piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
DangNgu (2015-09-01 12:37:59+00:00): data is also available from Maps4BW and is therefore compatible as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Baden-W.C3.BCrttemberg
sarukwa (2024-11-19 15:23:12+00:00): Hello! I would be interested in your thoughts about the interesting situation with Wymondham FP19 / FP34.

The council definitive statement and map, and the digital map, all show these passing Park Farm (not yet mapped on OSM) and continuing out across a field beyond.

However i was stopped at Park Farm by a grumpy landowner and asked to leave, being told there is no PROW.

Normally i would be sceptical, but there is a council PROW waymarker post at the intersection of FP19 and the farm access road, the arrows on the post only point one way, Eastwards, suggesting that FP19 does indeed stop here.
At this intersection is the farm 'private' sign warning of legal action against trespassers.

It seems that the definitive statement and map, and digital map, are possibly all incorrect or not updated? Seems surprisingly careless.

The closure of part of FP19 and FP34 would indeed make sense considering how the bypass prevents FP34 from reaching its destination, with FP33 North of the bypass now having this function.

I am wondering if part of FP19 and FP34 should be 'highway=no' on OSM to prevent routing and prevent innocent trespassing? These routes also show up on the Ordnance Survey digital map, and other online maps that import OSM path data.

I might add some 'note' tags in the area to at least warn of this situation. There are already some 'note's suggesting an unusual situation.

I will also have a second look at the arrows on the waymarker post.
sarukwa (2024-11-19 15:25:42+00:00): > I am wondering if part of FP19 and FP34 should be 'highway=no'

My mistake, only FP34 can be 'highway=no'.
Robert Whittaker (2024-11-20 08:26:58+00:00): Hi sarukwa, I've just done a few edits in the area that might improve things. I've mapped Park Farm from aerial imagery. There's no sign of the path for FP34 from the imagery, and from what you wrote, it seems that there's nothing obvious on the ground either. The highway=path that was in OSM didn't follow the Definitive Line anyway, so I've adjusted it so it does. Given there doesn't seem to be a physical path, and it seems it's not actually used by anyone, I've also changed it to highway=no: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/904683329 .
Robert Whittaker (2024-11-20 08:40:20+00:00): Regarding the Definitive Map and Statement, both seem to show FP19 and FP34 as indicated by the GIS data that's shown in the overlay at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/norfolk/south-norfolk/wymondham/ .

Legally, even if the Definitive Map and Statement contain mistakes, they're still regarded as being "Definitive", i.e. any route shown on them is legally a Public Right of Way, until such time as the Map and Statement are modified. So even if the routes were supposed to have been removed, the fact that they haven't been means they legally still exist.

Actually though, I don't think there's any mistake. Typically, when a new road like the A11 is built, existing routes are cut. Sometimes additional links are added to help join things up (like Wymondham FP 33 in this case) but almost always the existing sections are left - even if some become dead ends.

The fact that the Statements for these paths show they were modified in October 2001 to take account of the A11 supports this idea.

I'm a bit surprised that when they altered the paths for the A11, they didn't add a link along the farmn access road to join https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.55120&mlon=1.11870#map=16/52.55120/1.11870 to FP 19 . As this would allow a connection to FP33 over the new Park Lane bridge. Perhaps the intention was you'd be able to cross the A11 on foot west of Park Farm.

It's not clear to me whether it was the intention to allow crossings of the A11 between FP 18 and FP 34. Whether it was or not, I suspect the highway verges are too overgrown to be used now.
sarukwa (2024-11-24 15:27:46+00:00): Hello! Great work. Thanks for the interesting replies.

For FP34: I did not see any kind of path near the farm buildings, but that is as far as i got, i was not able to see if there was a worn path across the field beyond (seems unlikely as this seems a rarely used route).

