piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Marvk (2026-07-04 00:19:42+00:00): Hi Lisapple,
looks good to me, except some child relations were missing stops/platforms, and stops/platforms should be ordered at the top of the relation list as per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Service_routes

I took the liberty of cleaning it up, feel free to have a look also :-) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185068500

Beste Regards
Marv
Lisapple (2026-07-06 15:00:40+00:00): Hi Marvk,

Yes, you're right about putting stops and platforms on top of members list. And I've also only added the first stop and platform of the sub-relation.

So thank you for having fixed it.

After talking with another contributor, I'll also use "→" instead of "⟶", and use the `name` field of stops and cities instead of only the city name in the official country locale (since some countries like Belgium don't have a single official language). So I'll fix my other changes and plan to split all other Flixbus routes.

Maxime.
MassCartog (2026-07-02 17:40:28+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM, in this changeset you removed a ton of valid features for an invalid reason. This is incorrect, and they have been restored. Please use the access=private instead if that is applicable. Thanks

Please read for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
OSM_RogerWilco (2026-07-03 08:32:03+00:00): Moin WorthYapper958,

besser ist es, so weit entfernte Änderungen in separaten Änderungen hochzuladen.

Außerdem wäre es schön, wenn Du im Kommentar beschreibst, was Du getan hast und nenne Quellen für Deine Änderungen.

Siehe: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments

Viele Grüße
Roger Wilco
user_5359 (2026-07-03 15:43:10+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13983558248. What is the mean of the tag aaaaa = NEWSTOP?
multimob (2026-07-06 08:18:45+00:00): It was a mistake. Removed now. Thanks for helping.
VictorIE (2026-07-06 05:53:29+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4601920216/

Are there full traffic lights here? They need to be mapped separately as highway=traffic_signals
CharlieJeit (2026-07-08 13:44:03+00:00): I never realised pedestrian crossing tagging was so complicated! I think I followed Tag:crossing=traffic_signals documentation this time. Thanks C
literan (2026-07-02 17:20:50+00:00): на мосту Победы - не памятники в память о чем-то/ком-то, а декоративные композиции https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82_%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8B_(%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B0)
literan (2026-07-02 17:25:24+00:00): на Бородинском мосту не стелы, а обелиски
BodhidharmaI (2026-07-04 10:28:46+00:00): На Мосту победы всё-таки не artwork, а memorial=statue (в описании к этому тегу указано, что не важно, реальный или вымышленный человек - на деле это всё равно две статуи людей в полный рост). И именно как памятники, а не как просто какие-то декорации
literan (2026-07-04 10:41:27+00:00): Я привел пруф насчет Моста Победы, а ваш пруф каков? В память о ком эти статуи?

есть, кстати, artwork:type=statue, и рендерится оно абсолютно так же как memorial=statue
BodhidharmaI (2026-07-04 11:09:27+00:00): 1. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:memorial=statue?uselang=en

2. Цитата автора (Томского): «на монументы воинов — защитников Москвы» (то есть, по сути, “fictitious person”, упомянутые в описании к п.1 выше)
literan (2026-07-04 12:34:40+00:00): я прошу пруф на ваше утверждение, что это памятники (memorial).
kenken234 (2026-07-02 16:56:57+00:00): Official NParks notice:
https://www.nparks.gov.sg/docs/default-source/notices-docs/lnr-berlayar-creek-boardwalk-maintenance-sign_03jun26.pdf?sfvrsn=8a2ae0eb_1
Saulius L (2026-07-02 20:54:11+00:00): Takas paplūdimyje reikalingas navigaciniams sumetimams. Dar matau buvo sudarkyta pajūrio E9 trasa.
Tomas Straupis (2026-07-03 04:02:38+00:00): Kai mes sukuriame žemėlapį, tai pajūryje neturi būti rodomas joks takas/kelias, nes ten nieko nėra. Pridėjau tuščią atkarpą į maršruto ryšį.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-02 17:39:26+00:00): Hm, I'm not sure if this would count as "speculation" since Wikipedia cites a news report from the Las Vegas Review Journal (IIRC) stating that CC 215 will be redesignated I-215 and turned over to NDOT once it's fully up to freeway standards (and it is).
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-02 17:44:14+00:00): Okay, it's from the Las Vegas Sun, not the Review Journal, so my bad. Anyway, here's the relevant article: https://lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/27/what-projected-date-finishing-las-vegas-beltway/
Joseph R P (2026-07-02 18:15:26+00:00): Couple of things worth noting:

