piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ElLlobregatRiver (2023-12-01 08:38:33+00:00): Thank you for looking at and updating this road! I added the road using Esri World Imagery since it has better clarity. I will keep your suggestions in mind when working in the future.
Dodko (2023-12-01 17:58:05+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1226669709/history
adresu som opravil, treba správne vyplniť
addr:conscriptionnumber
addr:housenumber
addr:streetnumber
habi (2024-09-23 07:49:09+00:00): Ciao Frederic
Adding https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1226226298 with 'couche=-1` in a named relation for electrical/water network is (pardon my words) completely useless in terms of OpenStreetMap data.
What are you trying to achieve here? A very detailed map of the camp-site based on OpenStreetMap data?
Jakka (2023-11-25 11:23:32+00:00): dit lijkt weinig waarschijnlijk op een gebouw vorm ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1226673255#map=19/50.96782/3.79453&layers=N
udewachter (2023-11-25 11:51:24+00:00): klopt, we hebben de oprit en koer er ook bijgezet omdat die bij goed weer ook kunnen gebruikt worden en deel uitmaken van het gemeenschapscentrum - onze interpretatie van 'area'.
Jakka (2023-11-25 11:58:07+00:00): dan is deze fout ;)
building	yes
jeslop (2023-11-30 16:24:40+00:00): Hi Szerkesztő: Please remember to provide appropriate comments to your changesets. A simple "." is not very helpful for other users and for those who want to review your edits. Read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments for more information.

Regards

Fordítson a DeepL segítségével

Szia Szerkesztő: Kérlek, ne felejtsd el megadni a megfelelő megjegyzéseket a módosítási készleteidhez. Egy egyszerű "." nem túl hasznos a többi felhasználó és azok számára, akik át akarják nézni a szerkesztéseidet. További információkért olvasd el a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments címet.

Üdvözlettel

Jesús López
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
Filip009 (2023-11-26 20:52:50+00:00): Sú tam 2 miesta na vodu vedľa seba?

Are there 2 water places next to each other?
delavei (2023-11-28 09:23:47+00:00): To, ktoré som pridal ja, bolo vonku a za múr kúpaliska som nevidel. Ale je možné, že tam naozaj je len to jedno miesto. Pretože som pridal úpravu cez OsmAnd a ten ukazoval priľahlý Vrt KB - 1 ako studňu, pretože má tag man_made=water_well. Hlavný tag má ale amenity=drinking_water, čiže rovnaký, ako som pridal ja. Len ten vrt mal inú ikonu, tak ma to zmiatlo, že to bude fakt len ten vrt a že verejné pidlo nie je pridané.  Ale tu na mape je aj tá ikona rovnaká, takže asi to fakt bude ono. Môžem teda tento svoj edit vymazať.
Dawid2849 (2023-11-25 11:25:55+00:00): Na przyszłość proszę o trochę więcej uwagi, dodałeś ten most jako istniejący...
skorpion62 (2024-02-14 09:11:06+00:00): Hallo Druusch,
verläuft der Pfad wirklich unterirdisch? Du hast ihn mit -1 angegeben.
Viele Grüße skorpion62
Druusch (2024-02-14 09:25:07+00:00): Nein, ist er nicht. Ich weiß nicht, wie das dazu gekommen ist, aber ich habe es jetzt geändert.
skorpion62 (2024-02-14 16:11:20+00:00): Hallo Druusch,
danke für die schnelle Antwort und auch Änderung.
Viele Grüße skorpion62
vectorial8192 (2023-12-30 13:53:44+00:00): Hi there, this changeset has caused a path mapping blunder near Chung On Estate; please double check that your changes do not have unintended side effects next time.

Fixed via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145503514
ehcchan (2023-12-30 15:56:29+00:00): Hi, I updated a POI on On Chun Street; how come it could cause a blunder on a path near chung on estate?
Kovoschiz (2023-12-31 08:47:21+00:00): You accidentally moved Sai Sha Rd. Need to be careful when panning the map.
Kovoschiz (2023-12-31 08:47:56+00:00): https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/11133588943
ehcchan (2024-01-01 15:17:13+00:00): OIC, sorry for that. I will be careful next time. But I am also curious how you can identify the blunder. I wonder if you've got an error report or if you find it yourself.
Kovoschiz (2024-01-02 12:20:53+00:00): https://osmcha.org/changesets/144435963/
vectorial8192 (2024-01-02 12:54:14+00:00): Not sure about the osmcha tool, but I am someone who uses OSM/osmcarto more often than the average user.