Due to being 'definitive', it is good to know that i was not actually legally trespassing :D

Yeah, i am beginning to think you might be correct, that there is no mistake here and that the person i talked to was just ignorant of the PROW situation.
I wrote 'landowner', but all they said was something similar to the following: "This is private. I have lived here for 20 years and we never have people walking through here."
It would not be surprising that people rarely walk through there even if it is a PROW, due to the dead end route and the threatening private sign.
Also, "20 years" is after the bypass.

That leaves the council waymarker post, which i will check again, i was tired form my hike when i saw it. I am not sure i can entirely trust the arrows on the post, perhaps it is not an official indication of the end of FP19.

The 'landowner' told me that the public is allowed along that section of farm access road you mention connecting FP19 to the public roads. At the North end T junction there is an older farm sign stating 'Private road' but also '<- Public footpath 150m' (viewable on Google Street View). I think that section should perhaps be foot=permissive instead of the current foot=yes (which seems incorrect, no PROW).
zimba (2015-09-01 12:27:09+00:00): Auch in Roggwil habe ich einige ueberlappende strassen wieder geloescht. Das "restriction=no_left_turn" gehoert uebrigens nie direkt an eine strasse, sondern an eine Relation (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Einf%C3%BChrung_Relationen), die du mit dem "iD" editor aber nicht bearbeiten kannst. lg
DangNgu (2015-09-01 12:37:42+00:00): data is also available from Maps4BW and is therefore compatible as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Baden-W.C3.BCrttemberg
tosky (2015-08-27 13:33:22+00:00): Ma il bar si chiama davvero NORTHZONE SRL (che dovrebbe andare comunque con le opportune maiuscole e minuscole), o si tratta del nome del gestore? Perché in caso il nome va sistemato, e il gestore si può mettere in operator=
Diomanto (2015-08-28 07:52:12+00:00): Ho corretto come mi hai ben suggerito.
l'ID della modifica è il seguente #33637294
tosky (2015-08-28 11:22:47+00:00): Bene :)
mavl (2015-08-27 18:52:11+00:00): Здравствуйте.
Положение населённого пункта вы обозначили очень точно. Для этого места есть хороший спутниковый снимок MapBox (в редакторе iD справа выберите в списке подложек пункт «MapBox Satellite»).
Но населённого пункта Исенево в Тюменской области нет.
Есть деревня Исеневская. Цитата из закона Тюменской области № 263:

Ворогушинское сельское поселение  

с. Бизино  
с. Ворогушино  
д. Исеневская  
д. Иртышатские Юрты  
д. Медянки Русские  
д. Медянки Татарские  
д. Сабанаки  

Я поменял название на Исеневская. Повысил класс дороги в эту деревню  до highway=unclassified и немного сдвинул её.
Также добавил точку для этой деревни http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3717369527.
Если что не так, то уточняйте.
DangNgu (2015-09-01 12:37:27+00:00): data is also available from Maps4BW and is therefore compatible as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Baden-W.C3.BCrttemberg
DangNgu (2015-09-01 11:53:08+00:00): data is also available from Maps4BW and is therefore compatible as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Baden-W.C3.BCrttemberg
mweper (2015-08-27 19:00:29+00:00): Hola edumuzzo. Gracias por colaborar en OSM. Te aconsejo que al agregar un lugar, lo hagas a través de un nodo (punto) o un área, no ambos ya que genera una redundancia y duplicación de datos.

Por favor, corrige eso cerca del hotel. Saludos-
edumuzzo (2015-09-01 15:36:44+00:00): Gracias por aclararlo. Ya hice el cambio. Dejé el área.
luiswoo (2015-08-27 14:42:26+00:00): у дорог, даже если это тротуары, должны быть общие точки пересечения. и не должно быть наложений друг на друга.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Additional_rules_to_highway_classification
Supaplex (2015-08-27 16:56:11+00:00): 一般學校預定地會用proposed:amenity=school
像是
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323399505
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4602299
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261084893
可參考
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts
igeopr (2015-08-29 14:32:38+00:00): Mensaje de prueba!
wille (2015-08-31 01:20:21+00:00): Hi, Malcolmh

