, 105878073 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some road merge edits in South Africa.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5047 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-za/2021-May/thread.html#1295 .
DDROMAGNY (2021-03-17 09:56:26+00:00): bonjour, pourriez vous préciser si ce parking est payant ? #CDT40
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99899161
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-06-13 17:43:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 106288172, 106291668 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some road merge edits in South Africa.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5046 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-za/2021-May/thread.html#1295 .
sblondon (2021-02-25 20:39:28+00:00): Greyhound Parade Road is a new road added to the development, I only recently added it. Merton Council named this road along with new post codes, available on the Merton Council planning website. Road should be added back.
sblondon (2021-02-25 20:41:55+00:00): Note: in stadium planning documents its known as North-South Street, but the council now has a formal name for it.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-06-05 13:26:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 105882167, 105878073 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some road merge edits in South Africa.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5047 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-za/2021-May/thread.html#1295 .
Buraddo (2021-02-24 12:53:36+00:00): Hello, thanks for editing the map, keep on going!
One indication, take a look at road classifications (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway) secondary is used for roads linking regions (drumuri județene) this street is better classified as residential. Thanks
eggie (2021-02-24 11:52:33+00:00): Feedback 
Dag Bram.. Pad ligt oke, maar zou eigenlijk vebonden kunnen worden met de weg op de parkeerplaats. Die is vast wel langer. Dan zal het ook gaan routeren.
MVG
eggie
Bram Janssen (2021-02-24 11:59:38+00:00): Top zal het direct aanpassen!
habi (2021-02-25 15:29:20+00:00): Hey!
You added https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/910452404 with completely bogus data.
Is this a street or what were you trying to add to OpenStreetMap?
Have a good day,
habi
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-02-24 12:41:44+00:00): Why you removed landuse=industrial from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31573797/history ?

It is perfectly fine on power=plant, correct and may be helpful in some cases.
MoiraPrime (2021-02-24 12:49:42+00:00): Also, why did you change Leaf River from natural=water water=river to waterway=riverbank here. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/276634778
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-02-24 13:55:53+00:00): Sorry for bothering you again: but what you meant by area=gas_plant at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256716616/history 
?

area=gas_plant is an unusual and there is likely a better tag for that but I am unsure what is located there...

@
> natural=water water=river to waterway=riverbank here. 

Both versions are correct, changing from one to another is OK even if not very productive.
dgiacobbi (2021-02-24 11:42:46+00:00): https://torino.corriere.it/cronaca/21_febbraio_15/stop-all-esselunga-nell-ex-fiat-corso-bramante-deroga-concessa-comune-fare-cassa-962ff8a2-6fc4-11eb-90fa-04aff0071378.shtml
eggie (2021-02-24 12:00:39+00:00): Dag Bram.. Om te voorkomen dat al die brandgangetjes gaan routeren voor Janenalleman. .. (fietsroutering)
(Wie wil er nu via die brandgangen worden gestuurd in routingapps? )
zet ik als ze niet bedoeld zijn als doorgaande route op access=private.
Er zijn meer mappers die dat zo doen. Je krijgt dan geen ongewenste routering en fromeel klopt het ook. 
Niemand heeft wat te zoeken in die brandgangen.. 
In veel gemeenten is behoort de helft van de brandgang bij het perceel als eigendom.
Er is niet echt consensus.. 
Er zijn ook mappers die nemen de brandgangen liever helemaal niet op in OSM. 
De brandgangen achter de tuinen staan ook niet in de BGT. 
Up to you!
MVG
eggie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-06-05 13:26:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 105882167, 105878073 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some road merge edits in South Africa.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5047 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-za/2021-May/thread.html#1295 .
mavl (2021-02-27 12:53:43+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок меняет статусы транзитных улиц. Статусы возвращены в прежнее состояние.  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Additional_rules_to_highway_classification
bobeeeze (2021-03-05 20:02:23+00:00): En mi opinión no es una autovía, simplemente una vía secundaria donde han separado los carriles de cada sentido en un tramo pero eso no lo hace pasar a motorway.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99902504
jonashoffmann (2021-03-08 09:48:09+00:00): Hola, es que la vía esta señalizado con el señal S-1a/Autovía. Entonces según la wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Directrices_de_etiquetado_espa%C3%B1olas#Reglas_generales) tiene que ser etiquetada como motorway. "se considera necesario establecer que todas las autopistas y autovías con limitación de acceso, con señalización de fondo azul se etiqueten mediante highway=motorway." O lo he interpretado mal?
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-11 12:05:27+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/910078759/history has waterway = brook that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What you meant by waterway=brook? Is not using https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream intentional and wanted here? How waterway=brook differs from waterway=stream in this case?
ohmanger (2024-04-11 14:09:23+00:00): Hi there, thanks for the comment! Brooks are usually small or intermittent streams however the definition is arbitrary and their modern day function can depart from their name.
I'm not sure the waterway=brook tag had being marked as discouraged on the wiki when I made this commit but it makes sense as the intermittent=yes tag sufficiently covers it.

I've updated the tags to replace waterway=brook with waterway=drain as I think that is more appropriate vs stream here.

