piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2021-11-30 14:58:30+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:

A: buildings not always accurately drawn
C: multiple buildings drawn as 1 building
E: Rectangular Buildings not squared.

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
More help information:
View this video's about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
More info can be found on https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114403272
Frans S (2021-11-30 14:37:58+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and mapped. Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114403290
bxl-forever (2021-12-13 16:27:24+00:00): Hello,
Thanks for this.
Shouldn’t you consider using a better editor than iD to perform such tasks?
Splitting ways that contain route relations in iD causes a lot of undesired side-effects, and your changeset broke all bus relations here.
Thanks in advance.
Lialiuika (2021-12-14 06:25:19+00:00): Hello! Thanks for your help! Could you please clarify which problem with bus routes was fixed? I simulated the situation in ID and the route was saved for all road sections when splitting at a point, in order to avoid such questions in the future I would like to know what exactly was broken. Thanks in advance.
bxl-forever (2021-12-14 11:30:56+00:00): Hello.

Here is an example:

In the changeset you split way 39626540, named Sint-Jansbergsdreef, into two parts because you wanted to add maxspeed to only one part of the former way.  That generated two  namely smaller ways: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39626540 (same id but shorter) and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1007645773 (new).
No problem with that, so far.

But way 39626540 was part of several bus route relations.

Here is one of them: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2950645/history

This is a southbound relation, and when splitting, the order of ways within the relations should have been: 39627638-39626540-1007645773-44442738.
That is what JOSM would have done.
On the contrary, the iD editor is often confused when splitting roads and it ordered them this way: 39627638-1007645773-39626540-44442738.
That created a gap in the route.  People will not see it immediately because all the segments are there and iD seems happy with it, just like an alphabet spelt as A-C-B-D.

This was fixed by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114889809

I guess it’s not *your* fault.  It looks like a bug in iD, despite it seems that people can have iD work more or less correctly by downloading a larger area before splitting roads.

We are running apps that rely on OSM data and our apps are broken several times a week because of newbies doing incorrect stuff with the iD editor.  I see you are not a newbie and you are doing professional edits in OSM for Mapbox, hence the hope of achieving higher quality standards.  We love the good work Mapbox is doing. ;-)

Have a nice day.
Lialiuika (2021-12-15 08:24:58+00:00): Hello! Thank you for this the fullest answer! We'll be more attentive for using editor in such cases.

Have a good one!
Frans S (2021-11-30 14:33:22+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and mapped. Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key. You did not square 22 buildings out of 39 ! 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114403614
jfd553 (2024-10-24 13:59:38+00:00): Many power=pole with height=* were added in this changeset but I can't see most of them on available images. What was your source?
Iain I (2024-10-24 14:51:10+00:00): This was a manual survey of the area a few years ago. Mostly gathered with a Trimble system. They might be off a bit as the terrain is difficult even with a local base. Heights of the poles are averaged. I wouldn’t say they are exact if that is what you are looking for.
jfd553 (2024-10-24 20:40:11+00:00): Local offset due to GPS, that makes sense! I sometimes get about a 20m offset between simultaneous measurements taken on two Garmin 60CSX. Thank.
Iain I (2024-10-24 20:47:01+00:00): Yes I can’t say GPS works well in that area. If you find the data set unusable it should be removed. I think I would need to reach out the the DWG for that. Unless your can tell me how to delete the data set safely
jfd553 (2024-10-24 23:28:16+00:00): No, i can try to move them where I think they belong - it shouldn't that far away 
- and remove those I can't locate :-)
Iain I (2024-10-25 00:09:02+00:00): Awesome. If you are doing ground survey it is getting a bit soggy. I was going to place an image offset in the area. If you have a place you want one let me know
BJMTR (2021-11-30 14:22:07+00:00): 地铁线路具有统一性，地铁和轻轨是两种不同的城市轨道交通制式，不是由线路形式地上地下而定的，应以运量及定位而分。4号线显然是地铁制式
user_11702015 (2021-11-30 14:48:26+00:00): 学到了，抱歉
tom_yorados (2021-11-30 19:14:53+00:00): Hallo hmkeiser,

im wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:landuse%3Dvineyard
steht:

....Hat der Weinberg selbst einen Namen, sollte dieser mit name=* angegeben werden. Der Name der Einzellage sollte mit vineyard:locality=* angegeben werden. 
Grüße
yorados
hmkaiser (2021-12-01 06:09:54+00:00): Hallo yorados,

Danke für den Tipp, ist mir soweit auch bekannt. Grundsätzlich gibt es das Problem, dass "Weinberg" und "landuse" unterschiedlich interpretiert werden können. In Würzburg ist (war) die Gesamtfläche in 3 (landuse) Abschnitte unterteilt, um lokale Bezeichnungen, aber auch den Betreiber die Flächen zu hinterlegen.
Das habe ich von "landuse" auf "place" geändert, weil diese Definitionen mit "vineyard" gar nichts zu tun haben.
Auf der anderen Seite bezeichnet "landuse" die konkrete Landnutzung. Da kann es dann nicht sein, dass über den Weinberg-Namen erfasste "landuse=vineyard" über Stock und Stein, also Straßen, Wege, scrub, u.ä. verlaufen. Aus meiner Sicht müssen landuse-Flächen konsequent über die tatsächliche Nutzung erfasst werden.

Viele Grüße!
DressyPear4 (2021-11-30 15:15:07+00:00): Olá, não altere tags dos elementos existentes, ao invés disso adicione novos nós.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114403861
aweech (2021-11-30 14:53:55+00:00): Hi,
Just so you know, the Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta imagery is quite old, and the world changes. I fixed this edit and 114403806 to reflect new developments. I recommend using a newer imagery source like the plain Esri World Imagery.
DianaDemchuk (2021-12-01 08:30:14+00:00): Hi thank you very much. Together we will make the cards better!
BCNorwich (2021-12-01 08:29:24+00:00): Hi, sidewalk=both would be the tag for these highways. The sidewalk=separate tag is for sidewalks separately mapped from the carraigeway. Please see:- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk

Regards Bernard.
DressyPear4 (2021-12-04 09:48:27+00:00): Olá, muitas vezes é a imagem de satélite que está deslocada, ajustando algumas vias, vai ficar diferente do resto da cidade.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114404240
SekeRob (2022-09-06 09:41:20+00:00): Ciao,

Sono venuto qui perché alcuni modi sono stati mappati su altri modi (modi duplicati). Hai mappato questa rotatoria e ricostruito il percorso, ma le immagini di luglio 2022 su entrambe le estremità dicono che non una vanga è finita nel terreno. Quindi, c'è un punto qualsiasi della traiettoria in costruzione, c'è una data di inizio prevista, una data prevista di completamento? In caso contrario, il tagging dovrebbe essere modificato in "proposto".

Si prega di rispondere in modo che i problemi di mappa/percorso possano essere risolti correttamente.

saluto,

Hi,

I came here because some ways were mapped on other ways. (duplicate ways) You mapped this roundabout and reconstructed route, but July 2022 imagery says not a spade went into the ground, log normal. So, is this anywhere on the trajectory under construction, is there an expected start date, expected date of completion? If not, the tagging should be changed to 'proposed'.