This article is very old (enough so that it'll be eligible to vote next year) so it would be cautionary to assume that the information is outdated. Google only cites the Wikipedia article which in turn only cites this old news article for any information about the extension of I 215 along the county-maintained segment, so this seems like the only information we have from an official source unless there's more recent info from NDOT or an article that cites NDOT out there regarding this.

If I 215 were to ever be extended, or at least we had recent confirmation that it will be extended along the western and northern stretches of the beltway, I don't think a not-yet-existent designation needs its own relation since it would have to be deleted anyway. If confirmed it would be better to add fut_ref=I 215 to the segments of the current non-Interstate Beltway. This way you would also avoid another relation that follows the exact same path as another relation (being the CC 215 one) and avoid more relation clutter. Like I have said before, it's best not to create a route relation unless it's really needed to avoid making it more tedious to edit features and not have to worry about downloading all of the relations attached to do something like splitting a way. The most useful road route relations are ones that are for a designation that follows a network of ways, usually those that have different names and/or if there's Wikidata that can be linked to the route.

One more note on future-mapping—fut_ref=*, proposed:highway=*, etc. are mostly useful as notes for mappers to indicate a well-confirmed future change is coming up and can spread the word that updates will be needed in the foreseeable future. This info is never used for navigation nor does it represent features that are on the ground in the present day, which is was OSM data is intended and expected to be used for, and it's best that it is used for editors' notes only. It's similar to the logic of only mapping demolished features that don't appear as removed in any provided imagery as editors' notes. Just like relations that could be combined or are redundant because they don't provided any unique information, excessive mapping/tagging of past/future features can effectively be considered clutter.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-02 18:36:54+00:00): Hahaha!
I already added "fut_ref = I 215" for the associated ways. To be honest, the only reason I added this Future I-215 relation was to get "I-215 FUT" shields to appear on them (such as on OSM Americana).
Reading further, the Wikipedia article's History section basically states that the entire highway was meant to be an Interstate from the get-go (but, of course, without federal funding, this took WAY longer). Furthermore, recent documents of NDOT's List of State-Maintained Highways occasionally refer to the CC 215 segment as "IR215" (I-215), as if the merger was already done (but it isn't). I asked an AI chatbot why the 215 merger hasn't happened yet (even though all of it is up to Interstate standards), and it claims that Clark County and NDOT are waiting for the interchange upgrade of CC 215 and Summerlin Parkway to finish first.
rohieb (2026-07-02 17:11:49+00:00): source war auch noch "GeoBasis-DE/LGLN DOP20 (2026)", hab ich vergessen.
mildlyconcernedtomato (2026-07-02 17:32:40+00:00): Cleanup for this note: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4980909
Marvk (2026-07-04 00:02:12+00:00): Hi Xiliuz, sind diese wege jetzt wirklich alle highway=residential?

