piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
MountAgou (2025-12-22 19:16:30+00:00): Hi BrackoNe, 

Thank you for reaching out about this. I agree that internal crossing highway links should generally not be used where there is no physical median or barrier present. I’ll pass this guidance along to the team to avoid this type of modeling in future edits. 

For changesets https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176061075, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176060375, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176054871, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176089713, it appears the main issue is that the intersecting roads (for example, way 224100277 and way 1283859123) are modeled as dual carriageways where only short painted islands exist. I can update these to single ways, which would eliminate the internal crossing links entirely.

For https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176052847, I understand that the X-style modeling is commonly used in Serbia, though I also see the concern when turn restrictions are not fully applied. One option would be to join the nodes on the exterior side of the secondary road, which would avoid median crossing links while keeping the junction simplified and well aligned. Alternatively, I’m also open to restoring the junction to its previous, more squared configuration.

Please let me know what you think and I’ll be happy to adjust accordingly.
BrackoNe (2025-12-23 21:26:18+00:00): Hi MountAgou,

Thanks for the reply!

I completely understand what you were saying by mentioning ways way/224100277 and way/1283859123, however, this segment is extremely short and merging in one way for 29 meters it would make more confusion especially it has another flares that connects to 105.

If we would connect into one node, it might reflect a bit closer to reality, but in case of junction with complex turn restriction - it can make us problem.

I would like to ask you to keep it more sqared configuration in such cases, since it doesn't look&feel more off compared to reality, and gives us more freedom in applying any turn restriction.

Please keep in mind this referes only to such X configuration without phisical deviders.

I'm happy to assist you in anything else!

Thanks,
Nemanja
LemonEarlMapper (2025-12-26 17:26:27+00:00): Hi BrackoNe,
Our team is currently on a break for the holidays in the U.S., but I want to assure you that we will follow up and prioritize reviewing and responding to your message, as well as updating the modeling of these intersections based on your feedback when we return after January 1st. Your patience is much appreciated, and I wish you a happy upcoming New Year!
BrackoNe (2025-12-26 17:31:37+00:00): All the best to you too for upcoming holidays.
MountAgou (2026-01-07 20:23:08+00:00): Hi BrackoNe, apologies for the delay. To better communicate our suggested modeling for these types of junctions with crossing highway links at physically separated medians, I have updated the junction near node 6629399258 to represent this proposal. This appears to be the most accurate and simplified way to model these junctions, which would require the same 3 u-turn restrictions that a squared junction would use. Could you please take a look at this junction and let me know what you think? If you still disagree with this type of modeling, I can change this back to the squared alignment. Thank you!
BrackoNe (2026-01-07 20:28:24+00:00): Hey,
Marry Christmas, thanks for reply!

I am not sure that I can recognize any change newer since 1y ago, but given junction looks exactly how it should look.

Maybe I'm overseeing something?
MountAgou (2026-01-08 11:52:51+00:00): Sorry about that, I thought I had uploaded but did not. Could you take a look now and let me know what you think?
MountAgou (2026-01-08 11:54:08+00:00): Hi BrackoNe, Sorry about that, I thought I had uploaded but did not. Could you take a look now and let me know what you think?
BrackoNe (2026-01-14 08:15:53+00:00): Hi @MountAgou! I tought that I have answered, but I haven't.

Please avoid crossings as you have done in previous edit, and keep more sqaure like junctions when it is possible.

Thanks,
Nemanja
MountAgou (2026-01-19 09:08:52+00:00): Thanks BrackoNe, I will ensure the team models these types of junctions with squared modeling in the future. Have a nice day!
BrackoNe (2026-01-19 09:10:12+00:00): Thanks! I appreciate it.
HellMap (2025-12-19 18:56:22+00:00): As mentioned before, please do not change minor roads into driveways if they are within cadastral road lines and not through private property and access multiple properties, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1271489614 . If you don't believe the cadaster is correct and this should be classified differently, then please explain this properly for each case, instead of "wrong tags".
silversurfer83 (2025-12-17 20:04:15+00:00): 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176063021
gscholz (2025-12-19 08:33:56+00:00): Hi Misescapadaspornavarra-com,
this changeset has created an error in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue marker):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-1.62100&lat=42.82441&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=176063266

As you may know, these kind of errors irritate routing software and look ugly on the maps. Can you please fix this?

