piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse (2023-07-31 17:13:40+00:00): > This was a value not in use

This is untrue - as you would have seen had you looked at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/archaeological_site=castle#projects !  

> by the very mapper who set out to restructure the historic=archaeological_site family half a year ago ... Since nothing is left of this castle to be seen (aerial imagery shows a plain meadow), mapping may be questionable in the first place,

Did you ask her about it?  I bet she'd have been able to help :)

The tiniest bit of investigation by me found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Threecastles%20Castle , which is linked from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/553974997 , which mentions old OS maps, which are available in iD, and this is clearly the "other" castle mentioned in the wiki page and clearly visible on the old OS map.

> There isn’t yet a clearly established tagging scheme for former,

Sure there is: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fortification_type#values

> So I specified this, not removing information, but adding information by being more precise.

That is simply untrue.  It was clearly mapped before as "something that used to be a castle".  Now it is mapped as "something that is some sort of fortification, but with no information about the period or structure".  See https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/53.18182/-6.48529 for the difference that it causes - now the eastern one is just "some sort of fortification" and the western one "some sort of castle".
ChillyDL (2023-07-31 18:13:15+00:00): I can see how annoying you must find it to interfere with what you would like your map to look like. It is just that, in any case, this is a no longer visible, archaeological site, and it should be tagged with the according tags for such. archaeological_site=castle is not helpful, unspecific as it is. I do not favour its introduction – or expansion of use beyond the odd occurrence, if you want so.
ChillyDL (2023-07-31 18:16:45+00:00): I am not too happy with fortification_type=castle either due to its vagueness, but actually, vague this object is. 
So how about adding fortification_type=castle?
SomeoneElse (2023-07-31 18:43:04+00:00): > I can see how annoying you must find it to interfere with what you would like your map to look like.

No, that is not the issue at all.  The issue is that you are removing information that other people have added to OpenStreetMap.  The keys and values processed by that map style are based entirely on the keys and values present in OSM; they are a reflection of the richness of data present in OSM.  If someone removes data from OSM (as you did here) any map consuming OSM data (including mine, but also including many others) will be poorer for it.

> So how about adding fortification_type=castle? 

That would get us back to where we were (and was a combination in use for this sort of feature previously).  However, given what we now know about the source and relation between these objects here, maybe a site relation would also make sense?

Also - (1) are you going to make this change or do I need to, and (2) what about any other similar tagged objects that you removed information from in the same time?
ChillyDL (2023-07-31 19:28:47+00:00): We seem to have slightly different views on what is an improvement. Good that we can agree on adding fortification_type=castle to the dozen of archaeological_site=fortification that I converted from archaeological_site=castle two days ago. 
Done.
SomeoneElse (2023-07-31 19:42:56+00:00): Thanks, and thanks for doing https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1yhK such as https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1023923130 as well.
maraf24 (2023-07-29 21:37:28+00:00): Budowa się zakończyła?
danvyr (2023-07-29 21:45:48+00:00): budynek wygląda na gotowy
maraf24 (2023-08-11 19:26:39+00:00): So next time write it in the comment, because "fix and add road and buildings" is not a proper changeset comment.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
eggie (2023-07-30 09:53:26+00:00): Aangepast naar het laatste officiële verkeersbesluit Staatscourant.
Sinds wanneer is de tijdelijke blokkade verwijderd en officieel een fietspad geworden?
MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-07-29 21:53:53+00:00): Dag M Archos

accesstagging is lastig.. 
Welke borden staan hier.
Verboden Toegang  Je hebt access=no getagd? 
Voor wie?
Beter nooit combinaties maken met access=no 
Is het wel een fietspad of staat er een paaltje?  
maxspeed 60?

Kijk je nog even?
MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-07-29 22:06:45+00:00): Ik heb het even aangepast met een barrier=block

Het zal niet meer routeren voor autoverkeer.
Groet
eggie
eggie (2023-07-30 06:38:05+00:00): Laat even weten of er daadwerkelijk een fietspad is gekomen of dat de versmalling met betonblokken er nog MVG
eggie
M Archos (2023-08-02 07:35:51+00:00): Het is een versmalling met betonblokken waar geen auto's door kunnen van ongeveer 10 meter lang met borden "fietspad"
eggie (2023-08-02 07:45:03+00:00): Oke... 
Die betonblokken had ik al ingetekend.
Welk bord staat aan weerszijde
G13 (niet verplicht fietspad)  G11 ( rond  blauw) of G12a (bromfietspad) ?
Dan pas ik het wel aan daar.
Groet..
eggie
eggie (2023-08-02 07:55:18+00:00): Ik heb het stukje fietspad aan de zuidkant ingetekend, waar de betonblokken al lagen. 
Je kunt van de noordzijde met de auto bij de paardenbakken komen. (nummer 3a)

