piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2022-10-22 10:12:16+00:00): Thank you for mapping.
We welcome you as a new mapper.
 You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and mapped accordingly. I reviewed a number of your changesets.
Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key, which you often forgot.
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/127906243
Kai Johnson (2023-10-25 14:01:04+00:00): 

Hi! The island in this changeset isn't rendering right now because it has a semicolon in the natural=* value along with "coastline". The natural=coastline tag is special and can't have semicolons in it. You might make a separate congruent way with natural=bare_rock to get everything to render.
gscholz (2022-11-05 07:45:00+00:00): Hi Kanhaia,
your recent activities in this region have left behind countless errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=80.25084&lat=26.07120&zoom=9&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

This kind of errors irritate routing software and also look ugly on the maps. Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
Baloo Uriza (2022-10-22 13:58:23+00:00): Kinda seeing the Durant Bypass as more of an aspirational motorway given that a decent chunk of it's still single carriageway.  Thinking maybe highway=trunk, expressway=yes is probably better on the dual carriageway, no?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127906863
OrdinaryScarlett (2022-10-24 09:40:28+00:00): Hi, thanks for the comment! I've changed the tags.
DP24PH (2022-10-22 01:38:42+00:00): This changeset reverts one edit made in changeset 126938022 due to an erratic addendum of service roadway that has restrictions on it (i.e. barriers surrounding employees' MC parking).

DP24
alex_lofi (2022-10-22 11:41:32+00:00): Hola, gracias por añadar información en Chauchina; recuerda que puedes usar la tecla «Q» para cuadrar los polígonos y la «O» para crear círculos, que además de reflejar mejor la realidad quedan mejor en el renderizado del mapa.
Un saludo.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127907081
kapazao (2022-10-23 08:59:19+00:00): Hola, ¿podrías dar alguna referencia acerca de esta gasolinera (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1105942261)?
No encuentro nada por ninguna parte y no indicaste nada en el conjunto de cambios como para poder contrastar con algo.
Por favor al añadir elementos de interés en el mapa trata de dar un mínimo de información y referencias para que otros puedan editar también y se puedan comprobar.
Un saludo
EXC4L3 (2022-10-23 15:18:45+00:00): Buenas, están construyendola ahora mismo, pero ya la he añadido para agilizar el proceso. si es necesario puedo enseñar fotos. está ya casi acabada
kapazao (2022-10-25 09:13:31+00:00): Bien, pero para ello existe etiquetado de elementos en construcción. Se pone en construcción mientras lo esté y luego ya cuando se inaugure lo pones como gasolinera.
Ahora cualquiera podría pensar que hay una gasolinera operativa ahí.
Tenlo en cuenta para otra vez, tanto con esto como otras cosas. Es bastante útil y se evitan problemas.
Un saludo
AragonChristopherR17Z (2022-12-23 08:11:42+00:00): The boundaries for the North HIlls East Neighborhood Council District are taken from the North Hills East Neighborhood Council website, not from the MappingLA project. These Neighborhood Councils are official entities under the municipal government of Los Angeles and are recognized as such by the City. I do not think this removal is justified as at least this particular boundary is neither unofficial, subjective, nor copyrighted.
This mass deletion of neighborhood boundaries appears to have been done too hastily, and a note or message in the OSM Wiki page for Los Angeles should have been made suggesting improvements or calling for better sources before such a massive change.
willkmis (2022-12-29 18:56:16+00:00): Hello,
Thanks for noting this. You are correct that the North Hills East NC relation that I deleted appears to correspond to the official boundary, and that I overlooked it when reviewing this change. I personally think mapping Neighborhood Council boundaries is not worth the effort: they often don't correspond to any real neighborhood (see the list here for plentiful examples: https://empowerla.org/councils/), or, if they do, to any real boundaries between neighborhoods as they're typically perceived on the ground IMO. However, they are government-defined, and so I don't think it's justified to delete them if other mappers deem them important. So I'm willing to revert the deletion of the North East Hills NC relation if you so desire.