Your changeset deleted the Paranoa Lake in Brasília. Be more carefull in your edits
wille (2015-08-31 01:41:06+00:00): I have already reverted your changeset.
edvac (2015-09-24 17:36:53+00:00): Para Panadería Erundina, is_in:country=ES no es necesario, pues se obtiene automáticamente por software.
Peilscheibe (2015-08-27 18:15:39+00:00): Ui, ein Taggingunfall. Keine Ahnung wie das passiert ist, vielleicht ein Abbruch während des hochladens? Jedenfalls Danke für's reparieren!
edvac (2015-08-27 16:52:36+00:00): I forgot: corrected Miringa and Yawi wards too.
Basstoelpel (2021-10-03 09:38:00+00:00): Hallo Almö,

Teich und Sumpf sind keine Eigennamen. Die Wiese sollte per Multipolygon erstellen aus dem Wald ausgeschnitten werden, die Teiche ihrerseits wieder aus der umgebenden Fläche.

Gruß,

Baßtölpel
PanierAvide (2015-09-06 18:07:12+00:00): Bonjour, je pense qu'il est mieux de laisser la route N12-Montfort en secondary, il ne s'agit pas ici de relier des grandes villes (cf Wiki).
djakk (2015-09-08 13:53:21+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai fait ce choix car cette route relie Rennes à Montfort via la N12, et elle fait de 8000 à 10000 véhicules par jour, c'est un trafic important (signe que Montfort devient une ville importante ?) (source = http://cg35.fr/fr/inforoute -> pdf "Carte 2014 des trafics moyens journaliers sur le réseau routier national et départemental en Ille-et-Vilaine"), alors que les autres routes départementales du secteur de Montfort ne sont qu'à 5500 maximum. 
C'est plus+ de trafic que Rennes - Dinan via la D137, route en 'primary'.
PanierAvide (2015-09-08 13:59:50+00:00): Ça se tient, merci pour la source qui justifie le changement ;)
literan (2015-08-28 13:28:17+00:00): по https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37556593

building=retail или yes забыли :)
Tararan (2015-08-28 15:05:06+00:00): Спасибо! Пока на всех уровнях не обновится, не видно.
SomeoneElse (2015-09-27 16:18:10+00:00): According to the comments on http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/429142 , there's nothing remaining of this at all (railway=abandoned is usually used for where a former railway has left a big scar in the landscape, something that you can navigate by).  If that's the case, perhaps this feature might have a more natural home somewhere like Open Historical Map?
Govanus (2016-02-22 19:53:36+00:00): <<Thats where I first spotted them ;> old things that have past on today based maps has been an issue in the past esechialy when some old non exsitant things are added to paper maps like roman roads to ordance servey I think it just takes an achalogists confimation to mark them maybe it changed since then.  OSM solved the issue by spawning OHM. which when done allows both datasets to be be loaded together when needed.  OSM's detail level is outstriping large parts of OHM at the moment but the dual use gets around the slower growth at this early stage.>>
SomeoneElse (2016-02-23 13:40:15+00:00): @Govanus , as noted on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35171192 , these were added to OHM as http://www.openhistoricalmap.org/changeset/1901 .
GerdP (2015-10-19 08:54:05+00:00): please review:
I've changed highway=proposal to the well documented highway=proposed
Bing is out-aged here, maybe highway=construction is better now?
luiswoo (2015-10-19 19:54:24+00:00): Спасибо за уточнение.
"Bing is out-aged here, maybe highway=construction is better now?"
Нет, не нужно. Эти съезды, этой дорожной развязки, действительно только в планах на будущие. Строит их ещё не начали.
GerdP (2015-10-19 20:13:17+00:00): okay, thanks for the feedback
boneco (2015-08-27 23:23:33+00:00): O que você tentou fazer nesse changeset? mudou a classificação da rua pra que? qual é essa hierarquia que você fala na descrição do changeset?
plguedes (2015-08-27 23:26:25+00:00): Cara, peguei um material da Prefeitura de Aracaju que define as vias como Arteriais, Coletoras, Locais, etc. A terminologia highway-residential não se aplica nesse caso, pois são vias locais e o correto segundo os manuais do OSM é usar highway-unclassified. Ainda vou terminar esse trabalho, mas o objetivo é organizar melhor pra que os dados fiquem hierarquizados de forma correta e sejam mais úteis quando forem utilizados em mapas externos, que foi quando percebi que está tudo muito bagunçado e sem fundamento, com muitas ruas locais consideradas como coletoras, etc.
boneco (2015-08-28 02:29:59+00:00): Cara, você pode me dizer onde você leu isso de que as vias se classificam melhor como "unclassfied" ao inves de "residential"?