Dit waren je eigen edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=139189300 ,
maar dan kon je dus niet met een auto bij de paardenbakken komen. 
De blokken liggen er om sluipverkeer tegen te gaan.
In de Staatscourant wordt alleen gerept over tijdelijke maatregelen. Kennelijk definitief geworden. 

access=no is bijna altijd fout. 
Laat nog even weten welk type fietspad het is. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-07-29 22:25:51+00:00): Dag M Archos.. Ik heb de slingerhekjes aangepast naar noexit=yes  Doodlopende weg. 

... anders zal een andere mapper wellicht  de weg weer doortrekken.

MVG
eggie
maro21 (2023-08-02 20:03:48+00:00): Proszę dawać odpowiednie opisy zestawów zmian. Tu nie zmieniłeś żadnej drogi ani budynku. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
maraf24 (2023-07-29 21:40:27+00:00): Brak podstaw do podzielenia tutaj budynku na dwa osobne.
danvyr (2023-07-29 21:48:18+00:00): in previous time you reverted my changes here where they was just fine with right levels
so don't start edits war
maraf24 (2023-08-01 08:28:41+00:00): This is not an answer to my claim.
Incorrect edit is still present. This is one building, not two.
maraf24 (2023-08-01 08:29:35+00:00): If you continue to make faked splitting of buldings I will report you to DWG.
maraf24 (2023-08-01 08:31:18+00:00): This is wiki page for you. You'll learn there how to do it according to osm rules and ground truth:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings#Building_parts
danvyr (2023-08-01 11:37:03+00:00): https://imgtr.ee/images/2023/08/01/8f9aed88c3afd177f4fdf95fed9d24ac.jpeg

Do you see two walls between buildings? This is my defining of 2 buildings with common wall. The same is with 3rd building in this row.
And that is the Ground Truth. 
good luck with reporting
eggie (2023-07-29 21:46:35+00:00): Beste M Archos  Je verwijdert data van de kaart.
Ook opritten kunnen op de kaart, maar dan met de juiste accestags. Bv access=private  Het zal dan niet routeren voor regulier verkeer, maar wel voor bv hulpdiensten die ook mbv OSM navigeren.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-07-29 21:48:40+00:00): oprit hersteld.. Het zal niet routeren.
dgmapping (2023-07-31 20:00:43+00:00): What happened to this deleted path? Based on Strava heatmap it's still used by foot and by bike: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117921834#map=18/59.45406/25.17751

I've also used this path several times, though couple of years ago.
Zverik (2023-07-31 20:30:31+00:00): Idk about strava, but there is a fence along the cycleway, so it isn't possible to turn from it along the channel. Also the path a little to the north (which I kept) is barely visible, so I doubt people use it.
dgmapping (2023-07-31 21:01:08+00:00): If I recall correctly there was a gap between fence and the barrier:
https://fotoladu.maaamet.ee/?basemap=hybriidk&zlevel=10,25.17544,59.46693&foto=5815919&overlay=avaleht&HDzlevel=14,84.98413,-179.66997&HD=img/a7r3/2022-04/30,2022-04-30-09-09-12_K1.jpg,7952,5304

Correct link for Strava heatmap: https://www.strava.com/heatmap#18.34/25.17734/59.45443/gray/all
Zverik (2023-07-31 21:20:15+00:00): Nope, no gaps. I planned a bicycle route through that path and examined the barrier very thoroughly. Had to use the cycleway instead.
Zverik (2023-07-31 21:28:20+00:00): Like this but there were no gaps, and no traces of a path along the fence: https://www.google.com/maps/@59.45454,25.1782723,3a,24.3y,234.1h,82.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scAEJ4jf_yEB--9QoVh5yVQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DcAEJ4jf_yEB--9QoVh5yVQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D56.133137%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
dgmapping (2023-08-01 07:39:42+00:00): Streetviews from Sep 2022 and Jun 2019 clearly show - there is a gap between two barriers, between bridge and ramp. Although it is quite narrow, it is possible to cycle through the gap, without dismounting. If there's been any recent changes to this area and now you really need to climb over the barrier, then it makes sense to delete the path.

