piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2026-03-10 08:06:46+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 28 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/127687352 v8 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/112143237 v9 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/297240237 v17 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/1412681403 v4
https://osm.org/node/1403752437 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179623976
MappingMore (2026-03-11 10:09:50+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179686022
NeisAgent (2026-03-10 15:31:41+00:00): 🕵 The changeset tags appear to reference Google Maps or another Google mapping service as a data source.

Please note that using Google Maps, Google Street View, or similar Google services as a mapping source is not allowed in OpenStreetMap due to license restrictions.

More information: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google

If the data in this changeset was derived from Google Maps or another incompatible source, the edits may need to be reverted.

If this is a misunderstanding and the data was collected from permitted sources (e.g. local survey, Bing imagery, local knowledge, etc.), please clarify in a reply.
navship (2026-03-11 07:01:33+00:00): The change request was sent by a NavShip-app user, the data source can also be found at https://www.bing.com/maps/search?style=r&ss=id.ypid%3AEC51711DF41E21A2
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-11 07:05:07+00:00): Hallo,

danke für die Antwort. 

Was ändert dies daran, dass hier anscheinend Google als Quelle angegeben/genutzt wurde?

Viele Grüße
navship (2026-03-11 07:12:37+00:00): "If this is a misunderstanding and the data was collected from permitted sources (e.g. local survey, Bing imagery, local knowledge, etc.), please clarify in a reply."

In dem Fall ist es Local Knowledge, nur kann ich die Meldungen meiner User nicht als Quell-Link mit angeben. Die Angabe von Google als Quelle war ein Fehler, die von Bing kann ebenso gut herhalten.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-11 07:17:50+00:00): Hallo,

in dem Link von Bing ist unten rechts (c) TomTom zu sehen. Ich bin sicherlich kein Linzenzexperte, denke aber dies kann/sollte genauso wenig als Quelle genutzt werden.

Verstehe ich es ansonsten richtig, dass der Account @navship als Importer für die Daten einer App genutzt wird?

Viele Grüße
navship (2026-03-11 07:19:55+00:00): Nein, ich bin nur hier um die Meldungen meiner Kunden Open-Data-zugänglich zu machen.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-11 07:23:06+00:00): Hallo,

dann bitte einmal die folgende OSM Wiki Webseite anschauen: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing

Danke und viele Grüße
rempshaener (2026-03-10 16:46:12+00:00): Hallo,
das sind keine zwei Gebäude, sondern eines. Hätte fast den gleichen Fehler gemacht - bis ich gesehen habe, dass Hema auch von den Hamtorstraße einen (Mitarbeiter?)-Eingang hat.
Viele Grüße
Znaika (2026-03-10 16:57:15+00:00): Hi, ich habe in ALKIS auch gesehen, daß es als eins gezeichnet ist. Nur für mich sehen sie als getrennt aus. Zu beiden Straßen haben Gebäude 4 Geschossen, in der Mitte weniger. Man kann hier mit Gebäudeteilen (für 3D) arbeiten. Denkst du, wäre es nicht besser in diesem Zustand doch getrennt zu zeigen? Nun dachte ich mir auch, daß Hemas Verlaufs-/Lagerflächen nicht so weit gehen. Gruß, Z.
Znaika (2026-03-10 17:06:15+00:00): P.S. was ich bei, Modehaus Heinemann gesehen habe, daß es tatsächlich einen zweiten Eingang von der Hamtorstraße hat, weil sein Kundenparkplatz dort sich befindet. Da müßte man nachbessern
rempshaener (2026-03-10 20:19:57+00:00): Hej,
building:part wäre wahrscheinlich die beste Lösung. Das ist aber auch ein ungewöhnlich großes Gebäude.
Viele Grüße
Firefishy (2026-03-10 13:11:01+00:00): Welcome. Is the building really called? "* Teddington Road"
mueschel (2026-03-12 11:40:35+00:00): Please stop creating new accounts and importing your POIs one-by-one. Please read and obey the guidelines for imports and professional editing:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/6/62/Organised_Editing_Guidelines.pdf
trigpoint (2026-03-11 15:13:19+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/179707075
bxl-forever (2026-03-10 09:29:49+00:00): Hello, DavidXander,

This is another friendly attempt to reach you and try to get your attention.

