piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
_vincenttan (2026-05-29 14:49:33+00:00): accroding to the link below, this road is not motor way: https://www.td.gov.hk/en/road_safety/road_users_code/index/chapter_5_for_all_drivers/expressways_and_trunk_road_/
Kovoschiz (2026-05-29 18:28:05+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183338376
_vincenttan (2026-05-30 00:39:48+00:00): So why the north bound of Lung Shan Tunnel is the trunk?
Kovoschiz (2026-05-30 09:11:56+00:00): You can go to it from Tai Wo Service Rd E (not Expressway)
_vincenttan (2026-05-30 10:20:26+00:00): Thank you for explainning so patiently!
FajrAl (2026-05-31 23:50:43+00:00): Thanks, I just about to fix it. Funny how no one notice the street was duplicate until now.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-05 11:05:42+00:00): Reverted addition of SEO spam POI "Gopal Rao's" with self-promotional description and many misleading and malformed tags in changeset 183689516

https://osm.org/changeset/183689516
habi (2026-05-29 07:44:08+00:00): No, fixed note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5315072 :)
dienachteule (2026-05-29 20:59:29+00:00): this looks like a duplicate of osm.org/node/4389211800
Šišmiš (2026-05-30 08:30:37+00:00): @dienachteule thank you for pointing this out. It is true that the information is present in said node, but when I searched for Flixbus Alexanderplatz I didn't get any results before I added the node. Therefore I would suggest to leave the node, what do you think?

If you disagree, how can we make it that people can find the bus station by using the search bar?
dienachteule (2026-05-30 08:49:05+00:00): I think it is easier to add the word "Flixbus" to the name of the existing node, rather than having two nodes for the same place.
dienachteule (2026-05-30 08:53:56+00:00): I am not so sure how to deal with with issue. So I just opened a note on this issue. openstreetmap.org/note/5317249
Šišmiš (2026-06-01 10:50:40+00:00): Thank you for opening a note for this. I think adding "Flixbus" to the name of the existing node is not accurate as there are also other buses there, which are not Flixbus.
Martin Constantino–Bodin (2026-05-29 09:32:05+00:00): Hi,
Thanks for your contribution. In the future, consider making two changesets instead of a huge one like this one (one per country, typically): it greatly helps reviewing. For more information: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
Thanks in advance!
Spixi (2026-05-29 13:19:26+00:00): noted, thank you!
Viktoryia Kaluhina (2026-05-29 09:22:45+00:00): *Added road alt name according to Bing Streetside
bxl-forever (2026-05-29 08:19:31+00:00): Hello,

Just a reminder: if cycling is allowed in both directions, then oneway:bicycle=no is required.

Just having cycleway:left and cycleway:right isn’t enough.  A fully one-way street with left and right cycleway tags will be understood as if there are lanes on both sides but in the same direction as traffic.  This is probably not what you meant.
(There has been a time in the past where people used cycleway:* tags to add contraflows but we no longer do this.)

Hope this helps.
SachaBe (2026-05-29 09:03:36+00:00): Hello,
I added the bike lane with Street Complete, then the one-way a bit later with iD. Not sure which app added which tag tbh...
The new bike lane goes from north to south (opposite the one-way car direction).
There is currently no bike marking in the car lane.
Let me know then what would be the correct tags. Thanks !
bxl-forever (2026-05-29 09:33:21+00:00): I commented on this changeset because this is the one which introduced the mistake. I gave you the explanation above: oneway:bicycle=no should be added.

Don’t bother, I’ll do it myself, then.
Thisik (2026-05-29 08:13:02+00:00): Chybný název changesetu, pardon, že z Brna dělám Plzeňský kraj 🤣
Ze0zohk1 (2026-06-03 10:01:11+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173146501
Tomas Straupis (2026-05-29 08:14:09+00:00): greitas :-D
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-16 11:00:09+00:00): Reverted adding SEO POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags, likely sourced from Google Maps, in changeset 184175929

https://osm.org/changeset/184175929
FajrAl (2026-06-16 11:27:01+00:00): consider reviewing this note: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5315215
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-16 20:55:07+00:00): Thanks! I saw that but didn't know quite what to make of it, honestly--it looks to me like the person who originally submitted the note was different from this user, judging by their comment, and this user possibly added it in response to that comment but based on the details in Google Maps, with nonsensical tags and missing most of the key ones, and with copious SEO spam (each of which required me to revert it, of course). So I'm not certain they are a deliberate SEO spammer (like 99% of the other accounts submitting similar changesets) and rather just very misguided.

