piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
dktue (2023-03-14 08:59:13+00:00): Die Gebäude sollte nicht mit amenity=fire_station getaggt werden, dieses Tag ist für das Betriebsgelände der Feuerwache gedacht. Die Gebäude der Wache sollten mit building=* (im Falle des Wachgebäudes mit building=fire_station) versehen werden.
Namen haben die Gebäude nicht, der Name der Feuerwache hängt bereits am Betriebsgelände.
dktue (2023-03-14 08:47:59+00:00): In diesem Änderungssatz wurde amenity=fire_station durch area=yes ersetzt. Somit fehlt die Information an der Fläche, dass es sich um das Gelände der Feuerwache handelt.
flohoff (2023-03-14 16:04:34+00:00): Moin,
warst du da vor ort und hast dir das angesehen? Ich habe das nie bearbeitet weil ich das anzweifle. Und "unbefugte" wäre ja auch private nicht no oder ?

Flo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133643880
ovruni (2023-03-14 00:10:14+00:00): Hola agranizo,  en este conjunto de cambios veo que se esta ingresando como fuente Maxar, sin embargo sus conjuntos de cambios no coindicen con las imagenes de Maxar, ¿existe alguna otra fuente que se este usando? Por otra parte, existen carreteras desconectadas que se han colocado como residenciales, pero no conectan casas.
Saludos
agranizo (2023-03-15 09:15:48+00:00): Hola ovruni,

las vias de esta población las trazé utilizando las imagenes de Maxar Premium Imagery. Para algunas vías utilizá la ayude del plugin MapWithAI. 
Desafortunadamente, algunas vías fueron agragadas como residenciales, sin estar dentro de una problación.  Mi propuesta es corregir las vias existentes a 'unclassified' y conservar solo aquellas que estan adjacentes a casas / edificios.
Escribeme si estas de acuerdo con la porpiesta presentada.

Saludos cordiales, 
agranizo
ovruni (2023-03-16 05:54:51+00:00): Hola, en caso de utilizar el plugin MapWithAI por favor alinea todas las vías que se crearon desde allí antes de subirlas o de lo contrario dibújalas manualmente para que coincidan con Maxar. Para las carreteras que conectan pueblos y que se encuentran con residencial se tienen que cambiar a unclassified. Para cualquier consulta sobre el mapeo que hacemos en OSM en Perú tenemos el canal de Telegram de la comunidad peruana en https://t.me/osmpe .
Saludos
Frans S (2023-03-15 09:36:53+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.

You are a new mapper. Welcome to HOTOSM.

We cannot expect that you are already familiar with all issues around mapping. Therefore, I inform you about the most issues,

Please pay attention to next points:
Buildings are in general rather rectangular. Just 4, 6 or 8 nodes are sufficient.  You try to follow the (sometimes vaque) rooflines, which results in weird mappings.

Tag buildings as building=yes. Nothing more, no names.

Please map each building accurate over the rooflines and squared(rectangular only).


Don't connect nodes to other buildings or features.

The shadow of a building is not a part of the building. 

Do not cluster buildings. Each building need to be mapped individually.

See also this document:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11PsAW0bzUZHbS8YnbaFzqOYhJY7tSPYG/view?usp=share_link


Best regards and keep mapping !
Frans S
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133644166
gogorm (2023-03-14 16:57:21+00:00): Hi.
Why was the footpath between Kilakee Walk and Firhouse Shopping Centre deleted?
gogorm (2023-03-14 17:01:19+00:00): Hi.
Why was the footpath between Killakee View and Ballycullen Drive deleted?
wille (2023-03-14 21:14:50+00:00): Edit was correctly reverted by SomeoneElse_Revert. Both IBGE and municipal administration data states Praça, instead of Largo in the name. http://mapeamento.salvador.ba.gov.br/geo/desktop/index.html#on=layer/default;eixos/eixos;bairros/bairros;scalebar_meters/scalebar_m;orto2016/Ortoimagem_Salvador_2016_2017&loc=0.29858214173896974;-4286629.815274021;-1459017.5662220828
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133644351
Supaplex (2023-03-14 03:32:29+00:00): Hi, 