Please reply so the map/routing problems can be properly resolved.
xDeamon (2022-09-06 14:41:43+00:00): Hi there,
the infrastructure we are talking about it's a bypass of the SS14 for the city of San Donà that was build aroud the early 2000 and it was not complitly finished. So in 2016 ANAS (the "owner" of all national routes, in italian strade statali SS, wanted to finish this and some other projects like the Vicenza bypass of SS46 which is currently under construction and visible from aerial view, and many others like along the SS51 in Vittorio Veneto, Longarone... Because of the winter olympic games that will be held in Cortina in 2026, with new tunnels, bypasses and so on. But let's get back to this SS14, so this road in particular it's the "less important" compared to the other ones as the city itself has already been bypassed and it's not a dangerous road that needs to be secured, in other words there are not many accidents, but the founds are already allocated (€ 42.010.697) and the construction did not start only because of Covid as it was scheduled for late 2020. Now I mapped it because it was insered in the regional plan of transportation (PRT) 2030, as many others that are currently under construction so it's definitely going to be constructed, it's just not the priority at the moment. Anyway here's a proof that I'm not inventing stuff (from ANAS itself): https://www.comune.vicenza.it/fotonot/194632-slide_presentazione_ad_anas_def.pdf you can check in slide 8 "SS.N.14 DELLA VENEZIA GIULIA" (the road in question) "Variante di San Donà di Piave (VE) ‐ 3° lotto: dalla rotatoria di
Caposile alla rotatoria di Passerella e scavalco della rotatoria
di Calvecchia" (translation: 3rd lot of San Donà bypass: from the roundabout of Caposile to the roundabout of Passerella and the overpass of roundabout of Calvecchia) so yes, the mapping is correct and here there is no doubt, about the "under construction" or "planned" dilemma it's only about time as literally all the other projects are being constructed and you can check it yourself by looking at the other ones on the table of slide 8.
SekeRob (2022-09-06 18:17:16+00:00): Many thanks for your reply and backup. Absent a start date or a delivery/expected date of completion, those SS14 ways need change from highway=construction to highway=proposed and construction=primary changed to proposed=primary. Contruction is only to be used when work has really started. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=proposed

ciao
RicoElectrico (2021-12-01 13:31:27+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2955631
kubahahaha (2021-12-01 14:52:38+00:00): Ogarnięte, dzięki za powiadomienie
SomeoneElse (2021-11-30 17:01:22+00:00): Apologies about the size - these changes are all in the USA apart from 1 changeset in India (which I'll look at separately)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-11-30 19:43:06+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 109493230, 114355934, 114356224, 114356681, 114356755, 114387398, 114387425.
BCNorwich (2021-12-01 08:50:59+00:00): Hi, Eagle Drive was duplicated, I've removed the duplication.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2021-12-01 08:58:30+00:00): Same problem with Grassmere Close and Devonshire Square Mews, duplicate removed. Please don't draw new ways to make amendments/corrections, the corrections should be made to the existing ways.

Duplicates removed.

Regards Bernard
Frans S (2021-12-02 10:13:15+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and mapped. Important: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key. You did not square a single building.
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114405039
danieldegroot2 (2022-04-12 17:16:39+00:00): Hey Mac,

In this changeset, you have deleted a segment of Byng Place. The remaining segments are still marked as oneway, meaning one dead-ends into nowhere for motor vehicles.

The note which brought this to my attention:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3101183

Your changes:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=114405086

Regards,

Daniel
MacLondon (2022-04-12 18:07:33+00:00): Thanks for pointing this out, Daniel.

I've now fixed the error gap here.

Regards, 
Mac
E4aG4r (2023-03-08 14:59:34+00:00): Hallo staka-RBK_04,

ich bin heute hier vorbeigekommen. Da dort Halteverbot-Schilder stehen, befürchte ich, dass der markierte Parkplatz neben dem Kodi kein Parkplatz ist.
Hast du genauere Informationen?

Grüße,
E4aG4r
staka-RBK_04 (2023-03-09 13:46:36+00:00): Hallo E4aG4r,

Unsere Informationen dazu sind mittlerweile 2 Jahre alt. Wir leiten den Hinweis an die Gemeinde weiter und bitten um Klärung.

Gruß,
staka-RBK_04
Xvtn (2021-12-01 22:10:53+00:00): In some situations (Not for this street specifically) while on site I have seen private roads that are used by multiple households. For example sometimes a small clump of households are extended family. Would that count as a driveway or residential road?
aweech (2021-12-02 00:09:40+00:00): Hi,
When I was just starting out mapping, someone told me that a private street with three or more houses and a name should be tagged as a residential road and any less should be tagged as a service road. It depends though on the specifics though. For example, a way like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/824759651 should probably be tagged as service even though it has a bunch of units off of it because it doesn't have its own name and is clearly a notch below the residential road it is attached to. 