Beste Grüße
Marv
Highstaker (2026-07-06 04:21:33+00:00): Водная колонка. В OrganicMaps отображается. Не знаю, как правильно обозначить, чтобы на OpenStreetMap показывалось.
osmviborg (2026-07-02 19:16:46+00:00): Capacity er vist lidt forkert: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station
Martin Jepsen (2026-07-02 19:46:45+00:00): Tak, og det skal vist også være en man_made=charge_point
Szymson (2026-07-02 18:42:09+00:00): name=Przyjazna 24 jest błędem
tomek7667 (2026-07-02 18:45:26+00:00): To nie prawda. Jestem właścicielem tego domu i został nadany już numer budynkowi.
Szymson (2026-07-02 18:45:55+00:00): No to dodajesz takie informacje w tagach addr: a nie w name
Szymson (2026-07-02 18:46:20+00:00): Już to poprawiłem
tomek7667 (2026-07-02 18:47:14+00:00): Dziękuję :)
Marvk (2026-07-03 23:24:58+00:00): Hallo ArneRei,

du hast https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1534658358 hinzugefügt, aber an der parallel verlaufenden Straße die entsprechenden sidewalk und cycleway tags nicht angepasst. 

Außerdem: Gibt es hier für den Gehweg irgendeine Art Beschilderung (Zeichen 240/241)? Wenn nein, dann sollte auf der Straße noch bicycle=yes ergänzt werden, und in jedem Fall die Beschilderung.

Beste Grüße
Marv
ArneRei (2026-07-06 20:42:31+00:00): Moin,
das hatte ich nicht auf dem Schirm, sorry!
Ich habe die Tags der Straße nun angepasst aber weiß leider nicht, wo konkret ich die Beschilderung eintragen kann/soll.

LG Arne
Marvk (2026-07-06 20:47:53+00:00): Hi Arne,

danke fürs Anpassen :-) 

Dieser Wiki-Artikel beschreibt ausführlich, auf welche Tags sich bei welcher Beschilderung geeinigt wurde: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren

Wenn du konkrete Fragen hast, frag mich gerne.

Grüße
Marv
bartgron (2026-07-03 21:15:00+00:00): Zestaw zmian zawiera błędy i został wycofany.
Pozdrawiam
Szymson (2026-07-02 18:48:40+00:00): Błędnie
Davileci (2026-07-02 21:47:46+00:00): Hola:
El problema de esta ubicación es que no pertenece a la parroquia de San Vicente de Fervenzas ni se corresponde con su código INE.
Véase https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:ref:ine#Nodos y https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2sCI
Manolo da Televinte (2026-07-02 22:06:23+00:00): A veces puede haber conflictos en las asignaciones que tiene cada lugar en su respectiva parroquia. Si consultas el artículo de la Wikipedia en gallego, verás que según el PGOM municipal, este lugar aparece en la parroquia de Villarraso (https://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penas_do_Porto,_San_Vicente_de_Fervenzas,_Aranga). De hecho, pertenece a la parroquia eclesiástica de Santa Eulalia de Curtis, como aparece también en dicho artículo de la Wikipedia. Puedes consultar también la ubicación de este lugar en el Catastro https://www1.sedecatastro.gob.es/CYCBienInmueble/OVCConCiud.aspx?del=15&mun=3&UrbRus=R&RefC=15003A018001910000WM&Apenom=&esBice=&RCBice1=&RCBice2=&DenoBice=&from=nuevoVisor&ZV=NO&anyoZV= Sinceramente, prefiero que esté ahí y no en unas coordenadas que parecen haberse seleccionado de una manera completamente aleatoria.
JJIglesias (2026-07-02 20:53:52+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Te sugerimos poner multiples edificaciones por cada conjunto de cambios (Changeset) y NO poner Nombres a las construcciones a no ser que tengan un Nombre real.

Ten cuidado de no permitir que los edificios se superpongan entre sí o con otros elementos ya mapeados, como las carreteras. Si se produce una superposición y aparece un aviso en el icono de advertencia (triángulo) del editor iD, no selecciones la opción ""marcar esto como superior/inferior""; en su lugar, elige ""ignorar este problema"" y desplaza el edificio que estás mapeando para asegurarte de que no se superponga con el otro objeto.

