piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
andygol (2015-06-05 07:36:02+00:00): I appreciate that local mappers pay attention to changes of others.
http://g.ua/DFc2
On Bing it is difficult to discern that in this place the trail passes (yellow arrow on the image - see link above)  so I decided that there is an error and removed the line. I also want to draw your attention to the fact that the passage in the parking lot (red arrow) is not indicated properly, and the path (purple arrow) is not drawn at all. It is also a good idea to clarify the position of football pitch (if I have correctly identified its purpose by the image). I define the offset of the image by tracks and roads, and found that the athletic field is displaced. To save and share offsets I use special JOSM plug-in, detailed about it here - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Imagery_Offset_Database
SomeoneElse (2015-05-26 12:19:32+00:00): Geographically, this is a huge changeset.  "Correction erreur" doesn't really describe what was done and why.  In future could you perhaps explain in a bit more detail what the changes are, and make each one smaller?
GerdP (2015-10-15 13:21:34+00:00): bitte prüfen:
1) way 331106512 hat ungültige tags wie
highway=unclassified;track 
surface=asphalt;grass
Bitte evtl. Weg splitten
2) Garmin ist als Quelle Tabu, sofern Du damit nicht aufgezeichnete GPS meinst ;-)
carciofo (2015-10-25 14:17:58+00:00): Again, please be more careful and thorough when splitting dual carriageways. You've left both sides of North Park road as northbound only! Also, attributes like traffic lights at intersections must be propagated to the new/split road, and the lanes attribute must be adjusted (i.e. split).
ediyes (2015-10-29 13:49:46+00:00): Hello carciofo, thank you for noticing this error and correct it. I'm going to be more careful about this in the future. 
Do let me know if there's anything else I could improve on, thanks again.
Edith.
ndm (2015-05-20 23:28:21+00:00): The comment doesn't really make it clear what's been fixed -- not many tigers or deltas in Eastville.
abel801 (2015-05-21 22:05:08+00:00): I already changed the comment.
Thank you for your observation.
abel801 (2015-05-22 19:09:47+00:00): This was a mistaken comment. The change is actually a fix to the footways that were not connected.
Geogast (2015-05-28 11:26:38+00:00): Könntest du was zum Hintergrund des edits sagen? warum massenhaft entfernt?
emergency99 (2015-05-20 20:04:41+00:00): Habe nur einen Punkt etwas aktualisiert. Ganze Linie wird in ein paar Tagen/Wochen angepasst...
Self-Perfection (2015-05-22 13:45:54+00:00): Я там сегодня был и этой мусорки не увидел. Не так смотрел? o_O
darkwish (2015-05-22 17:30:55+00:00): Прямо у входа стоит небольшая мусорка с разделением на бумагу стекло и пр.
Мусорка цивильная. Это не контейнер.
Jojo4u (2015-05-21 07:25:49+00:00): Hallo Thilo87, was hast du so geändert? Leider fehlt ein Kommentar.

LG Joachim
Thilo87 (2015-05-22 21:44:25+00:00): Hallo Joachim, die L1192 und die daneben liegende Feldwege angepasst. Gruß Thilo
Xmypblu (2015-05-21 06:48:07+00:00): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Как_обозначить
http://learnosm.nadoloni.com/ru/
mavl (2015-05-21 18:50:04+00:00): Здравствуйте.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/287135236

Тегом amenity=school обозначают средние общеобразовательные учебные заведения (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:amenity%3Dschool).
Музыкальные школы в Тюменской области пока обозначаем так (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/training):
amenity=training
training=music
SomeoneElse (2015-05-26 11:52:18+00:00): A tiger?  In Africa?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLdk2C25Z14