In the past weeks some of us had to spend a lot of time repairing errors on the map after your edits.  Can you please observe the following points.

On OSM, all "highway=pedestrian" structures must have a name.  This tag is usually used for car-free streets.  Some people use it for plazas near parks although it is a borderline case.  You can (and should) use "noname=yes" for all those pedestrians areas you create when they have no name.

Also, please do not glue routable and non-routable objects together, e.g. this point intersects both areas: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13633404181

I don’t want to discourage you, so I won’t give more examples.

Hope this helps.
Thanks in advance.
ajmat (2026-03-11 07:42:36+00:00): Reverted in changeset id: 179678712
Wildsharky (2026-03-13 08:44:08+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179730645
mueschel (2026-03-13 13:39:13+00:00): Hi,
could you check these POIs? They are nodes, but have "building" tags, and are located inside buildings. 

Usually, all building-related tags should be on the building, and the "office" related tags can be either on the node or the building, as you prefer.
Nelson Mwova (2026-03-13 14:39:04+00:00): Hello,

So this data was part of an upload drive from HOT ESA Hub and the field data was collected as such, the instructions were to include data on building levels, indicating the floors of the nearest buildings to this points. The points were mostly Hospitals, Schools, Administration Offices etc. 

The aspect that makes this a challenge is that points can't be buildings yet this data was collected in Mozambique as part of their mapping for resilience program.

So that's how the data is as shown and changing it would mean deleting the tag on the entire dataset.

Let me know what you would suggest.

Thanks.
mueschel (2026-03-13 14:48:04+00:00): Hi,
the collection of data and providing it in OSM is for sure a very good thing. The way it was added is a bit problematic.

Given all the different things uploaded during a short time in this project, the central point should be following the organised editing and import guidelines, including full planning of what is uploaded, which tags are used, and how merging with existing objects is planned. 
There are huge amounts of wrong tags, e.g. "roof_materials" or "true" as value. These should have been fixed before upload, including a full review of all warnings and errors given by the editor (there for sure have been many!)
Nelson Mwova (2026-03-13 15:01:27+00:00): Hi,
Internal validation is still ongoing for the data we have uploaded and your comments will help us pick up on anything we might have missed. We are utilizing OSMCHA to check for each other's changsets and ensure no errors remain, work begun today morning.

I hope this is acceptable.
mueschel (2026-03-21 09:55:19+00:00): I can't see any change on the objects added by this project for the past week.  I also didn't get any response from any of the other mappers involved in the project. 

Could you forward this to the other team members and make them aware of all the issues?
Nelson Mwova (2026-03-23 10:58:10+00:00): Hello,
Can I refer you to our project lead, OSM Username Becky Candy and she will be able to answer all your questions concerning how validation was done and the state of the data at the moment.
mueschel (2026-04-07 14:50:35+00:00): I still can't see any improvement. Is there really somebody working on this broken data?
BCNorwich (2026-03-17 08:20:53+00:00): Duplicated highways removed.
trigpoint (2026-03-11 15:13:16+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/179707075
NeisBot (2026-03-10 09:46:19+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13633484019 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Real estate office"
---
Например, более нейтральная и фактическая версия вашего текста могла бы быть: "Бюро недвижимости"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-18 17:33:05+00:00): 🗑️ Element deleted by https://osm.org/changeset/179628971
eggie (2026-03-10 09:56:33+00:00): Okay... Keep calm  :)

Tou created an building on top of a building. That's not the way you must add companies.
In the middle of the building you will find an addressnode. Select the addressnode and add the info to this node like you did with the building.
Just give it a try ..
Just start with name=.. shop=..
and make an upload. 
I wil have a look. 
Your own edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=179628257