Los edificios no deben compartir nodos entre sí ni con otros elementos. Si esto ocurre accidentalmente, puedes utilizar la opción de desconectar (tecla ""D"") en el editor iD para separar los nodos (los nodos compartidos aparecen de color gris en lugar de blanco). Para evitar que esto suceda, mantén presionada la tecla ALT mientras colocas un nodo cerca de otro edificio; esto impedirá que los nodos se unan automáticamente.

Saludos cordiales y sigue mapeando.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-03 06:18:45+00:00): Same as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185001953
eerib (2026-07-05 08:05:25+00:00): This edit has been reverted by CS185127356.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185127356

Please do not mass delete features from OpenStreetmap. Also, do not add random features and use all caps "PRIVATE PROPERTY". Instead you can use legal access tags. If you need help then I recommend asking for help on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-05 09:58:21+00:00): Thanks @eerib
Quang Huy NGUYEN (2026-07-03 17:29:50+00:00): Good job! keep on mapping!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184994586
EvanSiroky (2026-07-21 23:56:47+00:00): Hey, I'm a local mapper from Folsom. I saw that a review was requested, so I'm giving a review.

It looks like Greenback was changed in this section from being a divided road or in other words a dual carriageway (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway). The only time it's appropriate to map roads as a dual carriageway is if there is a physical barrier that prevents vehicles from turning across the road. At this section, I think it is actually possible for vehicles to turn left across the road, so this section of the road should probably be changed back to not be a dual carriageway so that driving directions can be given that shows it is possible to make a left turn across the road and into the various business areas.
Car Tographer (2026-07-04 07:51:10+00:00): Hi,
it looks like you have deleted a small section of Tring Road (way/1311325587) but looking at aerial imagery it seems to still exist. Was this a mistake?
Kamil Kalata (2026-07-02 19:35:04+00:00): Witaj!
Widzę, że próbowałaś dodać ławki, ale miałaś z tym mały problem. Niestety, ale przez niego usunięta została część chodnika bliżej wejścia po północno-zachodniej stronie. Na przyszłość pamiętaj, że jeżeli dodajesz nowy punktowy, niezależny od niczego obiekt, to po prostu dodaj nowy punkt, który nie jest do niczego przyczepiony.
mueschel (2026-07-05 16:13:32+00:00): Something went wrong with this import. Where can we find the mandatory documentation? 
There are many tags which definitely shouldn't be in OSM.
Before import it must be checked if the objects already exist in OSM - I found duplicates.

I suggest to revert this import so that it can be done again from scratch following all our import guidelines.
gurglypipe (2026-07-04 13:20:20+00:00): Hiya, are you sure about this? The Public Rights of Way overlay in ID (which is derived from the council’s definitive map) says this particular stretch is a public footpath, not a bridleway. The bridleway descends to Bowderdale.
gurglypipe (2026-07-07 08:26:39+00:00): I’ve reverted this change as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185250891, as per the above. If that’s not right, please reply and give some more information, thanks
Nick Wild (2026-07-07 21:04:10+00:00): The bit from The Calf North is ambiguous on the Ordnance Survey maps but the bit South is definitely marked as Bridleway. Perhaps this isn't definitive?  I've changed it to "cycling - yes" as this whole route is well recognised as an MTB route from Sedbergh to Bowderdale on many MTB websites.
gurglypipe (2026-07-08 08:28:23+00:00): OK there’s a few problems here now:

1. You absolutely must not use Ordnance Survey maps as a source for OSM, as the licensing does not permit it. There are a limited few of them (available as imagery in the ID editor) where the licensing allows them to be used, but maps like Explorer and Land Ranger absolutely cannot be used. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey#Map_licence

2. I’ve checked against the definitive map (https://wmfc.highway-iams.uk/Live/PBLC/PIP/?cg=networks) and the rights of way overlay in ID is correct: there is no legal bridleway connection across the top of the Calf, only a footpath to the summit. Unless you have some (appropriately licensed) source which indicates that the landowner has given permission for bikes to be there, we should not map bikes as permitted in OSM.