I'd re-add it based on the actual details from the note, which don't include SEO spam, don't reference Google Maps and generally corresponds to actual tags, but I'm not a local mapper and not familiar with the local addressing scheme on how to translate what they have as addr:street=* (actually addr:full=*) to standard, well-understood OSM tags. Any help/guidance appreciated!
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 03:35:56+00:00): DWG revert - import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185570526
Pokomams (2026-05-31 21:00:29+00:00): Salut,
Avec @legorfou, on avait déjà enregistré quelques nœuds sur ces points d'auto-stop, entre Nueil-les-Aubiers et Bressuire. On était arrivé sur ce tag qui nous semblait plus approprié : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:highway=hitchhiking
ssundell (2026-06-01 20:59:57+00:00): Moi! En ihan tajua noita horse=yes ja motor_vehicle=yes -merkintöjä suojateillä? Samoin tuo access=yes Luottamusmiehentien kadunylityksessä pyörätiellä tarkoittaa käytännössä, että siinä kohtaa pyörätietä pitkin saa ajaa vaikka sukellusveneellä.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183341819
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 03:35:57+00:00): DWG revert - import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185570526
Nakaner (2026-06-09 15:53:28+00:00): Hallo,

ihr habt hier parallel zur bereits hinterlegten Könitzer Straße die Straße des Friedens als Routenverlauf der Linie 546 zwischen Tauschwitz und Kaulsdorf Blaue Brücke ergänzt.

Die Haltestelle Kaulsdorf Ort liegt aber nur an der Könitzer Straße.

Was ist richtig?

Eine Route kann nur einen Fahrweg in OSM haben. Falls eine Linie mehrere Fahrwege hat (z.B. einzelne Fahrten mit Umweg über die Schule), müsste man eine zweite Routenrelation anlegen. Viele Mapper sparen sich das und mappen dann nur die wichtigsten Kursvarianten.

Viele Grüße

Michael
Supaplex030 (2026-05-31 19:06:14+00:00): Hey, toll, neue detailliert gemappte Spielplätze in Berlin zu sehen :)

Kennst du schon die speziellen OSM-Spielplatzprojekte "Berliner Spielplatzkarte" (https://www.osm-berlin.org/spielplatzkarte/karte) und https://spieli.eu/?

Liebe Grüße und Happy Mapping,
Alex
mcliquid (2026-06-15 07:46:15+00:00): Hi, nach welcher Regel ist das hier ein reiner Fuß-Überweg? bzw. seit wann darf man hier nicht mehr mit dem Fahrrad rüber, obwohl auf der roten Markierung Fahrräder explizit abgebildet sind? :)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1524300345
rene78 (2026-06-15 08:44:51+00:00): Ooops... danke für den Hinweis. Hab's korrigiert.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184126071
mcliquid (2026-06-15 14:23:20+00:00): Danke dir!!
MxxCon (2026-06-01 18:10:32+00:00): Hello.
Please note this POI is already mapped. As such it is inappropriate to map it twice.
As such, this changeset is reverted in full.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183343102
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 03:57:30+00:00): DWG revert - apparent sock-puppet import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185570991
Syl (2026-05-29 12:59:06+00:00): Hello, this parking and some others already exist in a more precise location. Please do a conflation instead of adding it a second time. And also the website link should be in the local language, not in english.
infeeeee (2026-05-30 12:18:48+00:00): Szia!

Az access=no címkét olyan utakon jelöljük ahova senki nem mehet be, szerintem a golfpálya útjaira is az access=private illene, esetleg access=customers