So don't use (select) the buildingshape but the addressnode instead. 
eggie
eggie (2026-03-10 10:05:56+00:00): Just look at Goldenstone Cars  the building south of your company.(as an example)
This mapper used only the addressnode.. not the buildingshape.
eggie (2026-03-10 14:15:32+00:00): I merged the info with the addressnode.
It was not a building I noticed but an area. But in the Netherlands we tag on the addressnode. 
Gr eggie
eggie (2026-03-10 14:28:23+00:00): The only mistake you made was selecting the building.
Just select the addressnode in the middle of the building.
eggie (2026-03-10 14:28:47+00:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6edDUi1o9RA
eggie (2026-03-10 12:51:54+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Sylabowy Kot (2026-03-10 21:06:40+00:00): Adres firmy jest umieszczony na obszarze, gdyż ten cały kwartał to jest PIT-RADWAR. Natomiast ten punkt adresowy umieściłem po za główny budynek zgodnie z tutejszą praktyką, że jak adres dotyczy obszaru z wieloma budynkami, to punkt powinien być na którymś wlocie. 

Doszło dzisiaj do dwóch zmian związanych z dodaniem nazwy, dziwnym trafem akurat jak aplikacje do routingu mogły już wciągnąć moją aktualizację zagospodarowania terenu. Mam rozumieć, że w związku z tym popsuła się nawigacja i potrzebowaliście poprawy, by poprawnie ustawić cel? Adres był i tak wcześniej umieszczony na głównym budynku, więc autem do niego by się wcześniej nie wjechało ;)

Dajcie znać, bo jestem ciekawy co zaszło.
Igon (2026-03-11 06:45:24+00:00): Tak, problem był z określaniem dystansu jak podano nazwę firmy (bez adresu) stąd przypięcie nazwy firmy do konkretnego adresu.
Sylabowy Kot (2026-03-11 19:22:19+00:00): Skasowałem tę błędną (w rozumieniu zasad praktyki OSM) nazwę i przywróciłem punkt adresowy na główny budynek by było tak jak wcześniej. Dodałem tam dla własnego czystego sumienia tag office=company, by tam adres odnosił się już do głównego biurowca. 