3. It doesn’t matter what routes people take in practice, or what routes they put on an MTB website, or what routes they really want to have a legal RoW status, OSM has to stick to the ground truth and actual legal status. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability :)
DwarfNebula_ (2026-07-03 09:06:00+00:00): Hi Remlicht, dit pad is nodig om de routing te laten werken. Anders kan je niet vanaf het plein naar de weg komen.
svasylen (2026-07-05 09:48:18+00:00): Перепрошую, а нащо Ви потерли стежку до струмка, нанесену згідно навігатора?
Andrej-T (2026-07-05 10:48:28+00:00): Тиждень назад там були, джерела верхні пересохлі. Пішли отуда вниз. Іде такий собі неявновиражений контрофорсик, завалений гіляками. Видно, що де-коли по ньому ходять, але певної стежки там нема, так - напрямок... Спускаешся просто по схилу у сторону розпадку. Там врешті і джерела як такого, точкового також нема. Просто мережа маленьких струмків, які стікають по  широкому розпадку під зеленими лопухами. Потім вишукуєш якусь більш-менш зручну впадинку і починаєш набирати воду горням.
svasylen (2026-07-05 11:43:49+00:00): то це може бути інший потік. Там рельєф не такий простий, як на мапі і мій струмок з іншої сторони плеча.
І так, воно ще не облаштоване, а позначено те місце, де був найкращий відрізок для пляшки.
І я б на Вашому місці не наносив всю довжину струмка, не пройшовши його - вони легко повертаються під землю.
Andrej-T (2026-07-05 13:45:21+00:00): - Хм...! Може і так...
svasylen (2026-07-05 13:48:21+00:00): до речі позначка яку ви зробили не відображатиметься на mapy.com. Планую написати їм звернення на покращення
Andrej-T (2026-07-05 13:59:02+00:00): А на mapy.com вона з'являється не скоро. Може через місяць, навіть.
Краще всього відстежувати фіксацію змін на freemap.sk
До речі - дуже класний ресурс!
От до прикладу, наша локація - вже зафіксувалася
https://www.freemap.sk/#map=16/48.626931/23.947577&layers=X
svasylen (2026-07-05 14:02:54+00:00): я не про час. Мапи взагалі не беруть собі колонки, скважини та колодязі. І між іншим, вогнища. Тільки Джерела відображатимуться.
Ресурси ті знаю і користуюся - там менше хвилин.
Пропоную розділити наші струмки і змінити тип об'єкта
svasylen (2026-07-05 14:12:41+00:00): я помилився - це стосується тільки скважин та колодязів, а amenity=drinking_water знайшов в іншому місці на карті. Єдине що це не зовсім призначено для місць на струмку))
Andrej-T (2026-07-05 14:31:38+00:00): - Розділити...!? Ну, нехай буде так... Воно не зовсім, звичайно відповідає, але то таке...
А тип об'єкта -  згоден! Мабуть ближче по сенсу - позначити, як джерело... 
Врешті, головне в данному випадку лишити інфу, що там є вода. А кому треба - вже на місці розбереться...
svasylen (2026-07-05 14:35:13+00:00): Розділити бо по деревах видно, що ці струмки з різних сторін плеча, по якому йде стежка до мого. Чи Ви пройшли від моєї точки і лопухи туди повертають?
Andrej-T (2026-07-05 15:33:29+00:00): В тому місці косогори, якась пн.-сх. експозиція і навігатор досить сильно хибить. 
Я там підгріб у струмку бочаг, щоб вода набиралася, засік точку в навігаторі і пішов на стоянку, поки муляка протече. Потім повернулися з каністрами, шукали -шукали то місце по координатам, так і не знайшли. Розбіжність 20-30метрів.
Так що ці позначки в тому місці - то дуже умовно...
svasylen (2026-07-05 15:36:17+00:00): мою позначку по записаним мною координатам знайшли і записали ту стежку
MxxCon (2026-07-06 05:21:13+00:00): Reverting this changeset due to data consistency and tagging issues with the new landuse polygons. The residential buildings in this area are already fully mapped, making these additions redundant. Additionally, the boundaries introduce inconsistencies: omitting major thoroughfares like Central Avenue and 70th Avenue while including minor perpendicular streets, and incorrectly include public sidewalks under the residential landuse tag.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184996356
ArizonaMapper (2026-07-06 08:47:18+00:00): This was incorrectly reverted. Land use polygons are separate from building polygons and are not an either-or. Furthermore, landuse=residential is allowed to overlap roads, per Tag:landuse: "It is acceptable to map landuse to stop at the boundary of roads, and it is also acceptable for landuse to overlap road area on roads where the right of way is not significant enough to warrant a break in the landuse area."