Seriously, what actually was the change that was made here?
abel801 (2015-05-27 21:13:29+00:00): Sorry, actually I was working with unconnected minor and maybe the keyboard shortcut changed the comment of the upload. I will consider this in the future. Thanks.
AndyB_66 (2026-05-06 13:51:10+00:00): Czy oficjalna nazwa tego odcinka DK92 to "Obwodnica Koła", czy może raczej "Michała Rawity-Witanowskiego"?
RobJN (2015-06-07 22:39:46+00:00): Hi Govanus. Can you put these references in a different tag please as they are not marked on the road signs. Other mappers use "official_ref" for these (as discussed by the UK community). Cheers.
Govanus (2015-06-10 21:00:00+00:00): I'm looking into want the council prefers as they use them and a default rendering of OSM so I want to let them be aware of the changes that might occur plus how to re render them back first.  So its on my pending list...
RobJN (2015-06-10 21:31:27+00:00): Is that WCC or a district council? Would be good to know who you are in contact with so we can see how else to help them. In any case a few D refs in a small patch of Alcester surely isn't much to a council that maintains hundreds of roads? Keep me updated.
Govanus (2015-06-15 19:03:58+00:00): Sorry it tock a while to get back to this I think I had a lot of things elsewhere demanding my attension.  I had a lock back at this this morning and I think it was based on a old maintinance schedual that has been removed since I began a A for Alcester.
   It tried looking for some of the original maps but I wasn't looking I think in the same place as before so still to work on that they really do seem to be my text orintated some from reports and others clearly spat out of a database by the looks of things.  Its on my pending list to look some more later tonight.

With regard to the only a few D roads covered, thats down to the fact that was the one in the first report I was working from so the wear of the rooads didtated who got in the list I first used and that it took a suprisingly long time to figure some of them out.  Its not somewhere I know well so it was a bit of a hunt for some.  Some were hard to judge the start and finish of and I helped whith a mystry gardencity road naming anomerly along the way.

My plan was to work steadly on a small batch at a time till I either hit a critical mass or run out of roads to find, so there was planned to be more of them.

There are some places were C, D and U roads have been found on signs but these were out of paperwork.

there's a posibility that the papers won't be availble soon so Iwill have to look out for them I wanted to re serch the council contact of the web team/highways but this morning I spent the time looking for the map instead.  I'll let you know when I get a breackthrough.  OSM and bing both have C roads in Kent and Reading.  Readings are fairly new so may have made it to signage.
Govanus (2015-06-22 20:37:39+00:00): My mistake I found it was Stratford's councial site.  I'm out of time tonight but I am going to have a  at them in the next few days.
Govanus (2015-06-24 17:39:53+00:00): I found that they are still using it as an option on elgin/google/warkishire roadworks site that actually covers most of the contry which is handy.  I have a picture (screen shoot of a bridge restiction on a road ref of C205/01a which is on the bridge in the middle on the road I marked as the C205 the suffix might be about directions acarrageways or serial numbering along a rout with more than one prehaps?
This sigt also lists the 
NPLG-USRN's too if you set the customise my map function for NSG options then click on the highlighted streets and then the USRN link gives more info about the road.  So this being country wide could be useful elsewhere too.
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-30 08:50:57+00:00): Just so you know, the Tiger data isn't always correct and you shouldn't just blindly trust it to add roads from it.  While yes, there's a 'path' there, it's a person's driveway, not a residential road.  I've been past this location over 500 times in my life.  If this had been a residential road, I would have added it myself a long time ago.  I've changed it to a service road/driveway.
ediyes (2015-06-12 14:47:26+00:00): Hi rickmastfan67,

Thanks for your comment and correction of road, I'll be more careful in the future to take the 
Tiger data.