As there is no way visible on the satellite images, I am wondering what kind of way this is as it has layer=1 and crosses several ways without connection. Is this in reality a bridge?
Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2025-12-21 06:23:39+00:00): Hi Misescapadaspornavarra-com,
this error still exits, can I get your feedback here?
Guido
Tomas Straupis (2025-12-17 20:01:36+00:00): Šitos aikštelės NĖRA pažymėtos kelio ženklu „P“, tai jos neturėtų būti žymimos kaip amenity=parking.
bartgron (2025-12-18 22:06:29+00:00): Zestaw zmian wycofany:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176115308
Za taką nazwę pójdzie zgłoszenie i będzie ban
bartgron (2025-12-18 22:07:15+00:00): Zestaw zmian wycofany:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176115337
Będzie zgłoszenie i ban
bartgron (2025-12-18 22:08:13+00:00): Zestaw zmian wycofany:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176115354
Będzie zgłoszenie i ban
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-19 05:43:44+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19189
kadiwa (2025-12-18 00:13:26+00:00): Danke für die Ergänzung! Da das hier dein erster Changeset ist, ist die Erklärung wohl, dass du beim ersten Mal das Hochladen vergessen hast.

Ein Hinweis für die Zukunft: Am besten sollte man jedes Mal, wenn man neue Daten einpflegt und das ganze hochlädt, eine Quelle angeben. Die Quelle kann z. B. sein, dass man selber vor Ort war.
user_5359 (2025-12-17 19:55:37+00:00): Does this point have a real address and its own name?
BGHiker (2025-12-17 21:10:44+00:00): The specific area edited is within the Fountain Hills McDowell Mountain Preserve. No physical address unless you use the trailhead address.
Ryukia (2025-12-17 23:44:13+00:00): Hallo, kleiner Hinweis: Beim Einfügen von wikimedia_commons-Links gehört das Präfix (File: oder Category: ) dazu. Hier konkret: "File:Pfadfinderdenkmal Hinterzarten 01.jpg". Hab es mal eingefügt. Liebe Grüße
Mathisle (2025-12-18 01:15:15+00:00): Ist klar – war ein Flüchtigkeitsfehler. Danke für die Korrektur!
JakovBušić (2025-12-18 19:37:15+00:00): Wrong hgv restriction that was made in this changeset was fixed in changeset 176110650. #OptimoRoute
Konrad D (2026-02-12 08:49:42+00:00): Sorry, für die späte Meldung. Il Mercato ist im Gleichen Gebäude wie Gut's Genuss einfach im NordWestlichen Teil.
Piagno (2026-02-12 10:49:52+00:00): Danke, habe es noch bisschen verschoben
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178449732
GerdP (2026-01-25 07:13:53+00:00): Moin aus Wildeshausen!
Kannst Du bitte noch mal diesen Weg https://www.osm.org/way/29024241
anschauen? Du hast Da x-mal tracktype=grade2 gelöscht und wieder gesetzt. Bei surface=dirt würde ich eher grade4 oder grade5 erwarten.
fetzt_doch (2026-01-25 11:39:25+00:00): Das ist ein Wald/Forstweg, ich habe bestimmt das ausgewählt, was in Streetcomplete vom Foto her am nächsten kam. Ist zumindest so verdichtet, dass man da gut radeln kann. grade2 passt also schon, finde ich.
GerdP (2026-01-25 11:43:00+00:00): Wenn es verdichtet ist, wie wäre es mit surface=compacted ?
PizzaTreeIsland (2025-12-17 20:45:18+00:00): Здравствуйте,
спасибо за ваше редактирование! Пожалуйста, в будущем уделяйте время написанию корректных комментариев к наборам изменений, чтобы другим было легче понять, что именно вы сделали.
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Спасибо и удачного картографирования!
TinPetreković (2025-12-26 12:47:53+00:00): Roads that were split have been merged back together and tagged accordingly in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176437348
mueschel (2025-12-22 13:49:32+00:00): Hi,
could you check these edits? "psv=no" contradicts "oneway:bus=no".
lyctkel (2026-01-14 15:15:20+00:00): Hie mueschel,
Thanks for pointing that out. Fourteen years ago, psv=opposite_lane lane was specified here. I incorrectly translated this as psv=no.
A check with Mapillary and aerial images revealed that there are no longer any restrictions for psv. I have removed psv=no. oneway:bus=no is also incorrect. Buses traveling in the opposite direction use their own lane. 
Kind regards,
lyctkel
mueschel (2026-01-14 18:25:01+00:00): Hi, thank you for the check! 
oneway:bus=no seems to be correct: It is a oneway road for everybody, but not for buses. It doesn't matter if they have their own lane, or (quite uncommon) they share a lane with opposite direction traffic.
mga_geo (2026-01-03 07:24:23+00:00): Bonjour et bonne année,
Pourquoi avez-vous modifié l'attribut network des relations route=bus ?
"FR:TUB" est la bonne valeur, les suggestions d'iD ne sont pas toujours à suivre.
Pouvez-vous corriger ?
Marc
codywindrose (2026-03-21 23:31:51+00:00): I think that trolley bay can be made into a building.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=44.295355894180005&lng=15.115462467690008&z=17.890914932561444&pKey=1310483814183994&x=0.25948560760082295&y=0.4974748433718454&zoom=1.0861638358402488&focus=photo
codywindrose (2026-03-21 23:50:44+00:00): Made both bays into ways and added building=shed. One is just put over a parking space so I just needed to change the parking spaces tag, that was satisfying.
BrummsLee (2025-12-24 10:53:26+00:00): Die Bearbeitung verstehe ich nicht, wenn die Abstände immer noch verschieden sind und hier jetzt stattdessen zusätzlich Osmosefehler, bezüglich der Überschneidung der Platform mit den Wartehäuschen dazu kommen...
DeFra85 (2026-01-19 19:25:58+00:00): Dann solltest du das auch in den Eigenschaften der Pfade einpflegen mit check_date= und nicht einfach Wege voneinander lösen
Supaplex030 (2025-12-19 13:42:19+00:00): Hey, du hast hier eine Abstellfläche für E-Scooter und Fahrräder als "Fahrradparkplatz" gemappt. Kennst du das Tagging für E-Scooter-Abstellflächen? (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verkehrswende-Meetup/Fahrradparkpl%C3%A4tze#Stellfl%C3%A4chen_f%C3%BCr_Elektrokleinstfahrzeuge_/_E-Tretroller)