In light of this, I re-reviewed the other relations I deleted, and I could not find any others that corresponded to official, on-the-ground boundaries, NC or otherwise. All the others were either MappingLA boundaries, added by user Fluffy89502, or older boundaries that also appeared to be subjective. I don't think OSM is an appropriate place for mapping subjective boundaries, as it makes them appear official when they are not, and subjective boundaries from a copyrighted source are even worse. So I believe LA's neighborhoods are better mapped as nodes at their approximate centers (see, e.g., https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dneighbourhood#Node_or_Area?), and I stand by my deletions as warranted. If you can find other examples of official boundaries that I deleted, let me know.

As for your point on the discussion, I did discuss this change with other mappers in the OSMUS Slack before making it, where deletion was the consensus view (https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1660065932629299). However, you're right that I could've posted in other channels before proceeding to reach more mappers, so apologies if I caught you off-guard. I'll keep that in mind if I do a change of a similar magnitude in the future.

Best,
Will
TheSwavu (2022-10-22 10:36:45+00:00): Hi, 

You've made https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1105955065 oneway which means you can't do a right turn into the Crescent. There are turn arrows visible in the aerial imagery. 

Was this edit based in a survey?

Thanks.
willkmis (2022-10-22 15:09:21+00:00): Hi, what's your source for adding the (Crenshaw/LAX) parenthetical to the K Line name in this changeset? All of Metro's current documentation that I can see refers to it as just "the K Line", so I think adding (Crenshaw/LAX) is incorrect. See, for example, https://www.metro.net/riding/schedules/, compare how it's written "Metro K Line" versus the other lines, e.g. "Metro E Line (Expo)". My personal hunch is that they'll drop the parentheticals across the system once the Regional Connector opens and re-routes many of the existing named lines, since they're just remnants of the old naming scheme that predate the K line's operation, so with the new line they didn't even want to start.
OrdinaryScarlett (2022-10-24 09:34:44+00:00): Hi! Thanks for the comment, I removed the parentheticals.
gscholz (2022-11-05 07:42:05+00:00): Hi Kanhaia,
this changeset has added some errors to the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=80.22394&lat=26.26557&zoom=9&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=127908399

This kind of errors irritate routing software and looks ugly on the maps.
Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
mcliquid (2022-10-27 14:14:28+00:00): Hallo, ich habe diese Änderungen wieder rückgängig machen müssen, da der Weg in der Realität definitiv existiert. Der Weg ist als Privat markiert und damit nicht für Navigationsgeräte verwendbar.

Siehe auch: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Nakaner/Positionspapier_Geheimhaltung#Warum_werden_diese_Objekte_erfasst?_Warum_werden_sie_nicht_gel%C3%B6scht?
soerface (2022-11-02 09:40:50+00:00): Bitte nicht "amenity=pharmacy" entfernen. Dadurch wird die Apotheke nicht mehr als solche gerendert. "healthcare" ist nicht ausreichend. Fix in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128381205
wies1 (2022-11-05 07:16:28+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis
gscholz (2022-11-05 07:45:41+00:00): Hi Kanhaia,
your recent activities in this region have left behind countless errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=80.25084&lat=26.07120&zoom=9&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

This kind of errors irritate routing software and also look ugly on the maps. Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2022-11-05 08:03:01+00:00): Hi Kanhaia,
this changeset has added some errors to the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=80.22394&lat=26.26557&zoom=9&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=127909302

This kind of errors irritate routing software and looks ugly on the maps.
Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
user_5359 (2022-10-23 15:35:43+00:00): Hello! Can you please name the source of the discussion that led to the addition of the redocumented tag thirdplace=yes?

Bonjour, pouvez-vous indiquer la source de la discussion qui a conduit à l'ajout de la balise re-documentée thirdplace=yes ?
Vinber-Pro (2022-10-24 07:16:44+00:00): hi,
thanks for your attention

There's 2 sorts of discussion :
- 1 is by mail with (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/R%C3%A9gion%20Nouvelle-Aquitaine), who's main contributor with un-documented et non discuted tags (description:typologie=* description:soutien_region=yes)
- 1 is on the osm's forum I cited in source of changeset (not very clear sorry) https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/taguer-pour-trouver-des-jardiniers-la-communaute-des-tiers-lieux/7388 (it's in french, it's a way to find some datas mainteners and it's also undocumented but in discussion :) ) I want to document it on wiki
silversurfer83 (2022-10-22 07:40:18+00:00): Hallo und Herzlich Willkommen bei OSM :)
Danke für deine Mitarbeit.