További jó térképezést!
mueschel (2026-06-04 18:14:02+00:00): Hi,
this building got a strange tag, could you check that?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1001379057
czubi (2026-06-02 21:06:10+00:00): Warum hast du am Naturpark Thüringer Wald area=no hinzugefügt?
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 03:57:31+00:00): DWG revert - apparent sock-puppet import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185570991
Kovoschiz (2026-05-29 11:16:48+00:00): You forgot to explain it (maybe `=trunk` can be used for connecting Rt 9 with Tung Chung via Rt 8)
_vincenttan (2026-05-29 14:27:03+00:00): hi, pls refer to the link below: 
https://www.td.gov.hk/en/road_safety/road_users_code/index/chapter_5_for_all_drivers/expressways_and_trunk_road_/
also Fanling Bypass and Lung Shan Tunnel are not motorway ethier, can change to trunkway
Kovoschiz (2026-05-29 18:28:00+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183338376#map=16/22.49446/114.14962&layers=N
_vincenttan (2026-05-30 00:58:36+00:00): then I think maybe '=motorway' is more appropriate for Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Tunnel, instead of '=trunk', thank you Kovoschiz
kingkingHK (2026-05-30 04:20:38+00:00): At least very least, if you want to change it, you should change all parts of Tuen Chek Tunnel, not just some. You also removed some `name=` and `minspeed=` for no reason, so your changeset is undoubtedly wrong and deserves reversion. If you actually changed all parts of Tuen Chek Tunnel and didn't remove random tags, I might not have reverted it.
_vincenttan (2026-05-30 04:34:40+00:00): So sorry and thanks for reverting, but I only changed road type. Also noted that you reverted Central–Wan Chai Bypass from trunk to motorway, can you explain why it is motorway? I did checked the link 1 and link 2, the bypass is only trunk and only links to trunk. FYI my changeset is link 3.


link 1: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hong_Kong/Transport/Road
link 2:
https://www.td.gov.hk/en/road_safety/road_users_code/index/chapter_5_for_all_drivers/expressways_and_trunk_road_/
link3: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183359670
kingkingHK (2026-05-30 04:44:28+00:00): Due to double white lines within the tunnel, the quoted way can only lead to Island Eastern Corridor, which is an expressway: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10623688

This satisfies "Road sections connecting only Expressway on one end".
_vincenttan (2026-05-30 05:00:22+00:00): Then why not change the whole bypass to motorway? I mean from IFC to Island Eastern Corridor. At now there is only a small section set to motorway.
kingkingHK (2026-05-30 05:08:08+00:00): Because some parts of the Bypass can lead to Expo Drive, which is not an expressway. The section from Exhibition Centre to Island Eastern Corridor is already `=motorway`.
_vincenttan (2026-05-30 05:19:10+00:00): Ok, now I understood the bypass from IFC to Expo Drive is trunk, but Rumsey Street Flyover is also trunk, I still do not understand why the small section near IFC is motorway. Parden my poor knowledge.
kingkingHK (2026-05-30 06:01:44+00:00): The very simple litmus test is: "can I use this section of road without also using an expressway"? If you can, then it must not be higher than `=trunk`. If not, then it must be `=motorway`.
_vincenttan (2026-05-30 06:18:42+00:00): Yes, then I dirve from K Town through Shing Sai Road, and then turn to Connaught Road West flyover near Western District Public Cargo, after that turn to Rumsey Street flyover near Sheung Wan Fire Station, finally go straight to the Bypass near IFC. The whole route can be accessed without 'motorway' on OSM. Kindly note that I'm only talking about the '=motorway' section that connect Rumsey Street Flyover and Central-Wan Chai Bypass. Both of the roads mentioned above are '=trunk' undoubtedly, so I think there is no reason the bypass section can be categorized as '=motorway'.
kingkingHK (2026-05-30 06:37:55+00:00): No, if you use https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1121626372 , you must continue to use Island Eastern Corridor, due to double white lines in the tunnel. If you want to go to Expo Drive (non-expressway), you must use https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/436873691 , which is `=trunk_link`.
Kovoschiz (2026-05-30 09:25:29+00:00): If it's too confusing, I'm open to making it `=motorway` + `motorway=no` + `motorroad=yes` as before, by the logic of considering the highest `highway=` connected (eg because there's no `highway:lanes=trunk|motorway|motorway`  . But this simply creates another problem for the `=trunk_link` , not solving it completely.
Kovoschiz (2026-05-30 09:26:46+00:00): Not to mention other people are unhappy with Tunnel Area not   being `=motorway` (remedied by  `motorway=no` )
jace (2026-05-29 09:45:52+00:00): Custom tile server for georeferenced survey map: `https://tvc-tileserver.kiran-personal.workers.dev/{z}/{x}/{y}.png ⁠`

All assistance with cross-verification will be appreciated. Three tasks:
1. A few jackfruit trees were manually tagged before this changeset and are duplicates.
2. Some trees in the survey map have been missed. I have been thorough with confirming the OSM tags match the survey, but may have missed trees entirely.
3. The survey itself may have errors and needs audit against satellite imagery.
4. The survey data is from 2019. There will be more trees now.
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-29 09:51:38+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1420817062

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Syl (2026-05-29 13:02:50+00:00): Bonjour, quelle source avez-vous utilisé ? "research" c'est un peu vague.