Dobrze wiedzieć, że przenoszenie adresu z budynku może się wiązać z problemami w nawigacji. Dam znać społeczności OSM, by robić w taki sposób to, czym wam popsułem nawigację samochodową. Dobrze, że nie wojskową ;)
Wildsharky (2026-03-13 08:34:36+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179683310
kabelhaai (2026-03-14 20:55:25+00:00): beste, zie https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5199410
gscholz (2026-03-11 08:18:30+00:00): Hi cantece,
your recent edits have left behind a broken monastery relation:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=2.79472&lat=44.56200&zoom=18&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
NeisBot (2026-03-10 10:09:59+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13633549368 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Real estate office"
---
Например, более нейтральная и фактическая версия вашего текста могла бы быть: "Бюро недвижимости"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-18 17:33:05+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180071771
(Delete spam tags. First version)
FajrAl (2026-03-12 02:18:43+00:00): unintentionally making the whole way/25259022 as bridge
bernardo60 (2026-03-12 02:25:30+00:00): Thank you. I corrected it. Well spotted!
willkmis (2026-03-10 18:37:56+00:00): Hi there, thanks for doing this check, it seems like these roads did need the mph in their speed limits. Can I ask what the source=gps is supposed to mean? It seems wholly unnecessary on the ways, and presumably not even true unless you are surveying each of these roads personally
Misyekx (2026-03-10 19:05:28+00:00): Hi, thanks for checking this.
My understanding was that a source tag should be provided when making edits, so I chose source=gps because it seemed like the closest option at the time. However, I realize now that this may not have been the most accurate choice.
The reason for these edits is that we ran a query across the whole area after noticing during our tests that in several places our OSM-based navigation was producing incorrect speed values. This happened because the speed limits in the area should have been interpreted as mph, but the missing information caused incorrect conversions.
Because of that, I started fixing these segments in OSM so the data would be clearer and would not cause similar issues in the future. Unfortunately I haven’t finished correcting all of them yet.
For future edits, would you recommend not adding a source tag in cases like this, or using a different one?
willkmis (2026-03-11 01:16:32+00:00): These days a source tag on the changeset itself rather than the OSM objects edited is sufficient, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source for some background. For instance, on your colleague's recent edit, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179643467, source=survey;dashcam on the changeset is suitable, that information does not need to go on the way. For this edit, I do not think any gps data is your source, it's really just general knowledge about speed limit units in the US.
Misyekx (2026-03-11 09:53:55+00:00): Thanks, that makes sense.
In that case I will revert the source tags on the ways back to their original values and only keep the actual change (converting the units from km/h to mph where needed). So those edits will not add a new source tag on the objects themselves.
The dashcam source is mentioned because our usual workflow is to verify lane counts and turn:lanes information using dashcam footage.
While working on this area I also found quite a lot of other issues that can be detected automatically, for example typos in tags like turn:lanes=riiight and similar mistakes. At the moment I’m checking and fixing these manually one by one.
Do you happen to have any suggestions for handling or validating these kinds of errors more efficiently?
Geim (2026-03-10 17:12:14+00:00): Dank je!
eggie (2026-03-10 10:36:39+00:00): Oke..  De fixme staat er nog op.
Wat heb je precies gedaan?
Dan kunnen we evt assisteren.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-10 10:38:45+00:00): Ik heb je mutatie naar de voorgaande mapper gestuurd. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173481040#map=15/52.55938/5.64220&layers=N
Evgri (2026-03-10 10:43:08+00:00): Ik heb alleen de fixme opmerking aangevuld voor nu.
sly (2026-03-10 10:30:27+00:00): Zut, je viens de supprimer 2 mini bouts de chemin sans mettre un commentaire dans mon changeset pour expliquer (pénible le champs trop petit !)
Alors je commente ici : A mon avis nous faisons une erreur à cartographier chaque bout de chemin qui coupe un virage : à cet endroit, on c'est assez plat et dégagé et les randonneurs ont simplement marché un peu partout. Soit on veut rentrer dans le détail et il en faut 4 ou 5, soit ça n'a aucun sens selon moi, encore plus sur seulement 20m, et je suggère d'en garder un seul et unique. 


Enfin bref
eggie (2026-03-10 10:41:22+00:00): Hi Evgri. Het is nu een beetje een spinnenweb geworden van nieuwe en oude wegen.
Ik kijk er even naar, want er lopen hier talloze routerelaties die beter niet onderbroken kunnen worden. 
MVG
eggie
Evgri (2026-03-10 10:44:16+00:00): Ja klopt sorry. Deel van de lange streek en deel van de industrieweg zijn weggehaald. De aanpassingen van me zijn hoe de huidige wegen lopen, de oude aansluiting is weg.
eggie (2026-03-10 10:45:46+00:00): Ik heb het aangepast door gewoon de bestaande wegen te verschuiven.
Zie foto van 2mrt jl
https://viewer.satellietdataportaal.nl/@52.56334,5.648255,18/?datastrip=20260302_SVNEO-04&sensorname=SuperView-NEO

CTRL f5 voor het effect.
eggie (2026-03-10 11:02:49+00:00): Vorige rendering is hardnekkig. In deze layer zie je het beter
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.563320/5.648180&layers=SN
Evgri (2026-03-10 11:32:26+00:00): Helemaal top! dank je
Sakari_N (2026-03-10 20:09:29+00:00): Moi,

Muutoskokoelmien kommentteihin olisi hyvä kirjoittaa jotain joka kuvaisi ko- muutosta.