Also, shared driveways shouldn't be tagged as driveways (I know that sounds silly but OSM tags with British English most of the time). The shared part should be just a plain service road or a service road also tagged with service=pipestem. Here's an example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/856403033
aweech (2021-11-30 17:24:24+00:00): Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap! I reviewed your edit, as you requested, and I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate. I can see that there's an unnatural square that's darker than the surrounding landscape. Do you know what's being done there? The way you tagged it makes it seem like a cactus farm.
Frans S (2021-11-30 15:05:24+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are still not allways in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:
D: nodes of buildings linked to other buildings or roads
E: Rectangular Buildings not squared.
 PLEASE IMPROVE YOUR MAPPING SKILLS.

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
More help information:
View this video's about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
More info can be found on https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114406398
wielandb (2021-12-09 04:01:12+00:00): Eines der Objekte hier heißt "Amtmannsfelsen", das andere "Ampmannsfelsen". Was ist korrekt?
bxl-forever (2021-11-30 20:55:49+00:00): Hello,

Just a question about this changeset which you titled "Added more info" without explaining what you did exactly.

Among other changes, you added a tag to this square: "start_date=2002".

This tag is ambiguous.  What does it refer to?  Is that the date since this place qualifies as a square?  Or its name?  Something else?

Thanks in advance.
JhowieNitnek (2021-11-30 20:59:32+00:00): That is a mistake on my pat is was meant for the fountain not the square
bxl-forever (2021-11-30 23:52:11+00:00): OK, thanks
SafetyIng (2021-12-10 10:02:07+00:00): Hey, du hast hier paar Fehler eingeschlichen, die eher nach "Mapping for the Renderer" aussehen. 
Du hast hier mehrere amenity=school, die die gleiche Schule bezeichnen. 
Da aber amenity=school die Schule darstellen soll, ist hier ja irgendwas nicht richtig.... 
Auch die Namen "Schulhof" und so sind nicht richtig. Für Schulhöfe gibt es den Tag "leisure=schoolyard"
user_5359 (2021-12-01 17:10:55+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9296508899! What is the meaning of addr:addr? Did you mean addr:housenumber?
TrickyFoxy (2021-12-02 07:02:40+00:00): Hello! Thank you, that is indeed an error. But I meant addr:flats. I''ll fix it:)
Andrea Musuruane (2021-12-01 11:40:39+00:00): Ciao. I numeri civici, in Italia, sono assegnati agli ingressi. Non è quindi corretto associare i tag addr:* ad un edificio. Comunque non ha molto senso inserire i tag addr:* se manca l'informazione su addr:housenumber. Se si vuole indicare l'indirizzo su un POI si può usare il Bremen Schema, che permette di evitare di duplicare i tag add:* https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Bremen_Schema Ciao, Andrea
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-11-30 19:43:07+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 109493230, 114355934, 114356224, 114356681, 114356755, 114387398, 114387425.
miurahr (2021-12-05 06:34:03+00:00): はじめての編集ありがとうございます。 今後も、ぜひ正確な編集をこころがけてください。ほかの方から、修正がはいっているようです。
Luzandro (2021-12-02 19:04:22+00:00): Hallo,
hier hatte schon ein track existiert, den du durch einen neuen Weg überlagert hast: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30297749#map=19/48.39987/16.36989
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114408471
fkv (2021-12-02 20:09:09+00:00): Weiß nicht, wie das passiert ist. Entweder ein Editorbug, oder ich hab den Download-Layer ausgeblendet, weil mich der von plan.at stammende Weg beim Zeichnen des von SW kommenden behinderte, und dann vergessen, den plan.at-Weg zu löschen. Hol ich jetzt nach.
literan (2021-11-30 20:28:46+00:00): только это не place=quarter (т.к. это не современные районы), а historic
ivanbranco (2021-12-17 16:59:09+00:00): Hi,

diet:n奶茶=yes

OSM tags are by convention in english language, what's the meanign of n奶茶? I googled it, seems like it's bubble tea? Then I would change it with cuisine=bubble_tea
Max-Kritic (2021-12-02 12:59:50+00:00): http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/#zoom=15&lat=50.23656&lon=2.99948&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2%2C3&issue_uuid=50bdbd07-bd29-c6be-4303-a02d61004e02

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/#zoom=17&lat=50.234328&lon=2.998666&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2%2C3&issue_uuid=50bdbd07-bd29-c6be-4303-a02d61004e02
eggie (2021-11-30 17:46:56+00:00): Je vraagt feedback  .. Vergeet niet je commentaar aan te passen.
Dus ingang parking toegevoegd oid.
Maak de eindnode van de building_passage vast aan het gebouw.