Vos modifications ressemblent beaucoup à un import, si c'est le cas il y a des directives à suivre : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Import/Guidelines

N'hésitez pas si vous avez des questions. Bonne journée.
george1201 (2026-07-05 21:08:01+00:00): Warum entfernst du die Ländervorwahl +49 bei den 0800er Nummern?
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-06 08:34:58+00:00): Bitte siehe die Diskussion hier: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-automated-edit-korrektur-von-telefonnummern-in-deutschland-basierend-auf-phonenumbervalidator/142498/10

0800-Nummern sind aus dem Ausland nicht erreichbar, daher wurde beschlossen, sie am besten ohne +49 zu formatieren.
george1201 (2026-07-06 13:07:19+00:00): Meine Reaktion auf diese Änderung war leider etwas sehr spontan. Nachdem ich die Forumsdiskussion gelesen und eine Nacht drüber geschlafen habe, bin ich einsichtig geworden. Sorry für meinen etwas unwirschen CS-Kommentar.
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-06 16:42:00+00:00): Alles gut!
streckenkundler (2026-05-30 09:59:31+00:00): Bitte den Bot umgehend stoppen!
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-automated-edit-korrektur-von-telefonnummern-in-deutschland-basierend-auf-phonenumbervalidator/142498/7
confusedbuffalo (2026-05-30 11:01:07+00:00): I am participating in the discussion
Herwescheluc (2026-05-30 09:30:19+00:00): In this CS, exactly the opposite of what was presumably intended has happened: all country codes (+49) that had already been entered have been removed! Even 0800 numbers require the country code for calls from abroad. Please correct this!

Best regards,
Andreas
confusedbuffalo (2026-05-30 10:54:38+00:00): I am discussing this in the forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-automated-edit-korrektur-von-telefonnummern-in-deutschland-basierend-auf-phonenumbervalidator/142498/7
urk (2026-07-06 14:34:02+00:00): Hi, I understood the purpose of bot is among others to heal missing country codes. 
At node 8248254266 you changed phone=+49 800 9293600 to 
phone=0800 9293600, 
the bot did the opposite and deleted a correct country code.
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-06 16:43:04+00:00): Thank you for asking, please see the discussions here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-automated-edit-korrektur-von-telefonnummern-in-deutschland-basierend-auf-phonenumbervalidator/142498/10 and here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183345368
urk (2026-07-06 18:30:56+00:00): Understood.
But please see as well one comment from the mentioned discussion: 
"If you want to enter them without the +49, you should first make sure that this isn’t flagged as an error in OSMOSE."
pitfire (2026-05-30 08:37:08+00:00): Hallo confusedbuffalo-bot,

kannst Du dir den Änderungssatz: 183345453 noch einmal anschauen?

Die Funktion „Telefonnummernprobleme automatisch beheben“ behebt keine Fehler, sondern erzeugt sie stattdessen. Hier werden reihenweise ordnungsgemässe Eingaben "entsprechend ITU-T E.123 und DIN 5008" unsachgemäß rückversetzt.

Gruß pitfire
confusedbuffalo (2026-05-30 11:00:31+00:00): I am discussing this in the forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-automated-edit-korrektur-von-telefonnummern-in-deutschland-basierend-auf-phonenumbervalidator/142498/7
Syl (2026-06-10 06:14:29+00:00): Hello, thanks for these reverts but there is a problem. Some parkings created are still in OSM like this one.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-10 06:54:02+00:00): Thanks! Yes, had some issues when the revert was going through, so was going to check them again tomorrow.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-11 01:38:34+00:00): It turns out they deleted some of their previous edits, so when I then reverted their changes, I put the bad data back again! They should all be deleted now, but if you spot any more, please fix them. Thanks!
vectorial8192 (2026-05-30 16:55:58+00:00): To "catch" possible future reversion, we could put the unverified name into description or note.
kingkingHK (2026-05-31 04:41:06+00:00): Correct in principle, but the user who added that name (fortunately) hasn't edited in Hong Kong for years. The risk of a reversion is negligible.
Kovoschiz (2026-05-31 07:51:01+00:00): Is recorded in a legal case for 28 https://vlex.hk/vid/862811622 https://lawhero.io/cases/122857/dccj2987-2012
At least Po Yick Ln's `reg_name=` , and could be `alt_name=` ; or maybe `old_name=`
Kovoschiz (2026-05-31 07:54:01+00:00): But it's a distant case where it's addressed to Po Yick Ln, while the road isn't gazetted as that (for that section)
dknelson9876 (2026-05-30 18:27:29+00:00): Hi Viktoryia, mappers in Utah as a local community have already worked very hard to correct all TIGER names in Utah, as it did a very poor job of handling our street names (In this case, "University Village" is the name of the complex, not a street name). In the future, please do not use TIGER as a source in Utah.
Viktoryia Kaluhina (2026-06-09 13:57:35+00:00): Hi dknelson9876,
Thank you for sharing the efforts of local mappers in Utah to correct TIGER names in the state. I'll take this into consideration and avoid using TIGER as a source for Utah mapping data in the future. 
Best regards, Viktoryia Kaluhina.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 03:57:32+00:00): DWG revert - apparent sock-puppet import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185570991
TrickyFoxy (2026-06-25 19:47:21+00:00): 👋 Please note that after your edits, the multipolygon https://osm.org/relation/14926368 is in a broken state.
woodpeck (2026-05-29 12:13:33+00:00): How is this a "normalisation" when the shop did not even exist before?