Edith.
BushmanK (2015-05-22 04:59:16+00:00): А можно поинтересоваться, почему http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65057117#map=18/55.83180/37.70189 стала construction?
nicolaymitropolsky (2015-05-22 07:23:21+00:00): Ну там происходит что-то: засыпали камнями, ездят бульдозеры, видимо будут асфальтировать. Пройти там сейчас можно, а вот на ехать на велах - весьма сомнительное удвольствие
BushmanK (2015-05-22 07:44:16+00:00): OK, ну так и поменяли бы surface=asphalt на gravel тогда. А то construction - понятие весьма растяжимое.
nicolaymitropolsky (2015-05-22 08:03:38+00:00): Ну по наличию тракторов я понимаю это именно  construction, и какой surface там будет в итоге черт его знает.  А ещё непонятный тонель... короче там будет что-то новое, поэтому это construction
uryevich (2015-10-05 09:38:01+00:00): Там ветку газопровода  вели ещё в 2014, потому всё перерыли. А теперь сервисная дорога постройки СВХ. Дорога сомнительная, но точно не "construction"/
uryevich (2015-10-05 09:41:32+00:00): А вот тротуар http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/346641402 (созданный Вашим пакетом правок) точно не highway=pedestrian Тротуары и дорожки для пешеходов это footway.
SomeoneElse (2015-05-26 11:47:40+00:00): Hello, I think that something has gone wrong with http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/232185079/history .  It is now "designation=public_bridleway;public_footpath".  Have you perhaps merged a footpath and a bridleway together by accident?
timpea (2015-06-02 15:05:28+00:00): I altered the path to be a bridlepath, for some reason it added both options to the designation.  I have now removed the footpath option.
SomeoneElse (2015-06-02 15:12:28+00:00): When you say "altered to be a bridlepath" do you mean you changed the highway value, or the designation value?

Previously http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29334998/history was a highway=track with designation=public_footpath.  Now it's part of a highway=bridleway (i.e. it's got narrower in the last couple of years and is no longer wide enough for e.g. farm traffic) but is designated as a bridleway.  My recollection here was that the bridleway vs footpath signage was iffy in this area but part at least was definitely a track when I was last there (about 2 years ago).
SomeoneElse (2015-06-08 12:34:16+00:00): Actually, I don't beieve that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/232185079 is all bridleway (I had a chance to check last week).  There's a bit at the west end that is, and a bit at the east end that is (clearly signed at http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/322713824) but in the middle at http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2405589357 the bridleway from the west goes north and a public footpath continues east.  Similarly I suspect that the bridleway from the west turns north too.  I'll update the map when I get a chance but there's still more to do - there's at least one partial public footpath that needs completing.
timpea (2015-06-08 20:19:15+00:00): You are right, I just double checked on Ordnance Survey and it the main track along the bottom is only a footpath.  But by the looks of the signs around there this is all to change soon.  

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/232186347

By the looks of it, this is getting moved to go around the bottom of the new Peak Resort
lmagreault (2019-02-05 15:00:34+00:00): Pourquoi avoir supprimé building=yes ?
tbarthelet (2019-02-06 10:45:26+00:00): bizarre en effet. peut-être à cause de l'éditeur ID ?
Je l'ai remis.
dudka (2015-06-05 12:53:01+00:00): може об'єднати звязки 3634472 і 5160134?
Сергій Дубик (2015-06-06 07:25:16+00:00): об’єднав, дякую
EugenyN (2015-06-11 16:10:24+00:00): посмотрите заметку http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/374340
muralito (2015-05-21 03:38:13+00:00): chamorro, muy buena la cantidad de farmacias agregadas!

Lo que hay que afinar algunas cosas para cumplir con los criterios, ej. el nombre va solo con la inicial en mayusculas, y para la direccion en addr:street va solo el nombre de la calle (debe ser exactamente el mismo que tiene la calle) y el numero va en addr:housenumber.
4rch (2015-05-22 18:33:20+00:00): Hello GoUtes!, please don't classify "unclassified roads" as residential roads.