Lisätietoja wikissä (englanniksi): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
iandees (2026-03-10 13:42:32+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
Druusch (2026-04-23 12:17:48+00:00): Existiert denn das Gebäude noch oder wurde es abgerissen?
apolooo (2026-04-13 14:01:47+00:00): No falta part de la R3?? Desde La Garriga fins l'Hospitalet? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5844031 Aquesta és la relació però no conté cap punt, ni tan sols els que es refereixen a la relació La Garriga-Puigcerdà
ivanruiz (2026-04-13 17:24:44+00:00): Això és la route_master que engloba les rutes relacionades. El tram entre Parets i la Garriga està en construcció per obres de desdoblament i, per tant, actualment el trajecte arriba fins a la Garriga. Si es deixa fins l'Hospitalet, al Geofabrik OSM Inspector surt com a ruta invàlida perquè una ruta no pot anar per vies en construcció.
silversurfer83 (2026-03-10 20:51:46+00:00): Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap,

danke :)

Bei Fragen immer raus damit. Du findest uns auf c.osm.org, Signal, Matrix,... und schau mal im Wiki unter wiki.osm.org vorbei.

Happy mapping
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179630196
kadiwa (2026-03-10 13:19:55+00:00): Hallo chance_,
ist das Grüne ein Innenhof? In dem Fall müsste man das etwas anders eintragen.
Grüße,
kadiwa
chance_ (2026-03-10 13:28:05+00:00): Das Grüne mit den Wegen etc. ist ein Innenhof, ja. Wie müsste das eingetragen werden?
kadiwa (2026-03-10 13:47:00+00:00): changeset/179640088 so :)
Der Rollenname "outline" ist etwas irreführend: Der outline soll nicht die äußere begrenzende Linie des Gebäudes sein, sondern die Gesamtfläche des Gebäudes. Für Gebäude mit Innenhöfen braucht man dann ein Multipolygon: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Übrigens sind diese type=building-Relationen ziemlich selten und ich weiß auch nicht, was die bringen sollen. Wenn du willst, kannst du die building-Relation wieder entfernen. Den Gebäudenamen kannst du dann an relation/20306311 eintragen.
yelisey90 (2026-03-10 13:22:57+00:00): rv test/vandalism - this is not Tbilisi Metro; and no info about the naming of the street, it's missing from maps.gov.ge

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179639340
NeisBot (2026-03-10 10:54:56+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 8 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1421179969 v3 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/629598611 v2 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/357239371 v4

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179631232
NeisReview (2026-03-18 17:33:13+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/179758153
rempshaener (2026-03-11 19:08:04+00:00): Hallo,
ich habe ein paar verschobene Wohngebietsgrenzen zurecht gerückt, grundsätzlich passt es aber.
Viele Grüße
FlorianWestenfeld112 (2026-03-11 19:39:12+00:00): Guten Abend!

Vielen vielen Dank für Ihre Unterstützung!!

Viele Grüße!
A67-A67 (2026-03-10 23:26:41+00:00): Het Rijn-Schiekanaal is een kanaal, geen stadsgracht. Op een deel ten oosten van de binnenstad volgt deze inderdaad de historische stadsgracht. Op andere delen (Zuidergracht, Nieuwe Plantage), niet.
iandees (2026-03-10 13:43:06+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
perpignanmediterranee-dev (2026-03-10 13:02:26+00:00): Bonjour, 
Merci pour cet ajout, nous pourrons enfin profiter du soleil lors des belles journées d'été sur ce banc.
DevCapSud66 (2026-03-10 13:08:22+00:00): Bonjour, merci pour votre retour, ravie que cela vous soit utile. :-)
perpignanmediterranee-dev (2026-03-10 13:08:39+00:00): <3
osmviborg (2026-03-10 12:44:19+00:00): Det er  jo ikke bygningens form. Se på fotoet, der er taget lidt fra siden. Tryk 'B' og vælg skærmkortet, så ser du soklen på huset, det er den korrekte form.
NeisBot (2026-03-10 11:28:08+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 9 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/671622423 v2 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1370406433 v1 | 5 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/12691975020 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179633260
iandees (2026-03-10 13:43:15+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
ajmat (2026-03-11 11:14:21+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179640140, 179691050
Perpignan Mediterranee Tourisme-Rivesaltes 1 (2026-03-10 13:01:58+00:00): Coucou!
je teste...
Pipeton (2026-03-10 16:23:53+00:00): Hola, has duplicado la casa museo federico garcía lorca y la residencia universitaria carmen méndez con esta importación