And then one day I saw a sus path shape near Chung On Estate.
vectorial8192 (2024-01-02 12:55:21+00:00): Notice how everyone responded until a month later, with me mistakenly believing another changeset was to blame.
eggie (2023-11-25 10:37:22+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback   Adresnodes zijn import vanuit het Kadaster. Beter niets aan veranderen. Bestaat nummer 4 niet meer?
Gebouwen zijn directe import vanuit het Kadaster.. Je hebt nu twee gebouwen ingetekend, maar klopt dat wel? 
	REGBAT Helmond doet niets in OSM.  Ook  de aard van het bedrijf vermelden. shop=  ofiice=? 
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=144436068

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2023-11-25 10:45:09+00:00): Gebouw en adresnode  conform de BAG hersteld
Mocht dat niet kloppen dan svp een terugmelding doen naar de BAG.
Dat kan hier. 
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/?searchQuery=lage+dijk+2a+helmond&objectId=0794100000389100&theme=BRT+Achtergrond&geometry.x=175290.9165&geometry.y=386969.988&zoomlevel=15&bijbehorendeAdressen=Pand
MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-11-25 10:49:23+00:00): shop tag toegevoegd
cytryn (2023-11-25 21:42:51+00:00): Cześć,
Czy nie chodziło tu przypadkiem o tabliczki na budynkach? To będą raczej historic=memorial + memorial=plaque (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:memorial%3Dplaque)
Pozdrowienia
kasztelan111 (2023-11-25 21:48:44+00:00): nie, to są tablice MSI, które mają funkcję raczej informacyjną niż pamiątkową
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-24 02:48:21+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11375063321/history has amenity = fixme that was added in this edit
What kind of object is here? Is it a shop? What kind of a shop? (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop )
Binnette (2025-04-24 08:42:05+00:00): Hi Mateusz, I edited the fixme. This building is a "four banal" that was used long time ago by the village to make bread. Example : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Four-bredevent.JPG
grzegorz75jan (2023-11-26 00:26:41+00:00): Witam. Staraj się nie usuwać obiektów swoich poprzedników bez powodu. Nie było potrzeby usuwania drogi ponieważ wystarczyło ją przestawić i skorygować, zmienić tagi. Wyrzuciłeś do kosza drogę którą Ventlan a następnie kutomba_mufo edytował ponad dziesięć lat temu. kutomba od dawna nie edytuje ale widziałem sporo jego wkładu w szerokiej okolicy. Do budynków używaj podkładu z budynkami. Nie wiem którego podkładu foto w końcu użyłeś ale budynki, droga, trawa, ogrodzenie (od północy i południa) są narysowane w dziwnych miejscach. Josm wyrzucił mały błąd z drogą (skrzyżowanie na północy zaraz za bramą) ciężko to wyłapać ale po prostu narysowałeś drogę jedną linią a powinna częściowo być w osobnych odcinkach choć połączonych jednym węzłem. Zbiornik z wodą pasowało by dodatkowo dokładniej otagować (OSMCha wyświetla "Invalid tag modification") bo nie wiadomo czym jest oprócz tego że to woda. Tu nie jestem pewien bo różne rzeczy widziałem ale budynki są połączone z trawą i gdy ruszę budynek to ruszam obszar trawy. To wszystko patrząc praktycznie tylko na stację transformatorową i pobraniu twoich zmian. Po ponownym pobraniu tego obszaru wychodzi, że węzłem połączyłeś trawę z linią energetyczną i standardowy często przypadkowy błąd to wklikały ci się dwa puste węzły.
SpinOff (2023-11-25 19:34:06+00:00): Cześć. O tym że ścieżka jest przejezdna dla rowerów powinny informować jej tagi, a nie nazwa. 

Fragment z wiki tagu name: "Znacznik name=* ma zawierać wyłącznie nazwę, a nie opis typu lub lokalizacji obiektu lub jednej z jego pozostałych właściwości (takich jak wysokość, wysokość) , operator, ograniczenia dostępu, etykiety klasyfikacyjne / certyfikacyjne / jakościowe ...)" - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:name?uselang=pl