Thanks
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-06-13 17:42:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 106288172, 106291668 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some road merge edits in South Africa.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5046 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-za/2021-May/thread.html#1295 .
habi (2021-02-25 15:48:08+00:00): Hallo!
Es macht Sinn, Gebäude (sofern diese es denn sind) rechteckig einzuzeichnen.
Im Editor, den du verwendest (ID) geht dies, wenn du nach dem Zeichnen die 'q'-Taste drückst.
Gruss aus der Schweiz,
habi
habi (2021-02-25 15:48:49+00:00): PS: Es geht um das Gebäude hier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/468684569/
SK53 (2021-02-24 12:35:54+00:00): I really don't believe this is substantiated as a peak which is why I placed the fixme. Old OS maps mark the cairn as a pile of stones and it is suspiciously close to the parish boundary. I suspect that Grey Crags actually refers to part of the common rather than this bump on the moor (i.e., would be more appropriate as place=locality). I very much doubt if locals were interested in minor topographic elements, but rather named places which were exploited for pasture of mining.

Also I suspect the high point of Lowick High Common is usually referred to as Kirby Moor, e.g., in lists of Marilyns (see also wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkby_Moor). I haven't worked out if this is that high point. There don't seem to be OSM elements tagged with either name.

Either way I still think my fixme is relevant, as there are quite a few imponderables.

Jerry

PS. Changeset discussions are much better than direct messages for this sort of things, particularly as others more local than me might have more knowledge.
Artasen (2021-02-24 18:13:31+00:00): I have visited this hill several times (I live close by at Friars Ground) it is a very small hill with a long flat gently rounded top. It is the highest point within several kilometres; it is wholly enclosed by the 330 m. contour line.  It is easily higher and more distinctive as a peak than the peak of Keldray Moor to the east which has a spot height of 299 m and is a relatively flat plateau.. I have conferred with other Kirkby locals who walk the moor regularly and they agree with me. You are correct, all of the locals refer to the moor S of the  A5092 as Kirkby Moor sometimes the S end is referred to as The Parks for obvious reasons. I have never heard anyone refer to it as Lowick High Common which would be confused with Lowick Common to the E. The moor to the N of the A5092 is referred to as Gawthwaite moor of simply Burney.
Artasen (2021-02-24 18:28:01+00:00): It is also (probably) the highest point on Kirkby Moor, compared to Cocklakes I km to the S which is a much more pointy peak.
SK53 (2021-02-25 09:42:25+00:00): Yes, looking at even new OS maps the names look as if they need work (Goffa Crag Scar but Goffa Cragg). Probably names have just been perpetuated from earlier mapping. This is known elsewhere, in which case local knowledge such as yours is more valuable. I used to stay at Woodgate long ago, but haven't been in the area since the first wind farms appeared on the hills: I remember driving over from Coniston to have a look at them.

Is this the same cairn (https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3378829)? I'm looking to see if there is an open data source for a spot height.

Perhaps the best way forward would be to add alt_name=Kirby Moor (or swap this with Gray Crags). People using hill guides will be looking for that name, so even if not truly the name of the summit it does reflect some usage).

OSM often picks out these conundrums & they often lead down a rabbit hole of research. (For example I've just discovered that part of these moors jointly belonged to Lowick & Subberthwaite parishes https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10369460/boundary.
SK53 (2021-02-25 13:09:51+00:00): Infuriatingly there is not a spot height for the top of the fell. I was hoping that would settle things.
Artasen (2021-02-25 19:23:00+00:00): Yes the photos at SK2583 are all of the cairn at Grey Crags, amazing how much it varies. I'm reluctant to change the name, we locals do all refer to Grey Crags.as a part of Kirkby Moor; the whole moor from the A5092 to Bank House Moor in the S. It's quite surprising; I had always been told by other locals that Shooting House Hill to the S. was the highest point  at 332 m. on  Kirkby Moor. I never questioned it. However following this investigation I now think that Grey Crags is slightly higher. An early OS 6 in.map (1842-1953) records a spot height of 1092 ft.(332.8 m.). Probably like you, because Grey Crags has such a long rounded flattish top I never thought of its height. The views are certainly better from Shooting House Hill.
Artasen (2021-02-25 19:35:44+00:00): I'm surprised that Grey Crags qualifies as a Marilyn.
Artasen (2021-02-25 19:37:43+00:00): With a stated height of 334 m.
SK53 (2021-02-26 11:12:12+00:00): The old provisional 1:25k maps shows a spot height of 1092 ft (which translates to 333 m more or less) a little way to the N (about 200 m) https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=54.24600&lon=-3.13551&layers=10&b=7. The same point is marked by a triangle on the earlier 25 inch which if I read the legend properly means a triangulation station (way before trig points of course). Of course that doesn't mean it was the summit, it may have been chosen to have better views to the N & W given the flat nature of the top. Peakbagger gives the Grey Crags top as 1096 ft (and looks to have been properly surveyed too) http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/mountaindetails.php?qu=S&rf=2668. So this indeed answers my original query!
Artasen (2021-02-26 16:03:40+00:00): I'm pleased that you are now satisfied. I will probably be walking that area again in a few days I'll try to remember to do a gps trace and see how the height of  the two ends of Grey Crags  compare. This was certainly more interesting than the rather boring activity of adding houses to the N end of Askham, or adding walls hedges and farmland, which I have been doing recently. I'm also surprised that this is a Marilyn as I said earlier because the drop to the S is only about 20 to 30 m. because of Cocklakes, far less the the required 150 m.
Nomadmapper (2021-02-26 15:18:56+00:00): parfait
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99903645
Anisa IRM-ED (2022-12-02 03:09:53+00:00): Hi, har_ini. Thank you for your mapping contribution.
I need to delete highway (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/910464667) due to a crossing highway warning and I think it doesn't match the imagery (https://maproulette.org/challenge/30179/task/142913888). please let me know if there's any update on this area. Thank you and happy mapping
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-06-05 13:28:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 105882167, 105878073 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some road merge edits in South Africa.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5047 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-za/2021-May/thread.html#1295 .