Ich tendiere dazu, solche gemeinsamen Flächen für Fahrräder und Roller als Roller-Abstellflächen zu taggen, da sie primär dazu gedacht und genutzt werden (und meistens - so wie hier - ohnehin "echte" Fahrradständer mit Anschlussmöglichkeiten daneben stehen). Außerdem kann man sie dann besser in den Daten identifizieren. Daher hier der Kommentar, um Werbung dafür bei dir zu machen :)

lg, Alex
thom_bike_bln (2025-12-19 16:49:35+00:00): Hi Alex, vielen Dank für den Hinweis! Ich hatte eigentlch gute Absichten das so zu taggen, hatte die Wikiseite dann aber nicht gefunden und es vergessen ... ;-)
Ist jetzt gebookmarkt und ich habe die Abstellfläche wie vorgeschlagen getaggt. Vielen Dank nochmal, bin großer Fan eurer Tagging-Empfehlungen 👍🏻

LG, Thomas
DWebb1980 (2025-12-17 21:36:51+00:00): This camera has already been reported and it shows up on another map version. It faces north on Frederica Road and is a pole mounted Flock camera.
DWebb1980 (2025-12-17 21:34:15+00:00): Location is approximate. Could not get it exact on the map. It’s faces South on Frederica Road and is a pole mounted Flock camera.
b-unicycling (2025-12-28 12:02:34+00:00): 42 warnings ignored by the mapper - changeset reverted, because all the highways along this not signposted path are already mapped.
b-unicycling (2025-12-28 12:01:36+00:00): Reverted, because already mapped and with the established tagging scheme. 184 warnings were ignored by the mapper.
NeisBot (2025-12-17 21:54:22+00:00): Hi SaelBiritiba, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 92% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 103 building(s)
- 9 landuse(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176068823
Glassman (2025-12-17 23:15:34+00:00): Please give more detailed changeset comments, especially when removing so many buildings that still exist on current imagery.