Could you split the changeset, because it crossed two countries.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133644544
ChrissW-R1 (2024-09-08 21:46:41+00:00): Sorry for this. Today I have a closer look on this changes to split them up in smaller packets.
ovruni (2023-03-14 00:23:37+00:00): Hola, en este conjunto de cambios tambien se agregan vias que no coinciden con Maxar
agranizo (2023-03-15 09:25:27+00:00): Hola ovruni,

en este conjunto de cambios trazé las vias utilzando las imagenes de Maxar Premium Imagery utilizanod JOSM.  Por favor, envíame tus comentarios acerca de las väias para ayudar con la correción del las mismas.

Saludos cordiales, 
agranizo
ovruni (2023-03-16 05:56:56+00:00): Hola, como mencionaste en el conjunto de cambios 133644004, parece que no se han alineado todas las vías de MapWithAI antes de subirse. Por favor revisarlas antes de subirlas o mapearlas manualmente.
Saludos
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-03-13 23:12:07+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 132737079, 132737109, 132737142, 132737197, 132737260, 132737316, 132737328, 132737346, 132737419, 132737623, 132737726, 132737747, 132737771, 132757779, 132757919, 132757978, 132758052, 132758118, 132758167, 132758244, 132758375, 132758602, 132758700, 132759007, 132759118, 132759225, 132766432, 132766464, 132766499, 132766564, 132767278, 132768897, 132768907, 132770748, 132770776, 132770786, 132770805, 132771499, 132814918, 132847020, 132847031, 132847107, 132852080, 132860516, 132860533, 132860563, 132860612, 132860720, 132860758, 132860778, 132860791, 132860813, 132860831, 132860865, 132861083, 132861451, 132861498, 132861712, 132861732, 132861884, 132861909, 132862037, 132862051, 132862164, 132862212, 132863060, 132863736, 132863771, 132863829, 132863860, 132863881, 132864429, 132864493, 132864733, 132866080, 132866143, 132866562, 132866768, 132866793, 132866820, 132866839, 132867193, 132867370, 132867488, 132868473, 132894692, 132895174, 132896122, 132896251, 132896291, 132896537, 132896623, 132896678, 132896804, 132896875, 132896900, 132896955, 132897364, 132897676, 132897808, 132897821, 132897938, 132898044, 132898150, 132898295, 132898342, 132898479, 132898587, 132898679, 132898703, 132898844, 132898925, 132900978, 132901767, 132901783, 132901849, 132901961, 132902011, 132902019, 132903673, 132903725, 132903753, 132903779, 132903836, 132903852, 132903867, 132903935, 132903949, 132904003, 132904029, 132904073, 132904120, 132904151, 132904250, 132904270, 132904287, 132904583, 132904711, 132904761, 132904775, 132905617, 132906810, 132906851, 132909391, 132909676, 132940667, 132940679, 132940695, 132940719, 132940751, 132945072, 132945115, 132945150, 132948317, 132948331, 132948368, 132948603, 132948706, 132948724, 132950781, 132952177, 132952202, 132956347, 132956364, 132956386, 132956552, 132956566, 132956632, 132956962, 132957002, 132957036, 132957071, 132980548, 132980578, 132980591, 132982093, 132982148, 132982245, 132982265, 132984710, 132986848, 132987077, 132987105, 132987127, 132987421, 132987501, 132987608, 132987655, 132987718, 132987776, 132987817, 133053672, 133063039, 133072848, 133072858, 133150163, 133150265, 133150288, 133150535, 133150542, 133150602, 133155420, 133155769, 133313484, 133368908, 133384883, 133384978, 133385332, 133521534, 133521824, 133644351.
highflyer74 (2023-03-14 13:19:34+00:00): Moin!