Polecam tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:smoothness
Sedymen (2023-11-27 13:18:28+00:00): Dziękuję. Rozumiem, ze mogę to zrobić w czasie mapowania obiektu. A mogę uzupełnić/poprawić dla już istniejących elementów
grzegorz75jan (2023-11-29 19:01:09+00:00): Proponował bym też używać podkładu Geoportal2 cieniowanie WMS. Często dość dobrze da się zobaczyć obrys obiektu, drogi, rzeczki. Niby jest też podkład śladów GPS ale w tym wypadku w iD mi się ślady nie wczytały ( w Josm tak) no i niestety póki co dla tego obszaru nie działa ortofotomapa wysokiej rozdzielczości.
eggie (2023-11-25 11:37:15+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback  Je hebt hier allerleid data verwijderd zoals adresnodes en straatnamen. Waarom? 
Het lijkt me beter dit allemaal terug te draaien. Wat bedoel je met ela?
MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2023-11-25 11:38:08+00:00): reverted by changeset #144438139
Kovoschiz (2023-11-25 16:07:38+00:00): Please don't delete shops as they represent a shop space. This preserves the position, and avoids deleting any addresses accidentally. Remove the tags, change it to a plain "Point", or change to `was:*=` .
amadvance (2023-11-26 10:29:11+00:00): Ciao fagamir

Secondo le indicazioni del CAI, non si mette nel nome di sentiero il numero CAI. Lo si deve mettere nel campo ref della relazione o della way.

Ho già sistemato io.

Qui trovi le indicazioni ufficiali: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:CAI

Ciao,
Andrea
MxxCon (2023-11-25 21:23:22+00:00): Hello.
why did you delete building=yes tag here?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144439602
timshel500 (2023-11-25 21:39:35+00:00): The information for this tag said "Building of an unspecific type, used when someone is unable or unwilling to tag it more specifically. It is typically used when someone wants to record presence of a building, without tagging further detail." After reading that, I deleted the tag since I added the tourism=museum tag and I thought since I was adding "further detail" the tag was no longer needed. Fine either way. 

Source: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building=yes
timshel500 (2023-11-25 21:41:08+00:00): For now, I am replacing by "building=museum"
ManuelB701 (2023-11-28 12:19:35+00:00): Sind die neuen Gebäude alle Teile der existierenden Gebäude? Wenn ja, dann sollte hierzu building:parts verwendet werden.
zorglubu (2023-11-26 09:07:03+00:00): Bonjour,

Même remarque que pour le groupe de modifications 144439942, le nœud man_made=wastewater_plant ajouté, vient en doublon d'un contour déjà existant (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746388603).
Je me permets donc de supprimer le doublon.

Cordialement.
eggie (2023-11-25 13:22:53+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback.. Je hoeft geen bouwjaren toe te voegen. Die staan al op de gebouwomtrek. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
Hufkratzer (2023-11-25 21:10:30+00:00): Hi,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1226699570 looks like a riding arena (and not like a riding centre), similar to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1112674370. Riding arenas should be tagged leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:leisure=horse_riding
ianlopez1115 (2023-11-25 13:00:49+00:00): *[Jaen, Nueva Ecija]
opendcc (2023-11-25 20:50:22+00:00): protection = tyre ?  :-)
Kurosawa06 (2023-11-27 18:48:49+00:00): Bonjour,
Erreur sur cette route. La photo la plus récente est celle en dézoom et non au zoom maximum.
Je corrige votre tracé.
Cdt
sanchi (2023-11-25 15:16:12+00:00): Buenas.
¿Porque el cambio de quitar los espacios de los números de teléfono?

Todos los ejemplos que veo por la wiki tienen espacios.
No está indicado un formato específico en el caso de España de donde tienen que ir los espacios, pero tampoco he visto en ningún sitio que indique que se tengan que quitar. Es mas, mínimo lo que es la separación del +34 del resto se debería mantener, aunque igualmente no veo el problema en que se mantenga el resto de las separaciones, y no veo que se indique que se tengan que quitar.

Según la wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone 
Note that for phone numbers that are in international E.164 format, space (or even hyphen) separators are not significant, but the convention is to use a separator at least between the ITU-T country code and the rest of the phone number. The other groupings are optional: area codes should preferably be separated only in countries where they are still used distinctly for domestic calls; in other countries, the groupings are just kept by convenience and according to local usages in phone books or as shown in amenities (these groupings may vary for mnemonic reasons only, there's no requirement to suppress these group separators even if they are ignored when dialing).

Un saludo
Hugoren Martinako (2023-11-26 10:29:19+00:00): Simplemente por mero formateo, para que luzcan todos igual, no por nada importante. Puedo aplicar el E.164 también, como quieras. La cosa era dejar estandarizados los que ya hay en este momento.