Thanks,
Clifford Snow, DWG, OpenStreetMap Foundation
Seyruun (2025-12-18 16:14:28+00:00): Thank you for fixing my mess-up! :)
AntSom (2025-12-19 16:10:26+00:00): Hello Seyruun,

You're welcome. Have a great rest of your day.
NeisBot (2025-12-18 07:20:43+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 39 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1459400691 v2 | 28 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1459401688 v2 | 11 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176068958
NeisReview (2026-01-03 12:15:29+00:00): ✅ Should by fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/176153189 | Thx @b-unicycling
https://osm.org/changeset/176375636 | Thx @b-unicycling
NeisBot (2025-12-18 07:20:44+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 66 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/372432955 v13 | 9 crossings
https://osm.org/way/539362956 v3 | 9 crossings
https://osm.org/way/777210765 v4 | 8 crossings

Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/5219244449 v2
https://osm.org/node/7252156807 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176069139
NeisReview (2026-01-03 12:15:29+00:00): ✅ Should by fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/176138669 | Thx @FvGordon
https://osm.org/changeset/176281852 | Thx @siavash_mohammadi
https://osm.org/changeset/176295364 | Thx @sajjad_samaei
b-unicycling (2025-12-28 12:00:47+00:00): Reverted, because the farm was already mapped with the established tagging scheme.
pwbriggs (2025-12-17 22:37:47+00:00): Hey, thanks for the edit. But why did you tag https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1118510963 as a one way only road?
pwbriggs (2025-12-17 22:35:31+00:00): Sorry, I'm not sure what your changeset comment means. Is "lu" a region? What type of edits did you make? Please explain :)

thanks
adigis (2025-12-17 22:48:39+00:00): lu is land use
pwbriggs (2025-12-18 06:27:40+00:00): Ahh, of course! 🤦‍♂️ Thanks for clarifying

Happy mapping!
b-unicycling (2025-12-28 12:00:35+00:00): Reverted, because the farm was already mapped with the established tagging scheme.
b-unicycling (2025-12-28 12:00:19+00:00): Reverted, because the farm was already mapped with the established tagging scheme.
b-unicycling (2025-12-28 11:59:41+00:00): Reverted, because the ringfort was already mapped in the correct location and with the correct tagging scheme.
NieWnen (2025-12-17 23:16:27+00:00): Dlaczego wciąż usuwasz obiekty i dodajesz je ponownie? To niepożądany sposób poprawiania danych.

W JOSMie podmiana geometrii obiektu (z zachowaniem jego historii) to jeden skrót, jak ktoś bardzo nie chce przesuwać pojedynczych węzłów.

Już lepsze te lekkie przesunięcia niż takie usuwanie i dodawanie na nowo o kilkanaście-kilkadziesiąt cm.
Adam Haba (2025-12-17 23:23:53+00:00): Robię to głównie dla oszczędności czasu i ułatwienia edycji oraz często zapominam o tym, że tak nie można. Muszę postarać się zawsze o tym pamiętać, bo już nie pierwszy raz tak się dzieje.
Sylabowy Kot (2025-12-18 11:47:22+00:00): Tak to jest z iD. W JOSM wtyczką pobierany dane z geodezyjną precyzją z różnych ewidencji, a w przeglądarce jedyną podpowiedzią są te niewyraźne linie.
Ale i tak często warto sprawdzać, czy nadwieszenia nie są zbyt obszerne - bryły z ewidencji zwykle zawierają wyłącznie partery i wszyscy się wprowadzają w błąd przy dalszych edycjach, tak więc ww. linie nie są jakąś wyrocznią.
YomanNH (2025-12-18 11:59:46+00:00): Serio? Znowu to samo? Tydzień temu pisałem, żebyś nie usuwał bezmyślnie obiektów, żeby je za chwilę dodać ponownie: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175751457. Wielokrotnie byłeś już o tym informowany, ale jak widać uwagi od innych masz w d...
capt_planet (2026-01-23 09:12:05+00:00): hej, czy nie warto ściągnąć tag "construction" z tego fragmentu drogi po wschodniej stronie MWM? tu nie będzie żadnych prac dopóki nie zmieni się MPZP.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-04 06:42:40+00:00): Hello!