What is the source "research boucheries halal france" - surely you did not travel the country, so you used some online directory - which?

What is "inject_osm_corrections.py" and where has this automated edit/import been discussed?
FajrAl (2026-05-30 10:42:47+00:00): Tidak ada museum di sini. Mohon gunakan aplikasi GIS jika ingin mendesain atau merancang rencana tapak.
FajrAl (2026-05-30 10:45:37+00:00): Telah dipulihkan dalam https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183394174
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-10 03:24:50+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183901414
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 03:57:33+00:00): DWG revert - apparent sock-puppet import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185570991
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 03:35:58+00:00): DWG revert - import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185570526
yelisey90 (2026-05-29 11:30:12+00:00): partly reverted - vandalism or test

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183350392
yelisey90 (2026-05-29 11:23:01+00:00): reverted - vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183350155
PizzaTreeIsland (2026-05-29 10:58:41+00:00): Hallo, 
vielen Dank für das Dtaillierte Mappen dieses Wanderwegs! 
Ich hatte ursprünglich den Wikidta-Tag entfernt (bzw zu Wikivoyage geändert), weil Wikidata-Tags nur auf Wikidata Objekte verweisen sollen und deswegen auch nur eine sehr strenge Form einhalten müssen, nämlich ein Q mit nachfolgenden Zahlen. Das ist besonders wichtig, weil der Sinn von Wikidata ist, Daten maschinenlesbar aufbereitet zu haben. Ein Link auf eine andere Seite, die mit Wikidata nichts zutun hat, ist da nicht hilfreich. 
Ich habe jetzt im letzten Changeset das korrekte Wikidata-Objekt Q18536599 für den Grimmsteig verlinkt. Ich hoffe das passt so!

Viele Grüße und frohes Kartieren
Jonas
BER319 (2026-05-29 13:27:07+00:00): Danke für das Anpassen. Ich hatte den Link erst einmal nur geparkt, weil er den Note belegte. Ich wollte mir das nach der Wanderung anschauen.
VG
PizzaTreeIsland (2026-05-29 13:31:01+00:00): Kein Problem! Ich habe ihn in seinen eigenen wikivoyage=* tag verschoben. Der ist zwar unüblich, aber es gibt ein paar davon, da finde ich ist er gut aufgehoben. 
Schönes Wandern!
yelisey90 (2026-05-29 11:20:23+00:00): reverted - vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183350064
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-29 11:57:14+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Is this name real?
ebd (223698482), v6
Nakaner-repair (2026-06-09 09:51:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 183866122, 183866141, 183866143, 183866127 where the changeset comment is: Revert all changesets by ticki_52 since CS 183039302, see https://c.osm.org/t/144453 for details
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 03:35:59+00:00): DWG revert - import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185570526
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 03:40:02+00:00): DWG revert - apparent sock-puppet import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185570626
JeroenHoek (2026-05-29 19:00:45+00:00): footway, niet path. De brandgang loopt vanaf de stoep en is dus niet bedoeld voor fietsers.
aldarosm (2026-05-30 15:36:52+00:00): Fixed
JeroenHoek (2026-05-30 15:44:14+00:00): Half, but I fixed the sub-tag:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183403702
aldarosm (2026-05-30 16:04:23+00:00): Thank you will keep it in mind
dypa (2026-05-29 19:45:48+00:00): Спасибо за замечательные описания своих изменений!
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-29 11:55:25+00:00): #Spam