Please revert the reversion or I will escalate.
DENelson83 (2026-07-04 21:35:19+00:00): Wow!  Thank you so much for doing this.
maxwellward (2026-07-04 21:38:32+00:00): No worries! Was there over Canada Day and figured I’d get it updated :) I think the bridge is slightly offset to the north of where it should be but I didn’t have means to verify
DENelson83 (2026-07-04 21:48:04+00:00): Well, I simply extended the alignment of 6th Street to get the bridge alignment, and I think it is actually slightly to the south of the alignment of 6th.
Rom1 (2026-07-03 08:53:01+00:00): Pour info, j'ai annulé cette modification car ce n'est pas le bon objet qui était concerné.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-03 06:16:16+00:00): Hi, thanks for your contribution! I noticed that the name=* tag for this bus stop is 'Fresh picked pantry'. Could you please clarify how this name is verifiable, such as whether it appears on a sign or is commonly used locally as the feature name?
rskedgell (2026-07-03 07:32:59+00:00): With overgrown footpaths, particularly public rights of way like this one, it's usually better to add descriptive tags rather than delete them. The PRoW still exists, even if it's impassable.

Tags which might be useful for this include: trail_visibility=* and obstacle=vegetation

It's also worth adding surface=* and sometimes smoothness=* and (for unpaved paths) tracktype=*

If you have the time, you could also report it to Herts CC at https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and-pavements/report-a-problem/report-a-highway-fault/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way.aspx

I've reinstated the way and added obstacle=vegetation
Neil Rickards (2026-07-05 07:55:22+00:00): Thank you! I hadn’t spotted that this is a PRoW. Will report it to Herts CC
eggie (2026-07-02 20:35:59+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
qstep (2026-07-03 09:10:09+00:00): Ez biztos, hogy pékség?
Spush (2026-07-03 10:27:50+00:00): Nem tudom, a neten csak annyi infó van, hogy a cég neve változott, gondolom a funkció maradt a régi ezért ahhoz nem nyúltam.
qstep (2026-07-03 11:02:40+00:00): A weboldaluk alapján mindenféle üzemeltetéssel foglalkoznak cégek és önkormányzatok számára. Ez inkább iroda lehet, office=company talán. Bár a cégjegyzék és a weblap szerint is  1134 Budapest, Róbert Károly körút 76-78. a cím.
eggie (2026-07-02 20:30:56+00:00): Dag Ben,  Zou je svp je edits van concreet commentaar kunnen voorzien.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-07-02 20:33:24+00:00): cycle_barrier hersteld.
Je edits https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=184997650#17/51.88442/5.24851

MVG
eggie
Kovoschiz (2026-07-03 11:18:45+00:00): Really `=permissive` ?
eggie (2026-07-02 20:29:45+00:00): Welkom bij OSM,

Met dit soort acties zijn we niet blij.

Reverted by changeset #184998518

MVG
eggie
validator