Sugiro que não faça essas edições até nós chegarmos a um consenso pois pode começar a um querer ficar editando o que o outro fez, combinado?
boneco (2015-08-28 02:32:34+00:00): Você por acaso mora na cidade? Essa hierarquia atual foi discutida por pessoas que conhecem o local.
boneco (2015-08-28 02:37:40+00:00): E quais dados foram esses? Tem como mandar o link?
plguedes (2015-08-28 13:20:07+00:00): A informação sobre unclassified ao invés de residential veio da própria documentação do OSM, aqui: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway

Perceba a descrição do residential: "smaller road for access mostly to residential properties". No centro de Aracaju não tem nenhuma rua com essa característica, mas sim várias vias locais, que são, segundo o próprio wiki: "least important in standard road network".

Os dados me foram fornecidos pela Prefeitura da cidade, tenho o arquivo em WMF e o link está aqui: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/712337/Aracaju%20-%20Sistema%20Vi%C3%A1rio.wmf

Acho que pouco importa a "opinião das pessoas do local" quando existem dados oficiais sobre a classificação hierárquica das vias. Isso é um dado técnico e dispensa opinião, pois não há flexibilidade. É um erro usar critérios pouco objetivos numa comunidade que busca mapear o mundo de forma correta para usufruto sem custo da coletividade. Estou fazendo um estudo urbanístico de Aracaju e ao tentar usar o OSM como base para meus mapas, percebi o erro e estou tentando ajudar a corrigir usando fontes oficiais e dados tecnicamente apurados.

É assim que fazemos no Recife, onde moro, e em Barcelona, onde morei e aprendi a usar o OSM. Lá só usávamos a terminologia residential pra ruas sem saída e ruas internas de condomínios fechados. Acho que deveríamos usar o mesmo critério no mundo todo.
plguedes (2015-08-28 13:29:37+00:00): Além disso, o artigo que define a norma brasileiro do OSM diz que residential só se usa em áreas residenciais: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt-br:How_to_map_a