Als Neuling möchte ich dir an dieser Stelle zunächst kurz Feedback zu deiner Änderung geben:
Sieht ganz ok aus :) Beim Spielplatz hast du einen Tippfehler. Spielplatz wird groß geschrieben ;)
Dazu aber direkt meine Frage: Steht da ein Schild auf dem der Spielplatz einen namen bekommt? Wenn ja, dann kommt genau das, was auf dem Schild steht in das Feld "name". Wenn dort kein Schild ist, bekommt der Spielplatz auch keinen Namen.

Hier noch ein paar Hilfreiche Seiten aus dem Wiki der OSM-Community, in dem (fast) alles ganz gut dokumentiert ist:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Beginners%27_guide
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:How_to_map_a

Bei Fragen schau mal auf dieser Seite vorbei:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact_channels#Chats.2Fmessengers

Happy Mapping :)
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127909698
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-05 12:00:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135738831 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some MAPS.ME personal markers.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7111
user_5359 (2022-10-22 10:26:10+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have revert your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data, not positive verifiable address data, destroying data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
rhtb0 (2022-10-22 06:52:22+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
안녕하십니까
의미 있는 변경 집합 댓글(".")을 사용하십시오. 다른 사용자가 당신이 하는 일을 이해하는 데 도움이 되지 않습니다.
hatul (2023-03-30 18:00:21+00:00): תודה על התרומה. בבקשה לתייג נכון נקודות, במקרה הזה מדובר על עץ ולא אטרקציה.
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-10-22 06:47:55+00:00): na podstawie https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3373374
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-05 12:02:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135738831 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some MAPS.ME personal markers.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7111
user_6110846 (2022-10-22 07:26:30+00:00): https://www.volynpost.com/news/210299-u-gromadi-na-volyni-perejmenuvaly-50-vulyc
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-22 14:56:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 127925608 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: All edits by this user trying to circumvent block on another account.
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-10-22 07:14:04+00:00): wycofanie https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127892389 - patrz dyskusja tam
Marek-M (2026-07-11 20:24:55+00:00): Ten parking był poprawnie zmapowany. Przywróciłem dane https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185558680
eggie (2022-10-22 08:24:08+00:00): Dag Henk...  

Merkwaardig dat die woningen Langeloërduinen G als adres hebben.
Zou dat nog kloppen?

MVG
eggie
Henksbg61 (2022-10-24 05:46:47+00:00): Hallo Eggie,

Dit is inderdaad merkwaardig. In het verleden zijn verschillende (bos)percelen rond Norg aangemerkt met een letter. Het betreft percelen waar alleen vakantie woningen staan. Deze percelen liggen in gebieden  die namen dragen als Oosterduinen en Langeloërduinen. Hierdoor zijn adressen ontstaan als Oosterduinen A 72 etc. Dit betreffende bosperceel heeft waarschijnlijk de letter G. Hier staan acht woningen, nr's 20 t/m 27. Het gebied heet Molenduinen. De adressen van deze woningen zouden dan moeten zijn Molenduinen G 20, etc. Echter alleen nr. 23 is vindbaar in Google als Molenduinen G 23. In Google Maps vind je de woningen 21 t/m 27 als Molenduinen 21 etc. zonder de letter G. De bewonen van nr. 26 sprak ik toevallig en hij zegt dat de adressen van de woningen Langeloërduinen G 26 etc. zijn. Zoek je deze adressen in Google maps dan staan ze alle acht gepositioneerd op één plek ergens in de buurt. Dus hoe het nu werkelijk zit is mij niet geheel duidelijk. Misschien wordt het in de toekomst duidelijker want de wegen in deze gebieden krijgen waarschijnlijk nieuwe namen met nieuwe huisnummers.
 In het bos liggen twee paden die zijn aangeduid met Molenduinen G. Ik denk dat de aanduiding voor het westelijke pad niet geldig is. Een aangegeven verbinding tussen deze twee paden is er niet (meer). Het oostelijke pad is de route langs een aantal woningen.