Wenn du Schutzgebiete bearbeitest, bietet es sich an, auch andere fehlende Tags zu ergänzen.

Hier wären das:

- boundary=protected_area
- protect_class=*
- short_protection_title=*

Weitere Infos dazu findest du hier:

- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area

Viele Grüße!
Warin61 (2023-03-16 22:27:52+00:00): Simply changing the tag 'public_transport:version=1' to 'public_transport:version=2' is not enough to make these PTv2.
flohoff (2023-03-14 15:58:56+00:00): Bist du dir sicher das das hier eine Flutlichtanlage hat? Im Luftbild ist davon nichts zu sehen?!

Flo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133644722
EinfachRuwen (2023-03-14 20:31:22+00:00): Okay, jetzt bin ich selbst etwas verwirrt.. hab das Ganze mit StreetComplete ausgefüllt, warum?
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2023-03-13 23:34:04+00:00): Please stop
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133644884
kallen19 (2023-03-14 00:45:59+00:00): Sorry about that. Didn't see your comments until now. I undid the incorrect changes I made. I had no intention of leaving the incorrect information.
Allison P (2023-03-15 18:20:16+00:00): At no point should incorrect information be added to OSM for any length of time. It is more than possible to test things that either add useful data to the map or use a test server like https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/
kallen19 (2023-03-16 14:00:44+00:00): Okay. Thank you
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2023-03-13 23:32:59+00:00): Referred to DWG.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-09-07 18:18:46+00:00): Is it now safe to delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7413032778 ?
Minh Nguyen (2023-09-07 21:10:54+00:00): Moved to OpenHistoricalMap in https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/changeset/86325 and deleted from OSM in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140958637
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-09-08 13:56:07+00:00): Thanks!
Albergarri788 (2023-03-20 23:22:55+00:00): Hola, para próximas ediciones, ten en cuenta que el área de los edificios se tiene que dibujar desde la base y no desde el tejado. Puedes usar la capa del catastro si no lo ves claro en las ortofotos. Gracias por contribuir por Leganés!
wille (2023-03-14 22:59:46+00:00): A imagem utilizada foi extraída do Google Maps, o que não é aceito pelo OpenStreetMap e configura violação de direitos autorais.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133645874
wille (2023-03-14 22:57:34+00:00): A imagem utilizada pertence ao Google Maps, o que não é aceito pelo OpenStreetMap e configura violação de direitos autorais.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133646091
GRUBERND (2023-03-31 06:54:31+00:00): Hello,
may I ask why you mapped the small terraces as cliffs? I think the tag is not suitable here, it does not fit the criteria and gives a rather wrong impression in a map. I would suggest that "barrier=retaining_wall"
is a much better fit.
thopf (2023-03-31 14:56:37+00:00): Hallo! It’s not tagged as natural=cliff, it’s tagged as man_made=embankment. According to my knowledge, there also aren’t any retaining walls exactly. In my opinion, it is the best way to map, because there is no gratifying tagging for terraces in agricultural sites yet. If you know a better way, than please let me know. Greetings.
GRUBERND (2023-03-31 15:25:09+00:00): oh, okay. I have never seen that tag been used for anything but roads and railways.
I'd still go with "barrier=retaining_wall" because the description matches exactly what a terrace is - a wall retaining the earth from sliding down. The flat ground is just a side-effect. I would expect an embankment to have one step and then have reached the highest level of whatever it intends to bank up. Also embankments usually have two sides, the one-sided being an exception.
dpolovinkin (2024-03-23 21:06:48+00:00): hi! it's industrial area, previous changeset was correct, don't know why you changed it. Warehouses and storage tanks are not a part of commercial area. Read more here - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dcommercial