Vamos tentar uniformizar o sistema?
SomeoneElse (2016-01-01 21:19:23+00:00): Hi, is http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367865483 really called "Air Shaft"?  If that's just a description of what it is, there's no need to add a name for it.  See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only for more info.  Hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to help.  Any questions please don't hesitate to ask.
PeterAv (2016-01-02 17:42:15+00:00): It is a description. I wanted it to label on the map. To remove the label would make it less informative I think.
SomeoneElse (2016-01-02 17:50:25+00:00): It's already "labelled" in the sense that http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3678988022 is a "building=air_shaft".  "What things to actually show on the map" is normally left up to renderers (of which there are many - not just the 5 you can get to from the osm.org main page).  Conversations about what does and does not get displayed on the "standard" style take place over at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues .  There has been discussion about how to render different sorts of buildings (currently churches have a "special" rendering and everything else is just a "normal" building).
PeterAv (2016-01-05 22:44:49+00:00): Removed
SomeoneElse (2016-01-06 12:30:29+00:00): Thanks
MatthewFazio (2015-12-10 21:56:35+00:00): Si chiamano salinelle dello stadio. è un sic
gnuckx (2016-01-02 22:17:53+00:00): ok
MatthewFazio (2016-01-02 22:43:46+00:00): Nel frattempo sono diventate Geosito di interesse mondiale!
gnuckx (2016-01-02 22:44:57+00:00): e discarica di inmondizia :-D :-D :-D
gnuckx (2016-01-02 22:46:56+00:00): http://www.etnanatura.it/sentieri/cittagarbage.php?citta=Paterno
literan (2015-08-29 12:05:05+00:00): а что, Шатец действительно так раздваивается, а потом снова сливается у Ивановского?
eggie (2017-05-24 12:55:33+00:00): Nooit een welkomstmail gekregen ... eerste edits buiten Nederland. Hierbij via PB verstuurd
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-23 20:06:15+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366858552/history has CC=MCSSA018470 key that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What you intended to express by using this unusual key? Is this tag needed? Or maybe can it be expressed in a more typical way that would be easier to understand?
Jorge Morales Nahuelán (2015-08-27 20:13:23+00:00): el local está mal colocado en el mapa, lo moví a una ubicación más exacta
Stereo (2019-08-14 11:55:59+00:00): I love the tricycle=no on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30471352
naoliv (2015-08-27 20:19:21+00:00): henriacle, por que você removeu o nome do shopping?
henriacle (2015-08-27 20:22:04+00:00): Olá, na verdade eu não alterei, ocorreu algum bug no navegador talvez? Adiconei apenas a rua que moro.
Skippern (2015-08-27 20:39:02+00:00): Talvez? Nao saiba porque editando?
henriacle (2015-08-27 20:45:23+00:00): Bom, o navegador abriu mil telas de tutoriais, eu apenas fechei as telas e fui para a minha região.
naoliv (2015-08-27 20:47:04+00:00): Depois eu arrumo o nome.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-05-10 14:03:22+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367875969/history has CC = MCSSA003741 that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What you intended to express by using this unusual key? Is this tag needed?
Or maybe can it be expressed in a more typical way that would be easier to understand?
Or maybe this key can and should be documented as useful tagging schema?
Jose Riha (2015-08-28 12:02:17+00:00): pri pridavani cisiel prosim postupovat podla wiki.freemap.sk/cislabudov

dakujem!
boneco (2015-08-27 23:24:16+00:00): Maios uma vez a pergunta, 
O que você tentou fazer nesse changeset? mudou a classificação da rua pra que? qual é essa hierarquia que você fala na descrição do changeset?
sp00n (2015-08-27 21:13:37+00:00): Natürlich keine Pfade im Südosten vom Weißen Stein, der Text wurde nur automatisch übernommen.
maraf24 (2015-08-30 18:44:05+00:00): uzupełniłem o:
water=lake
wikipedia=pl:Jezioro_Głębokie_(powiat_gdański)
Grass-snake (2022-12-23 17:11:05+00:00): Здравствуйте, подскажите пожалуйста, Вы уверены в расположении вот этой церкви:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3717606819
Возможно она должна быть в другом месте.
esaulenka (2022-12-26 07:22:46+00:00): Возможно. На temples.ru она (сейчас?) в другом месте, чуть севернее.
Скорее всего, это правильнее, перетащил ближе к кладбищу, заодно дубликаты убрал.
Grass-snake (2022-12-26 11:47:46+00:00): Спасибо за ответ. Если не возражаете, в будущем я буду изменять все Ваши POI, связанные с религией без информирования (как считаю нужным). Если Вы используете эти данные для своего проекта и Вам принципиально важно контролировать все изменения, дайте мне знать.
naoliv (2015-08-28 00:36:14+00:00): João, você apagou umas ruas de serviço (utilizadas por ônibus) do Terminal CECAP. Está certo isso?
canfe (2022-08-01 10:17:44+00:00): Noto che in zona hai mappato parecchi muri di cortile, ma in modo molto approssimativo.
Come mai? Poi hai smesso.
Da cosa è nato questo "progetto" poi non finito?
russdeffner (2015-08-28 13:43:44+00:00): Hello, thanks for adding the address information to this building. I see you registered your account years ago but this is your first edit, so welcome; a great place to start learning OSM is http://learnosm.org - I just have one request and that is to put a changeset comment, so others can more quickly see what your intention was and provide better feedback/help if something doesn't look right.
SkyBSky (2015-08-28 13:57:44+00:00): No problem. I updated this structure with house information I happen to know about as a way of exploring the available tags in the OSM schema. It looks pretty usable for some things I'm working on, mapping specific features of U.S. campgrounds.
5m4u9 (2015-08-28 15:52:31+00:00): Genial. Ya lo corregiste vos mismo. Los barrios tienen 3 componentes, el nodo del centro para el texto, el nodo de dónde es el lugar administrativo (casa comunal, otb), y el perímetro que no se vuelve a dibujar sino se reutiliza de las calles y otros.