mvg
Henk
eggie (2022-10-24 06:41:38+00:00): Het zal ongetwijfeld toch nog kloppen gezien de data in het Kadaster.
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=molenduinen&resultOffset=0&detailsObjectId=1699010000003209&geometry.x=225614.83980372&geometry.y=565907.56485636&zoomlevel=5&objectId=1699100000004902

Groet
eggie
Henksbg61 (2022-10-24 10:01:31+00:00): Dag  Eggie

Dus huisje nr. 23 heeft adres Molenduinen G en de rest valt onder Langeloërduinen G. Toch merkwaardig maar het is wat het is.
Google maps geeft het dus allemaal niet duidelijk weer.

groet
Henk
eggie (2022-10-24 10:41:25+00:00): Google heeft zijn eigen bronnen en loopt vaak achter.

Je zou evt een terugmelding kunnen doen naar het Kadaster met de vraag of dit nog actueel is. .. Zie link boven van de BAG. Even op het potloodje klikken. 
MVG
eggie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-05 12:00:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135738831 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some MAPS.ME personal markers.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7111
Mashin (2022-10-22 10:17:06+00:00): Hi,
thanks for contributing, but even though  the name contains word "park" it is a golf course and not a park.
Totor (2024-08-16 05:34:51+00:00): Hi John,
Mano Resto has a Facebook contact as:
contact:facebook     	profile.php
It would probably need the correct complete address, or the facebook user name
Uralla (2022-10-24 08:18:48+00:00): А почему в мультиполигоны не добавляешь свои правки? Сколько потом работы всё это исправлять. Можно сразу делать нормально.
Herman Lee (2022-11-21 01:30:51+00:00): 请注意一下，这个修改集破坏了许多公交关系
martien-176 (2022-10-27 09:42:47+00:00): Hi,  thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. You requested a review of your mappings. 

Most of the buildings you mapped are well done. The tracing is well done and they are on the right spot.

There are unfortunately issues with a few buildings:
* they share nodes with each other or with a road. And they shouldn't. Eg road data is used in sat navs by humanitarian workers. A sat nav will think there is a dead end if it enters a building. This could add hours to a journey.
* also avoid mapping several buildings that are close to each other as one building. Every building must be traced separately. 

Thanks so much for your contribution, Martien, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127912435
skyper (2023-02-20 18:32:20+00:00): Hallo Schopfheimer,
willkommen bei OSM. Schön, dass Du mithelfen willst die Daten zu verbessern.

Leider haben sich hier ein paar Fehler eingeschlichen. So hast Du der Abbiegebeschränkung (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4434169) das essenzielle Mitglied mit der Rolle "via" geraubt und die Relation für die Bahnstrecke `route=tracks` (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7690353) in einen Routenverlauf einer Zuglinie `route=train` geändert, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:route=tracks. Beides wurde inzwischen wieder korrigiert. Bitte sei in Zukunft noch vorsichter bei Deinen Änderungen.
Nebenbei, bitte verwende für Gebäude in BaWü möglichst den Hintergrund "Maps4BW".
Danke und viele Grüße,
skyper
adiatmad (2022-10-27 03:28:37+00:00): Good day, hafizhen! Good work on your edits on this changeset. But I notice some buildings are unsquared, for example (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1105987339). Allow me to suggest you press Q to square buildings. Happy mapping!
nikospag (2022-10-22 09:27:37+00:00): O Α/Δ ΑΡΤΑΣ ΤΡΙΚΑΛΩΝ είναι ακόμα υπό κατασκευή.
nikospag (2022-10-22 13:03:08+00:00): @DWG We have a new vandalizer
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-22 14:56:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 127925608 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: All edits by this user trying to circumvent block on another account.
eggie (2022-10-22 09:32:35+00:00): Hi Wlorgere..
Welcome to OSM...
Please decrease your area.
Greetz..
Eggie
Discostu36 (2022-10-22 20:53:09+00:00): Ich habe das jetzt per Lifecycle-Prefix umgesetzt. Die Website ist da ja sehr eindeutig.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127913572
Diacritic (2022-10-22 10:05:01+00:00): Hi Supt.