will revert it as it was
NO1xMOHAMED (2024-03-23 21:22:27+00:00): what are we talking about here, please
dpolovinkin (2024-03-24 10:48:32+00:00): about the only thing in this changeset, what else? :)
wille (2023-03-14 22:52:14+00:00): A imagem utilizada pertence ao Google Maps, o que não é aceito pelo OpenStreetMap e configura violação de direitos autorais.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133646549
jmarchon (2023-03-14 01:47:47+00:00): Looks good to me! Welcome to OSM!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133647116
Allison P (2023-03-14 02:53:55+00:00): Right, this is definitely not political commentary on the status of churches in the United States. Pull the other one.
Dary Raihanah IRM-ED (2023-04-18 03:26:15+00:00): Hi _varman_
Thank you for your mapping contribution. 

I found there are some highway features invalid cross or overlap on the water body you mapped (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1154161015). 

I want to fix this issue but I'm not sure how to do it because I'm a remote mapper and only see the highway features and water body from satellite imagery. So, I want to disucuss it first with local mapper.
Maybe you can provide information that you know about the water body in the area. Do you know whether the water body is formed naturally due to flooding in the area or is the water body a reservoir area?

Thank you. Happy mapping!
_varman_ (2023-04-18 05:59:28+00:00): Hi Dary,

The water body is a natural flood plain area with a river/"steung" that flows through in the dry season, so perhaps "boeung" should be marked as intermittent. 

The highway either side of the flood plain is built upon an elevated embankment for at least 500m to the west and several hundred meters to the east of the bridges.

Hope that helps!
Dary Raihanah IRM-ED (2023-04-18 06:11:21+00:00): Thank you very much. The information you provide is very helpful for me to fix the issue. 

Have a nice day!
JohnHovercraft (2023-09-10 16:06:35+00:00): As this structure is designed to let water continuously flow over the top of it, I think the original tagging of it as a weir was correct. What prompted you to change it to a dam?
dizzytrashpanda (2023-03-14 03:27:30+00:00): When I look at this in OSMCha, buildings look shifted :(
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133648303
datsteves (2023-03-14 04:11:09+00:00): Well, OSMCha uses Mapbox by default and you used the Maxar Imagery (both are fine to use).
And both of them are not very aligned between each other (sometimes a few meters difference).

if you select Bing in OSMCha then it is actually not that shifted.
dizzytrashpanda (2023-03-14 06:14:33+00:00): Aah, that's reassuring. Thank you!
I wasn't expecting alignment to be that off and was worried that I'd made a mistake.
Enock4seth (2023-03-21 21:24:55+00:00): What kind of mapping is this ? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1154169514
Warin61 (2023-03-15 22:45:02+00:00): Adding the PTv2 tag to a relation does not make the relation compatible with PTv2 requirements.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-11 08:06:25+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10734055112/history has fixme:type = shop that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What kind of shop is here?

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop for common values - is any of them fitting?
emersonveenstra (2023-03-14 11:25:01+00:00): Hi,

You made https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/659866893 into a footway, did you mean to leave the maxspeed tag on?
oleinap (2023-03-24 19:02:17+00:00): а почему здесь ограничение 90? эта улица в границах населённого пункта, знаков ограничения скорости нет. Поэтому здесь максимальная скорость для НП 60
Mondal (2023-03-20 17:05:47+00:00): Please use "q" to do the rectangular shape for building feature after creating the building
GrabID_AdninWidyaR (2023-03-14 05:35:07+00:00): oneway doesn't apply to 2W based on reality
Frans S (2023-03-14 09:26:27+00:00): About highway tagging:

Please apply the rules described in this wiki
Most common taggings.
Rural areas : Unclassified,  track , path, service
Urban areas: unclassified, residential, path.
When buildings are connected by a road, don't tag it as track. see the guidelines.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways

Read also the remarks about tagging of tracks in the instructions.
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133650566
wille (2023-03-14 22:48:18+00:00): Reverti esse changeset, pois o admin_centre da relação do bairro do Canela havia sido deletado
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133650850
silversurfer83 (2023-03-14 07:27:21+00:00): Stehen da wirklich alle 50m historische Dinge? Kannst du die mal genauer beschreiben?