En muchos casos sólo se conoce el barrio y su nombre... dejarlo con place=* es suficiente.
M!dgard (2015-08-29 15:50:51+00:00): Dag hahawin

Bij adressen geef je ook best de straat in. Postcodes en gemeentes zijn in België inderdaad niet nodig, omdat de postcodegrenzen volledig gemapt zijn.

Vriendelijke groeten, M!dgard
geryescalier (2015-08-28 01:24:18+00:00): editado parqueo Hipermaxi 4to anillo y Av. Grigota
agregada vía que cruza por el parqueo
agregada área verde / parque
 editor ID
5m4u9 (2015-08-28 02:41:57+00:00): grande! Ya se habló algo de hacer una edición para mejorar SantaCruz... hacemos algo?
woodpeck_repair (2015-09-08 19:00:34+00:00): Some maxspeed related changes in this changeset were reverted in changeset 33890248 because switching to kilometres instead of miles per hour for UK rail speed limits had not been discussed with the UK community.
woodpeck_repair (2015-09-08 19:00:35+00:00): Some maxspeed related changes in this changeset were reverted in changeset 33890248 because switching to kilometres instead of miles per hour for UK rail speed limits had not been discussed with the UK community.
woodpeck_repair (2015-09-08 19:00:36+00:00): Some maxspeed related changes in this changeset were reverted in changeset 33890248 because switching to kilometres instead of miles per hour for UK rail speed limits had not been discussed with the UK community.
maraf24 (2015-08-30 09:38:04+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202808796
To zwykła kamienica, a nie kościół. Na Zamkowej nigdy kościoła nie było. Była kaplica na tyłach szkoły, i nawet dziś wygląda jak kaplica, choć jest tam teraz magazyn szkolny.
DangNgu (2015-09-01 12:36:37+00:00): data is also available from Maps4BW and is therefore compatible as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Baden-W.C3.BCrttemberg
DangNgu (2015-09-01 11:52:49+00:00): data is also available from Maps4BW and is therefore compatible as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Baden-W.C3.BCrttemberg
DangNgu (2015-09-01 12:39:53+00:00): data is also available from Maps4BW and is therefore compatible as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Baden-W.C3.BCrttemberg
DangNgu (2015-09-01 12:39:35+00:00): data is also available from Maps4BW and is therefore compatible as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Baden-W.C3.BCrttemberg
woodpeck_repair (2015-09-08 19:00:37+00:00): Some maxspeed related changes in this changeset were reverted in changeset 33890248 because switching to kilometres instead of miles per hour for UK rail speed limits had not been discussed with the UK community.
DangNgu (2015-09-01 11:52:33+00:00): data is also available from Maps4BW and is therefore compatible as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Baden-W.C3.BCrttemberg
Владимир К (2015-10-17 10:30:23+00:00): разворот действительно перенесли? вы очень неаккуратно его перенесли. кроме того, что не перенесли газоны и сделали разворот по газону и бордюру, еще сломали сам проспект
chnav (2015-08-28 12:05:11+00:00): Не следует рисовать любые линии, пересекающие сами себя. Вот эту линию  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367941266/  
я позже исправлю.