Way 1105994200 is not physically separated from the main carriageway. and should not be mapped separately.

Dian
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127913794
Supt_of_Printing (2022-10-22 10:56:12+00:00): The Gordon Avenue busway was already there as a separate carriageway; I just edited it slightly. I added the Railway Terrace busway to match the Gordon Avenue as evidence I've seen of other busways, they are shown as separate carriageways.

I really do get the feeling you are stalking me when I am accused of doing things that were already there.
Diacritic (2022-10-22 11:14:00+00:00): Hi Supt,

I'm aware the busway on the other side had been mapped incorrectly as well, which is why I didn't point it out as part of your edit. :)

The busway is separate as there is physical separation under the bridge with bridge supports.

I've previously mentioned how (https://osmcha.org) OSMCha allows users to easily verify changes within a specified area; it doesn't take very long at all to review all changes in Victoria over the last day or so.
PlaneMad (2024-12-09 09:23:57+00:00): Just stumbled upon your mapping at Chad. nice work!
map4e123 (2024-06-03 19:10:10+00:00): Hello, thank you for the contribution in the Netherlands. Please pay attention, always add shops and other functions to the address node. Never create a seperate node for a shop - when there are multiple, duplicate the address node.
user_5359 (2022-10-22 10:24:42+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have revert your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data, not positive verifiable address data, destroying data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
maraf24 (2022-10-22 20:51:11+00:00): Usunąłeś drogę:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/415889647
Jak najbardziej istnieje. Ze względu na słupki nie można pojechać dalej samochodem, ale można tam zaparkować, co jest popularne.
A rowerem można jechać.
Po usunięciu slupków droga jest dostępna.
maraf24 (2022-10-22 21:27:57+00:00): Czy te nasyspy są zmapowane w poprawnym miejscu? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1106004472 i sąsiednie.
Na wiki jest to dość mętnie napisane, ale mi wychodzi, że powinny być miejscu, w którym spadek się zaczyna, a nie kończy.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dembankment
No chyba że to miał być murek oporowy - ale na to jest inny tag.
maraf24 (2022-10-22 21:45:06+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/543903557
Serio po wybiegu dla psów można jechać rowerem?
maraf24 (2022-10-22 22:23:41+00:00): Dlaczego skasowałeś 3 ławki z widokiem na fontannę?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5339518711/history
maraf24 (2022-10-24 07:53:23+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1106004489
Za dużo cienia, nic tuż pod takim wielkim drzewem nie wyrośnie ;)
Thomas8122 (2022-10-22 10:44:19+00:00): eigentlich https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3378348
Thomas8122 (2022-10-22 10:45:28+00:00): c&p Fehler https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3279386
Frans S (2022-10-25 13:01:31+00:00): Hello.  
Please do not use the tag track when they do connect buildings. See the Wiki about tagging highways.
Best regards
Frans
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127915650
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-07-29 12:55:28+00:00): Zerkniesz na https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3803638 ? Coś się nie zgadza - podajesz że dodane na podstawie zdjęć lotniczych, ktoś inny twierdzi że nie ma ich na zdjęciach lotniczych
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-08-01 08:14:50+00:00): To na podstawie czego to było dodane? Edytowałes na podstawie Google Maps?

Prosze, podawaj rzeczywiste źródła edycji. W https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127915781 source nie wspomina o imporcie a w https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3803638 podajesz że to był import
user_5359 (2022-10-24 10:05:40+00:00): Hallo! Bitte siehe dir den Weg http://www.osm.org/way/26845649 (einer von drei Wegstücken). Was ist die Bedeutung des Tags Pfäffikerweg = Buechweg ?
PuffinMapper (2022-10-24 12:55:48+00:00): Hallo user_5359

Keine Bedeutung, das ist schlicht falsch. Korrigert und OSM aktualisiert. Danke für die Meldung.
pitscheplatsch (2022-10-22 13:31:12+00:00): Looks good, thanks!