An unclassified road which goes through an residential area should retain the higher classification and shouldn't be downgraded to highway=residential

Regards, Arch
GoUtes! (2015-05-22 19:21:22+00:00): Hello Arch,
Why not classify residential roads as such? Why would it be better to leave them as unclassified?
Seth
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-05-21 00:43:00+00:00): Proszę dodawać komentarze do wysyłanych zmian!
dolphinling (2015-05-21 01:27:24+00:00): This updates http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31324155 to use the official parcel information, as the rest of the CC boundary does. This was not a new acquisition by the college, so it must have been missed in the original boundary work.

While making this change, I noticed that the college recently acquired the house next door, 436 Maple. However, I also saw a statement that they planned to continue its use as a single-family home, so I'm leaving it out of the campus outline.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-01-07 00:33:05+00:00): Hello JKB Charleston,
I hope you don't mind me asking about something added to OpenStreetMap 4 years ago. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3532001464/history was added with a "source=Google Maps" tag on it. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here. If it's somewhere that you've actually been and are familiar with (and your changeset comment suggests that it is) then "local_knowledge" is a perfectly good source for OSM.
If not, then we'll have to remove Google-sourced things that you've added to OSM.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, from OSM's Data Working Group.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-01-21 20:57:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 79877693 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changesets with google-sourced data.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31331653 for context.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-01-21 20:57:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 79877693 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changesets with google-sourced data.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31331653 for context.
geow (2016-01-27 22:19:08+00:00): Hi Bekri, du hast auch hier an zahlreichen Fließgewässern layer=-1 hinzugefügt. 
Ein layer-tag ist nur im Bereich von Kreuzungen (Brücken, Düker) notwendig, ansonsten jedoch falsch. 
Kannst du die überflüssigen tags selber entfernen oder brauchst du Unterstützung?
Gruß, geow
BeKri (2016-01-29 14:36:10+00:00): Servus,
sollte von meiner Seite ok sein,
viel Spaß beim anschreiben
all der anderen layer-auf-1-leger ;-)
Bis denne wünscht
derBeKri
geow (2016-01-29 21:01:43+00:00): Danke! Ich hoffe es war verständlich was ich meinte, war nicht als Kritik gemeint. 
Gruß,
geow
canfe (2021-04-25 15:56:38+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/346684346
perhaps the building no longer exists.
BeKri (2021-04-25 23:51:37+00:00): 	Ok, in Bing and Ersi you see it, in Bayern (80 cm) not 
	so set to demolished:building.
	Thanks
luschi (2015-08-28 21:51:49+00:00): you have added a lot of barrier=bollard in this changeset.
you made a mistake. you write "bollard " correct is "bollard"
please fix this.
regards
PS: you can add a bollard on a single node on the way. potlatch make then a bollard symbol.
tuxayo (2018-08-03 11:34:21+00:00): There is a problem with the import. It kept too much unnecessary node in the landuses. Thus making a pain to move them, because one have to move groups of at least 4/5 nodes.
-
Example: when this zone with an editor: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/346692350
-
Is there a way to fix this non-manually?
-
I hope this can be improved for next imports.
maraf24 (2015-06-21 21:42:12+00:00): Co to za masakra na parkingu przy Hali Stulecia?
Zdjęcia są sprzed budowy parkingu podziemnego!
atomic1fire (2015-05-21 05:16:49+00:00): While I'm not certain on actual building design, I based it on the USGS topographic map. I don't know what I'm doing so someone might want to make changes to the other maps if possible.
woodpeck_repair (2015-05-29 10:15:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 31558616 where the changeset comment is: Revert un-discussed mechanized addition of businesses by 'Synup' and more than hundred automatically created other accounts, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/645
kwiecpav (2015-05-21 08:46:50+00:00): Ahoj, zřejmě jsi použil(a) špatný název řeky. Ve všech oficiálních materiálech najdeš jméno "Kněžná" namísto "Kněžna". Z toho vyplývá, že zde bude "pramen Kněžné"
SK53 (2016-10-16 11:13:43+00:00): I wonder why you removed my note about Manor Road. You have not added any tags regarding access to it, so you removed relevant information. Years ago I had a friend who lived here & it was an unadopted road then, so it ought to have access=destination or access=private as a tag. As I havent visited for 20 years I cant do this myself.
Lyubchenko Denis (2015-05-22 17:35:54+00:00): Не могли бы сделать уточнение что это так как по имени не понятно.
chnav (2015-05-31 09:59:21+00:00): Vitaliy66
Ничего не удаляйте  пока не появится достаточно опыта.
Деревню восстановил.
pnorman (2017-02-26 03:18:43+00:00): Hello,