Es más, me he percatado que no es nada importante esto, ya que tengan o no el espacio del prefijo, o más espacios entre los números, tanto las aplicaciones móvil como los navegadores, el campo teléfono se interpreta sin problema alguno.
sanchi (2023-11-26 10:50:39+00:00): Es una modificación masiva de una cosa que no está ni recomenda. Más bien pone lo contrario que se dejen espacios.
No es una cosa que de problemas como comentas a las aplicaciones, pero si que queda más claro cuando lo lee un humano si tiene espacios.
Hugoren Martinako (2023-11-26 10:54:34+00:00): Oye, pero estoy leyendo esto del format E.164, y todos los ejemplos vienen sin espacios. Aquí señala específicamente que no se usen:
https://voipstudio.es/blog/que-es-el-formato-e-164-y-como-usarlo-correctamente/

Esta otra web incluye la regex (^\+[1-9]\d{1,14}$) que los identifica, también sin espacios: https://www.twilio.com/docs/glossary/what-e164

Por último, en los enlaces de la wikipedia apuntan a https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.164/en, pero repasando los PDFs no hay referencias explícitas a si tengan que aparecer espacios o no. 

Leyendo la wiki de OSM, que asegura que la convención es separar al menos el prefijo de país, tampoco veo que exista ninguna referencia que avale esa opinión. Puede haber cambiado con el tiempo. Tengo mis dudas con eso, la verdad.
sanchi (2023-11-26 12:14:21+00:00): En la wiki no hay ni 1 ejemplo que se le quiten los espacios. Lo que estás haciendo no tiene ninguna referencia que lo avale, lo que hay indica lo contrario. Cuando me he puesto a corregir números de teléfono por errores era raro encontrarlos sin espacios en osm. Los había pero pocos. Por lo que tampoco veo que pueda ser el estándar en osm sin espacios.

En la wiki no habla solamente de E.164. Habla de patrones y explicado. Y habla de prefijo internacional y de códigos de área que entiendo que son los provinciales de los fijos. En estos patrones si que salen los espacios que se comentan en propia wiki
"
phone=número de teléfono donde el número debe estar en formato internacional ( E.164)
phone=+<código de país> <código de área> <número local>, siguiendo los patrones del ITU-T E.123 y del DIN 5008
Nótese que se agrega un espacio entre los campos (códigos y número local)
(phone=+<código de país>-<código de área>-<número local>, siguiendo el patrón RFC 3966/NANP)
Si tu país no utiliza los códigos de área, no usar esa parte.

La etiqueta fax=número Se usa de la misma manera.
"

Me suena que hace tiempo se habló en algún canal del tema pero a saber ya donde. Me suena del tema de separar de 2 en 2 o de 3 en 3 pero eso ya si que no había estándar. En esa parte sí que hay duda por eso.
Hugoren Martinako (2023-11-26 12:35:22+00:00): He separado el código internacional del número en sí: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144469940
NorthCrab_upload (2023-11-25 14:00:23+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9418448100
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1226706177

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
dgmapping (2023-11-25 14:26:17+00:00): I disagree with this change. Kitsarööpa tee as a whole is a significant part of Tallinn's cycling infrastructure, and it MUST be tagged with bicycle=designated. I strongly suggest that you restore bicycle=designated tag.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-25 14:57:39+00:00): What would be the benefit of having bicycle designated there?

1) There are no signs.
2) It's narrow and used by pedestrians
3) It's a descent with a turn and unpaved surface which is not safe and cyclists with reduced coordination ability, such as elderly, can get seriously hurt. Not something you expect not on a track in city.
4) Routing is still available there as it's not forbidden to ride a bike there.

In conclusion reverting this change would contradict the description of designated value, which states that it must be specifically designed for bicycles and contradict "on the ground" rule.

We must show the truth, not copy incorrect Tallinn maps.

Two summers ago I ride along a national bike route on a loose gravel road where I've been constantly losing my balance and even got hurt when falling. On a hybrid bike. Was it a bicycle=designated road too, then?
dgmapping (2023-11-25 15:20:49+00:00): 1) https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1462499577421908&focus=photo 

2) Use width to indicate how narrow or wide it is. This particular section is regularly used by thousands of cyclist: https://www.strava.com/segments/14231541
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-25 15:27:34+00:00): 1) This is a different place, I don't question the tags there, only on this small part of the path
2) I've brought this argument as why it's not designed for cycling since it's impeded there and pedestrians can create a dangerous situation when a cyclist uses front break without thinking and looses traction on descent while making a turn.

bicycle=designated tag does not describe how often it's used

I'm leaving it as is, which is being tagged according to wiki.
dgmapping (2023-11-25 15:32:22+00:00): Kitsarööpa tee is one continuous road:
https://teeregister.mnt.ee/reet/map?featureOid=8308002
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-25 15:36:26+00:00): It doesn't matter
dgmapping (2023-11-25 15:41:52+00:00): What doesn't matter? In every intersection with motorized traffic Kitsarööpa tee has "jalgratta- ja jalgtee" signs.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-25 15:52:44+00:00): There are many paths connected to it, but they don't become bicycle=designated just by being connected to it. Same as this small part is connected to parts which are bicycle-pedestrian ways, but it doesn't become bicycle=designated. Same as the thing teeregister calls Kitsarööpa doesn't have the same surface or width in all of it's parts, this part is not bicycle=designated, while others are.