Personally, I would be very cautious to delete any paths that show clear activity in Strava heatmap.
Zverik (2023-08-01 12:04:52+00:00): What I don't like in this discussion is that it's essentially a "but I see it on the imagery" vs a person who's been there two days ago. Now I'm getting a feeling I need to go back and study the area closer, because last year's data (and Strava traces of people who's been there who knows when) suggests otherwise.

I have been there, did not see a path. Period. If that's not convincing, feel free to restore the path.
dgmapping (2023-08-01 12:28:37+00:00): Basically there are 3 distinct things to consider:

Is the path clearly visible and usable?
Even if it's not, keep in mind that during the summer months grass can grow very quickly making it temporarily unusable. I've personally been there on autumn/winter/spring and it has been ridable with a bike.

Is the path a dead-end and completely blocked by the barrier next to the cycle path?
If it really is, then I would seriously consider deleting it.

Is it actually used?
The easiest way is to check Strava heatmap. It shouldn't display activities that are older than 12 months and it's updated monthly. On winter months you can also survey footprints on snow :D
dgmapping (2023-08-27 18:44:53+00:00): Restored the path after a survey.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140464374
Zverik (2023-08-28 08:08:31+00:00): Huh. Okay, sorry for having you go there :)
eggie (2023-07-29 22:21:17+00:00): Zoom in and out will do the miracle.
CTRL-F5 will speed rendering.
Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2023-07-30 12:08:40+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1687463013
It's okay I think... Rendering shops may last for days.
Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2023-07-29 21:40:00+00:00): Beste AW

Je brengt schade toe aan de kaart. Dat komt door schuiven met de kaart in editmodus.
Svp[ niet schuiven
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=139189820
MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-07-29 21:40:30+00:00): format OSM phone +31...
adrianojbr (2023-08-01 17:42:46+00:00): Olá, LucL37.

Via de acesso é highway=service normalmente.

highway=residencial são principalmente vias de trânsito entre moradias (podem ser privadas).
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139190025
eggie (2023-07-29 22:35:30+00:00): Dag T.. 
Volgens deze lokale mapper zou het fietspad inmiddels geopend zijn
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139134693#map=18/52.02599/5.68093&layers=N
Ik heb toen ook nog wat verder aangepast aan de noordzijde. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-07-29 22:40:06+00:00): https://www.spoorzone-ede.nl/nieuws/fiets-en-wandelbrug-naar-sysselt-open-directe-wandelpad-naar-het-bos-nog-even-afgesloten

Wat vertraging zie ik al..  Houd je het zelf in de gaten? 
MVG
eggie
T7107 (2023-07-30 16:28:31+00:00): De brug en noordelijke helft van het fietspad zijn open, de aansluiting aan de zuidkant is tijdelijk en provisorisch (in het verlengde van de Enkalaan).

Definitieve aansluiting aan de zuidkant is nog in ontwerpfase, zie conceptontwerp hier: https://www.spoorzone-ede.nl/noordstrook
eggie (2023-07-30 17:53:06+00:00): Ahh... Oke...   Lijkt me voorlopig prima oplossing zo.
Bedankt voor je reactie..
eggie
felipeeugenio (2023-07-29 23:04:16+00:00): Hola Victor
Ojo con el duuplicado de nodos y áreas.
Además por favor no usar nombres genéricos (camino privado)

saludos
joel56dt (2023-07-31 01:06:12+00:00): Hi pnorman, can you help me understand how these don't meet the living street definition? They appear to be living streets to me: low speeds and shared space between pedestrians and cars.

Thanks,
Joel
Glassman (2023-07-29 23:19:31+00:00): Why are you deleting these trails? Cleaning doesn't help us understand what you are trying to accomplish.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139190678
CairnKiller (2023-07-29 23:48:03+00:00): Certainly - to clarify, these are not trails, and in many places they're not even game tracks. Some hikers follow this route but it involves technical skills like route-finding, scrambling, and mountaineering. I GPX track to follow is not adequate and may encourage those who are unprepared. Mistakes and poor understanding of the risks here can be dangerous: earlier this month, a woman fell and died hiking in this area.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139190678
Glassman (2023-07-30 00:12:45+00:00): Thanks for getting back to me. OSM does map difficult trails using a sac_scale. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale

I understand that someone with little or no experience shouldn't be using difficult trails. Those trails should be tagged accordingly. Removing the trails just invites someone else to add them back. Especially those with Strava heatmaps. At least one of the trails removed, claimed they used Strava heatmaps to align the trail.
jake-low (2023-07-30 06:26:01+00:00): Just wanted to +1 what Glassman said; trails that get deleted tend to get redrawn soon after. For making sure that the general public doesn't accidentally wander onto difficult routes, it's generally better to add tags to describe the route rather than delete it. sac_scale is a good one (many hiking-specific maps won't display trails above a threshold SAC scale). Another useful tag is trail_visibility (if the route is hard to find). And if the trail isn't officially maintained or operated by the park or forest service, then you can add informal=yes to indicate that it's a social trail.
silversurfer83 (2023-07-31 08:43:03+00:00): Gude :)

du hast hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6422021249/history zusätzlich zum schon vorhandenen "abondoned:building=bunker" noch ein "building=bunker" eingetragen. Ist das nicht sehr widersprüchlich? Und seit v1 des nodes ist er als ruine getaggt, was aus der Ferne darauf schließen lässt, dass abandoned der bessere tag sein dürfte. Wie siehst du das? Warst du vor Ort und hast dir das Ding angesehen?

Grüße
silversurfer83
Galbinus (2023-07-31 16:45:17+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, die Änderung war unsinnig, ich bin da einer ID-Editor-Fehlermeldung auf den Leim gegangen, die meinte, der Bunker habe unvollständige Eigenschaften und einen Korrekturvorschlag machte. Ich habe da vor dem Klicken nicht genau hingeschaut. Habe das jetzt wieder zurückgeändert. 
Viele Grüße
Galbinus
silversurfer83 (2023-07-31 16:56:56+00:00): Top. Danke

Alles Gute
Silversurfer83
diamondarmorsteve (2024-05-05 23:54:32+00:00): This is not an abbreviated highway name. This is simply part of Missouri's Supplemental Highway network, which uses letters. I will revert this shortly.
Filip009 (2023-08-28 12:40:45+00:00): Aký má zmysel táto jednosmerka? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1193241714/history
Probertp (2023-09-26 23:48:13+00:00): Zdravím. Išlo o omyl, nakoľko to na danom mieste vyzerá ako odbočovací pruh a využíva sa vozidlami pri odbáčaní. V skutočnosti to však bude miesto, kde zastavuje autobus, keďže je tam zastávka SAD, avšak vodorovné značenie pre zastávku BUS absentuje. Jednosmerka bola vymazaná, vec by tak mala byť v poriadku. S pozdravom.
Sylvain M (2024-09-30 14:49:54+00:00): Salut @simongrossi 
Sympa d'avoir ajouté cette haie surfacique : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1193241877

Pour info, il faut ajouter "area=yes" sur le way pour qu'elle ne soit pas considérée comme une double haie linéaire.
(je viens de l'ajouter 😉)
Sylvain M (2024-10-08 21:52:31+00:00): Et bien je me suis trompé, cf. ce sujet :
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/issues/16

Du coup, pour que la haie s'affiche comme une surface, j'ai ajouté landuse=forest

J'espère que c'est OK 😉
simongrossi (2024-10-09 07:15:33+00:00): Ok merci pour les précisions!
velomeloman (2023-08-01 09:55:19+00:00): Здравствуйте. Заменили канаву на овраг - ок, но зачем по правому берегу его убрали?
ad47 (2023-08-04 06:25:39+00:00): Приветсвую, у меня возникли большие сомнения в актуальноси верхней границы овражка по правому берегу, по факту она пересекалась с речкой (скорее всего там это вообще ручей). Надо будет на местности уточнить.
AgusQui (2023-08-01 03:11:01+00:00): Hola Matías, estas cometiendo algún error al dividir ways, porque estas generando muchos errores en relaciones de colectivos, tal vez en otras también, estas generando huecos, por ejemplo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14186915#map=15/-34.5761/-58.5630 ¿tal vez no estas descargando los atributos de las vías antes de dividir?
LockOnGuy (2023-07-30 00:11:44+00:00): Hi ڕاستی, Please stop changing name without knowledge or surveying the area. In this changeset you changed the name of node 6043565085 from Arabic to Kurdish, while in fact the Arabic name was wrong at first .It is Al-Kasid Company, that's the logo and name on the building not "Ford Company", this mean you are just read the node name and and translate it and change it to another language without the local knowledge, this is wrong. Please stop such edits.       
Regards.
tyfi (2023-07-30 00:14:09+00:00): This also fixes the concurrency between Route A and Route B which ignored A entirely.
tyfi (2023-07-30 00:16:17+00:00): Also added the J-turn intersection between Route A, Route P, and U.S. Route 63.
tyfi (2023-07-30 00:16:56+00:00): The way I implemented the J-turn is to add link roads (separated by islands, so these link roads are justified) to the route relations.
tyfi (2023-07-30 00:17:50+00:00): ^ Correction: the J-turn intersection is between Route B, Route P, and U.S. Route 63.
LockOnGuy (2023-07-30 00:19:50+00:00): Why did you remove the "AL" from node's 4472327489 name? it was correct and you made it wrong here, look at this picture:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=743366530335319     
Also the 'name' and 'name:ckb' is wrong, is it's not matching the sign, see above link.     
Please don't change names without local knowledge or actually survey the area.      
Regards.
adrianojbr (2023-08-01 17:44:29+00:00): Olá, Victor!