Mapse,
eggie
RicoElectrico (2021-12-01 10:43:12+00:00): Cześć, nie dajemy miejscowości w nazwie. No i chyba KFC jest w budynku, więc lepiej go tam przesunąć.
ciqlacrau (2021-12-02 21:06:41+00:00): Pour être pris précis, il n'y a pas d'agence Société Général à cet emplacement, il y avait bien un D.A.B. mais il a été supprimé.
marczoutendijk (2021-12-08 12:58:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114702419 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism.
Mathias_ADAV (2022-05-18 15:22:40+00:00): Bonjour, je viens de voir votre contribution sur la véloroute : Berck-sur-Mer – Saint-Omer – Steenvoorde – Belgique. Est-ce que cette véloroute est jalonné sur le terrain ? Sinon, il faudrait rajouter le tag state = proposed
Monchinho (2021-11-30 17:03:21+00:00): Grazas pola corrección. Saúdos.
ted3sco (2021-12-08 11:55:26+00:00): Hello. From where does you team get the info? I updated it when I first encountered it and it is still one way today.
berms (2021-12-08 16:56:32+00:00): Apologies for the mistake. The road appeared to be bidirectional in this Mapillary link https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=273818454444635. I have reverted my edit back to oneway. Thanks for the feedback.
moje_konto (2021-11-30 17:57:26+00:00): Ścieżka piesza/rowerowa przy Wysogotowska - dlaczego zmiana znaczników designated na yes?

Jeżeli znaków drogowych przed chwilą nie zmieniono, to prawidłowe było designated, jako że jest to wyznaczona ścieżka. Wartość yes używa się, gdy ruch jest dopuszczony.

Nie ma też potrzeby dodawania foot=yes do highway=footway ani bicycle=yes do highway=cycleway.

Jest to nadmiarowe - warto wcześniej zapoznać się z opisem znaczników na wiki.
Feskil (2021-11-30 18:48:38+00:00): Błędy zostały poprawione.
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-01-07 10:01:28+00:00): Proszę, przeczytaj https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian

"." to nie jest dobry opis zmian
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-01-07 10:02:46+00:00): Dodatkowo - o co chodzi z linią https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1007745715 ?

Co jest reprezentowane przez linie łączącą granicę ze skrzyżowaniem?
ChonkerStonker (2021-11-30 18:20:37+00:00): All right, it looks like I got it right this time since it's not tripping alarms on OSM Inspector or Osmose.
Kind of wish changeset comments ended up in My Messages too so I'd see them immediately upon loading the site. Still my own fault for going more than three days without checking for them.
Warin61 (2021-12-01 23:59:49+00:00): Still Wrong. 
You have to wait a day for OSM Inspector to react. 
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=129.50651&lat=-14.18475&zoom=15

JOSM validator says: 
Errors (3)
Multipolygon outer way shares segment with other ring (3)
TestError [tester=org.openstreetmap.josm.data.validation.tests.MultipolygonTest@73b04335, code=1606, message=Multipolygon outer way shares segment with other ring]
TestError [tester=org.openstreetmap.josm.data.validation.tests.MultipolygonTest@73b04335, code=1606, message=Multipolygon outer way shares segment with other ring]
TestError [tester=org.openstreetmap.josm.data.validation.tests.MultipolygonTest@73b04335, code=1606, message=Multipolygon outer way shares segment with other ring]
ChonkerStonker (2021-12-02 23:09:56+00:00): Ah, I think I understand the issue now. I'll quickly fix it.