I've presented my arguments and I'm not backing down from using wiki definition of bicycle=designated. I don't see this discussion going anywhere. If you wish to continue you can bring this to wider OSM community and this may change my opinion.
dgmapping (2023-11-25 16:10:15+00:00): Just to be clear, Kitsarööpa tee has a very clear definition. As far as I've noticed this definition aligns with:
1) what is "on the ground"
2) what is in teeregister
3) what is in the official Tallinn map
4) how it is used by cyclists

In all instances Kitsarööpa tee is defined as kergliiklustee or "jalgratta- ja jalgtee".

The fact that a small sections of Kitsarööpa tee might be more dangerous or have different surfaces, does not change the definition of Kitsarööpa tee.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-25 16:16:44+00:00): Only the first one is important here and I disagree. I do not define it as kergliiklustee or "jalgratta- ja jalgtee".
dgmapping (2023-11-25 16:39:53+00:00): Now I'm starting to get curious :)

Lets say you are coming from east side towards the bridge. In the beginning there are "Jalgratta- ja jalgtee" signs: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1462499577421908&focus=photo

At what point do you feel this kergliiklustee suddenly ends? Are there any intersections with other small paths where you think necessary traffic signs are missing and therefore this Kitsarööpa tee is no longer Jalgratta- ja jalgtee?
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-25 17:05:19+00:00): I've mapped where it ends and don't see why you are asking.

Only at this point, after the bridge, where it's clearly not bicycle infrastructure. There is a sudden change of surface, smoothness, width and safety and the path stops possessing any qualities of being intentionally designed for bicycles. After the descent it gets wide and more safe for everyone again.
dgmapping (2023-11-25 17:16:52+00:00): Unfortunately I don't recall seeing any "Jalgratta- ja jalgtee lõpp" signs after the bridge crossing...

So this all boils down to subjective evaluation - is this short section safe as a bicycle infrastructure?
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-25 17:27:34+00:00): And also is it designed as one. It's clearly not designed and clearly isn't remotely as safe for all ages and abilities as actual infrastructure.
Pikse (2023-11-27 10:00:49+00:00): To me it seems that the confusion here is mainly about semantics. The tag value is "designated", accordingly it has description "object is explicitly designated for use by cyclists", and the verb used means "to say officially that a place or thing has a particular character or purpose".

As far as I can see this tag doesn't say anything about whether path is a good cycleway, or whether it's even possible to use it for cycling in certain conditions, or whether it is actually designed (not designated) for bicycle use.

To find out whether an object is designated to we need to check official map or some other document or respective signs. There isn't another way as far I can see.

As is the case with any signed path, signs obviously do not exist throughout the path, and if there isn't an explicit end sign in given location then I don't see a reason to think that signs contradict the map.

I haven't checked given map nor signs myself but if they indicate what is described above then I also don't understand why it was needed to remove given tag.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-27 10:33:36+00:00): This designed vs designated is actually a good point.

But consider this: they would never install signs here, because it would be seen as a total failure to create bicycle infrastructure, but the signage is intentionally vague to have a cycleway on paper and a bad path with a stream running through it in reality.

There are many instances where Tallinn's map lies about cycleway connectivity and even marks paths explicitly signed as a footway as cycleways.

Since there can be different interpretations of signs,, I removed the tag to reflect my understanding of reality one type of path turn into a different one.

But if multiple people vote to have this as designated on the map, we can change it back.

The downsides I see are:
* It's hard to correctly tag problems with this path, as there is channel made by water along it, but if there are no other people, you can ride on a narrow part not affected by it.
* Many simple routers won't take into account other tags or won't take into account all of them, while a path where cycling is not forbidden and surface isn't ideal is simple enough.
* We are copying maps made for a political benefit to hide problems. It reduces trust in osm and usefulness of osm as an independent source of data for end users. It works against promoting building bicycle infrastructure, as apparently this is good enough.
* Since it's harder to consume data if we put bicycle=designated, less protected and able people are at risk here (and they probably don't have a strava account).  

Are you ok with those? I have yet to hear what we gain by it.