In OpenStreetMap you can't copy from copyrighted maps without permission. This includes vworld, which you did here. Continuing to copy like this could lead to a permanent block. Unfortunately I have to remove this copied data.

Paul Norman
For the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group


안녕하세요.

오픈스트리트맵(OpenStreetMap)에서는 저작권이 있는 지도를 여러분이 허락없이 복사하여 사용할 수는 없습니다. 이 해당 범위에는 여러분이 사용한 Vworld도 포함됩니다. 이와 같은 복사작업을 지속적으로 하게 된다면, 접속이 영구적으로 차단하게 될수도 있습니다. 안타깝지만, 저는 복사된 데이터는 삭제할 수 밖에 없다는 것을 알려 드립니다. 

오픈스트리트맵 데이터 워킹 그룹을 대신하여
폴 노먼 (Paul Norman) 드림
최승범 (2017-02-27 03:00:04+00:00): I did not know that.
My mistake. 
Please Delete it. (31337257)
Gppes (2015-12-14 21:01:56+00:00): Hi!
Du hast leider die Weidbachstraße 18 bei zwei Gebaeuden eingetragen (auch in der Alpenstraße). Das ist Dir bei mehreren Gebaeuden passiert.

Kein Problem, ich werde die Fehler ausbessern.

Kurz zur Info: Entdeckt habe ich den Fehler ueber http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ (verdaechtig lange Linien zwischen Objekt und Strasse). Ueberprueft habe ich es mit GIS STMK: http://gis2.stmk.gv.at