You used
area:highway=traffic island
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/837408787/history

Have you maybe meant
area:highway=traffic_island
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?

If it is a mistake - can you fix it?
VLD277 (2026-02-04 16:08:23+00:00): Good morning, Mateusz,

 You are correct, that is a typo and was meant to be area:highway=traffic_island. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I have made the correction in changeset # 178101356 .

Cheers
Susan (VLD 277)
user_5359 (2025-12-18 07:18:55+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please be careful! You moved the node https://www.osm.org/node/11924611464 more than 100 meters over streets and buildings. 
I moved the node back to the original position.
yelisey90 (2025-12-20 18:28:55+00:00): reverted - blind following of iD suggestions which are often faulty, e.g. not all Bank of Georgia branches are branded as Solo, TBC payment terminals actually accept coins etc.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176192029
tux67 (2025-12-18 09:37:24+00:00): Hi tenefati,
house number 3 is on the other side of the street .. 
what is correct now - the location of the store or the newly added adress?

Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176070915
Glassman (2025-12-19 00:03:35+00:00): #TIP: when adding units to a building with multiple businesses, add each business as a node.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176070963
Glassman (2025-12-19 00:04:04+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176071155
user_5359 (2025-12-18 07:09:26+00:00): Welcome to OSM!

Short hint for the value of the key service_times. Is the service held every day or only on Sundays? In the latter case, you forgot the day abbreviation Su.
By the way, we write the time in 24-hour notation and do not abbreviate minutes.
Glassman (2025-12-19 00:14:00+00:00): Sorry, but I reverted this edit because we only split a way when there is a physical barrier between the ways, such as a curb or wall. I admit, I'm not sure that where it was split is accurate either. I'm going to send you a welcome message with links to the OSM US community's slack. I'd suggest asking there about how the way should be mapped.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176072164
grantslatton (2025-12-19 15:53:46+00:00): In this case the split has never been accurate, at least since I've lived in West Seattle since 2018.

My motivation here is my Tesla self-driving never merges to the right of the bridge fast enough and gets stuck on the left side of the solid white line caused by the bus lane, I believe because they use OSM data and it thinks it has more time than it does before it gets to the "fork" (despite the fork being only legal via paint, not a physical barrier).
Glassman (2025-12-19 19:30:39+00:00): Not separating ways without a barrier has been a long standing rule in OSM. While I believe the issue is with Tesla, I do believe bring it up on Slack or the community forum, c.osm.org, is appropriate.
Glassman (2025-12-28 01:11:01+00:00): We just had a lengthy conversation on Tesla. In a nut shell, the concensus is that Tesla uses TomTom data now instead of OSM. You may want to report this to Tomtom.
NeisBot (2025-12-18 07:23:44+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/202733872 v7 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/420153857 v5 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/4201403646 v4

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176072261
ilias_ (2025-12-18 12:51:23+00:00): either vandalism or an error. reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176093735
BubbaJuice (2026-02-16 23:19:35+00:00): What's the source for this name? Thanks
will l (2026-01-01 20:30:22+00:00): Hi there.  I'm just wondering what source you used for the new bridge's name?  I wanted to confirm too and the evidence I have found is that the name has not changed and is still the Frank J. Wood Bridge.  

e.g. https://www.maine.gov/dot/major-projects/frank-j-wood-bridge/updates 
https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/travel/frank-j-wood-bridge-reopens/97-365afec7-f0ba-462b-8a45-45171128f12e

Did you find something else?
CyberCatBlues (2026-01-02 15:06:53+00:00): I also believe that the bridge name has not changed. Several construction signs in the area say "Frank J. Wood Bridge Open"
will l (2026-01-18 11:47:45+00:00): Thanks for the feedback @CyberCatBlues and thanks for updating the name @Hellodude673.
samho1234567 (2025-12-18 02:55:26+00:00): Source:
http://pnr.sz.gov.cn/xxgk/gggs/content/post_12553422.html
BCNorwich (2025-12-18 05:55:15+00:00): Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

OSM usually only maps a feature once so I've removed the building, please see:-  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Regards Bernard,
NeisBot (2025-12-18 03:10:22+00:00): Hi RezGolf, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 81% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 3 landuse(s)
- 2 natural(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176073498
woodpeck (2025-12-18 08:33:53+00:00): looks legit