A página sobre highway=planned redireciona para highway=proposed, conforme https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dproposed&uselang=pt.

Abraço!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139192479
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-19 15:57:40+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145297825
❤️‍🔥 (2026-06-14 12:25:59+00:00): hi jake, given that this was 3 years ago, is it safe to assume all signs have been installed now? i surveyed a few recently, but not all 39
jakecopp (2026-06-14 14:22:28+00:00): Hi, I’m not confident they have all been installed. I think it’s best to be conservative and remove instances of oneway:bicycle=construction (and without updating the check_date). Thanks!
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-19 15:56:00+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145297751
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-19 15:55:54+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145297748
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-19 15:53:26+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145297628
eggie (2023-07-30 05:40:24+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback  Je hebt hier wegen uit OSM verwijderd. Waarom is dat?
Je commentaar is small edits. Dat is niet erg duidelijk.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=139192799

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2023-07-30 05:58:39+00:00): Verwijderde straten hersteld.
...operator HTM verwijderd (hoort niet op de rails, maar op de relatie.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-07-30 06:08:51+00:00): Hi Erich,

Please comment your edits properly.

F.i. added surface=compacted
Mapping in the Hague is difficult becaus a formar mapper conneted al the landuse with the road... That is against the OSM convention.

Greetz,
eggie
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-19 15:53:24+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145297627
tyfi (2023-07-30 01:19:35+00:00): I verified the concurrency in the process.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-08-01 05:13:04+00:00): Reverted by DWG due to incorrectly deleting roads

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139280498
Fizzie-DWG (2023-08-01 04:53:49+00:00): Hello OhioPettis. Could you please provide photographic evidence of the trench blocking this road? Thank you, Graeme Fitzpatrick,
OSMF Data Working Group
Xvtn (2023-12-14 20:31:56+00:00): Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. No complaints from me - looks great!
nevw (2023-07-30 07:16:05+00:00): Hi, I disconnected your new cycleway from an underground powerline. Are you able to check if there are cycle lanes on West St between Church St and the Pacific Hwy as the new cycleway you added probably links to the cycleway or lanes on the Pacific Hwy here.
kimaryan (2023-07-30 11:03:17+00:00): I rode it last week. It just starts at the junction of Chirch and West St.  Linmk to Pacific Highway won't be done for a while. Thanks for looking at this, it's my first edit. Does anything else need to be fixed? The map in link above shows the layout.
nevw (2023-07-31 01:50:03+00:00): I think it is all mapped fine, thanks
kimaryan (2023-07-31 02:03:34+00:00): The addition doesn't seem to have appeared yet. Am I missing a step?
nevw (2023-07-31 03:08:52+00:00): The mapping updates the osm database immediately but the rendering of the map takes longer, with the standard layer sometimes taking a few minutes to a day or so. Refreshing or clearing the cache on your browser may help (control+r for me and control+ f5 for some). Other upstream caches may be the cause delays - my phone takes a very long time even after clearing the cache.
Another way to see the latest is to copy the url from your browser and paste in a tor browser which is unlikely to be caching part of the map tiles for your area.
kimaryan (2023-07-31 06:39:57+00:00): I viewed in the Edge browser and can see it now. Thanks.
tyfi (2023-07-30 03:17:42+00:00): I noticed this in the history of one of the ways for MO W (IIRC it was a name_1 key).
tyfi (2023-07-30 03:21:55+00:00): Changeset #102703929 stripped this name from MO W for some reason. It's totally fine for a route to be given both a road name and a state letter designation.
Rukkhadevata (2023-08-13 11:59:50+00:00): Reverted by #139820595. If you have any objection to the method of labeling administrative regions in China, please give your comments
Davileci (2023-08-06 19:32:53+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:place=neighbourhood#Posibles_errores_de_etiquetaje
AgusQui (2023-08-07 17:28:35+00:00): Ups, puede fallar dijo Tusam