Lg, Gppes
datendelphin (2015-05-30 20:08:56+00:00): I don't think that way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150490669 is a service road. The road leading to Berchtwil might even be an "unclassified" (meaning lowest class connecting road) and inside Berchtwil the roads are not tracks, I agree. But the one going North is a track, I would say
Bernhard W (2015-06-16 21:23:31+00:00): Vor dem Tor der Sullivan Barracks habe ich keinen Hinweis auf einen Parkplatz gefunden: Weder ein Schild, noch eine Fahrbahnmarkierung oder ähnliches. Hier macht ein Parkplatz auch keinen Sinn, da die Zufahrt für Kraftfahrzeuge verboten ist. Das ist einfach eine große Wege-Kreuzung im Wald.
woodpeck_repair (2015-05-29 10:15:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 31558616 where the changeset comment is: Revert un-discussed mechanized addition of businesses by 'Synup' and more than hundred automatically created other accounts, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/645
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-06-04 13:14:48+00:00): Zwracam uwagę na literówkę: http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=289941610
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=289942543
Pozdrawiam
Bernhard W (2015-06-16 21:29:44+00:00): Bei der Wasseraufbereitungsanlage hast du „building = yes“ entfernt, jetzt wird sie in einigen Karten nicht mehr dargestellt. Ich empfinde sie immer noch als Gebäude (oder als mehrere, wenn man die Anlage detaillieren will). „man_made = water_tower“ finde ich nicht passend, Wassertürme sind wegen ihrer Hochbehälter weithin sichtbare Orientierungspunkte (s. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tower), das sind nach meiner Meinung eher mehrere Silos. "building =" und "man_made =" schließen sich nicht aus, dürfen also auch gleichzeitig angegeben werden.
Bernhard W (2015-06-16 21:27:56+00:00): Die „Übungstreppe“ bei den ehemaligen Schießplatzen verläuft auf einem Pfad, hier liegen zwei Wege übereinander, das ist nicht richtig. Dort wo die Treppe ist, muss das Stück des Pfads gelöscht werden. Die Beton-Treppe liegt außerdem etwa 20 m weiter südlich, soweit ich mich erinnere (ich war zuletzt vor einem Jahr dort).
Beim Pfad bei der Treppe hast du eine einheitliche Steigung von 15 % angegeben. Abgesehen davon, dass ich den Wall als steiler empfinde, muss die Steigung auf der Gefälleseite negativ sein.
Mateusz Konieczny (2015-08-31 12:01:28+00:00): surface=beton? "concrete" is English word for beton.
Mateusz Konieczny (2015-08-31 12:01:47+00:00): see also http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/425646
Peda (2015-06-29 19:59:34+00:00): As a note to everyone else who might stumble upon it: The background image layer that was used is actually Bing and not Google Earth as was confirmed by wochenblatt.
marczoutendijk (2023-11-04 20:38:33+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262547324
the surface= tag is supposed to contain the type of the surface, not its size (area) in m2!
Please see: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
tuxayo (2015-07-11 15:17:35+00:00): Merci d'avoir complété le stade, c'est super détaillé! :-)
Par contre t'es sûr que ça marche housenumber pour les numéros des entrées? (si c'est bien les entrées?)
Peda (2015-06-29 19:59:22+00:00): As a note to everyone else who might stumble upon it: The background image layer that was used is actually Bing and not Google Earth as was confirmed by wochenblatt.
Kong Bunheng (2015-05-21 10:18:10+00:00): Cheathata Hotel
Peda (2015-06-29 19:59:12+00:00): As a note to everyone else who might stumble upon it: The background image layer that was used is actually Bing and not Google Earth as was confirmed by wochenblatt.
woodpeck_repair (2015-05-29 10:15:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 31558616 where the changeset comment is: Revert un-discussed mechanized addition of businesses by 'Synup' and more than hundred automatically created other accounts, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/645
woodpeck_repair (2015-05-29 10:16:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 31558616 where the changeset comment is: Revert un-discussed mechanized addition of businesses by 'Synup' and more than hundred automatically created other accounts, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/645
woodpeck_repair (2015-05-29 10:16:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 31558616 where the changeset comment is: Revert un-discussed mechanized addition of businesses by 'Synup' and more than hundred automatically created other accounts, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/645
aceman444 (2015-05-22 22:50:52+00:00): Dobry den, naozaj su na tej ulici dve restauracie "Sushi time" ? A opening_hours sa zapisuje po anglicky, v tomto pripade "Mo-Su 10:30-22:00" (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours). Inak Vam to nebude fungovat. A ta reklama v komentari k sade zmien asi nie je na mieste.
Jose Riha (2015-07-18 10:09:26+00:00): nepouzivajte prosim lomku na oddelenie cisla a pismena pre adresy v tvare 1A, 10B, 6C a pod
ViriatoLusitano (2015-05-22 23:28:01+00:00): Obrigado pela contribuição!

Se estiveres interessado podes especificar ainda mais este elemento ao usar a tag quarry em vez de industrial. :)
woodpeck_repair (2015-05-29 10:16:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 31558616 where the changeset comment is: Revert un-discussed mechanized addition of businesses by 'Synup' and more than hundred automatically created other accounts, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/645
Mateusz Konieczny (2019-11-15 21:36:37+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/346872960#map=18/50.06825/19.89782 Jakie jest źródło tej edycji? Czy ta droga jest nadal planowana w tej postaci?
chnav (2015-05-25 10:28:56+00:00): Рекомендация новичку - ничего не удаляйте пока не появится достаточно опыта. Был нормальный дворовый проезд service, а Вы нарисовали отсебятину с нелепыми тегами ))
chnav (2015-05-25 10:29:22+00:00): восстановил как было