Außerdem kann ein alter Steinbruch mittlerweile wirklich Grasland sein. Diese Eigenschaft widerspricht nicht der historischen Eigenschaft

Bitte reagiere auf die Kommentare. Ein anderer Mapper hat auch schon geschrieben. Ohne Dialog funktioniert das hier nicht. Diese Datenbank wird von Millionen Menschen weltweit genutzt!

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133650904
gscholz (2023-03-19 06:02:45+00:00): Hi barberosdelopez,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-57.63356&lat=-25.28639&zoom=16&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=133651192

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2023-03-21 06:05:15+00:00): Hi barberosdelopez, 
this errors still exist, can I get your feedback here?
Guido
gscholz (2023-03-22 06:20:40+00:00): Hi barberosdelopez,
due to your missing feedback I have reverted this chengeset to fix those issues.
Guido
Tatfahren (2023-03-14 06:14:03+00:00): falsche Quelle; source=MAXAR
PT-53 (2023-03-14 07:41:34+00:00): Hallo,
Du hast in Biberach bei Deinen Änderungen / Ergänzungen die Jugendherberge - wohl versehentlich - in diesem CS neu angelegt, die dann in OSM doppelt vorhanden war. Anschließend hast Du im CS # 133650927 die "alte" Jugendherberg gelöscht, statt die "neue". War das Absicht?

Um die History der Jugendherberge zu erhalten, habe ich das von Dir neu eingezeichnete Objekt gelöscht und das "alte" Objekt (ohne Deine Ergänzungen) wieder hergestellt.

Du kannst Deine Ergänzungen jetzt nochmals eintragen. Bitte achte diesmal aber darauf keine Duplette anzulegen.

Grüße aus dem Landkreis BC

PS: 
Für Fragen oder Anmerkungen bitte den Änderungssatz aufrufen und unterhalb Diskussion in das leere Feld eintragen.
Deutsches Jugendherbergswerk Landesverband Baden-Württemberg e V (2023-03-14 08:20:52+00:00): Hallo,

vielen Dank für die Info.

Die JH Biberach war als Dublette angelegt - die mit den unvollständigen Daten habe ich dann entfernt. Allerdings erschien danach gar keine JH Biberach mehr und ich habe die Daten nochmals angelegt - unter Beachtung, dass die Historie beibehalten wird.

Nach nochmaliger Überprüfung war ich der Meinung, dass dies so korrekt ist. Trotzdem danke für die Korrektur!

Grüße aus Stuttgart!
PT-53 (2023-03-14 14:21:47+00:00): Hallo,
Danke für Deine Rückmeldung.

Nur zur Klärung:
Die "Dublette" hast - sicher unabsichtlich - Du angelegt.
Wenn Daten in OSM doppelt sind, dann löscht man nicht das alte sonder das neue. Das gehört in OSM zum guten Ton.

Grüße
silversurfer83 (2023-03-14 07:30:05+00:00): Nur den Namen eines Geschäfts an ein Gebäude hinzuzufügen bringt nicht viel.
Bitte mach es so, wie ich es schon beschrieben habe:
einen Punkt innerhalb des Gebäudes setzen und diesen mit allen nötigen Attributen versorgen.
shop=...
name=...
opening_hours=...
phone=...
...
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133651253
silversurfer83 (2023-03-14 07:37:57+00:00): Moin
in das Name Feld gehören NUR die tatsächlichen gegebenen Namen von Objekten. "Biogastank" oder ähnliches kann, wenn es sein muss in die Beschreibung. Aktuell haben wir eine Seite im Wiki, die für diese Objekte den tag building=digester vorschlägt. Bin zwar eher Freund von man_made, aber aktuell wird es so genutzt.
Habe das mal geändert. Kannst es dir ja mal ansehen
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133651661
mavl (2023-03-24 10:29:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 134051515, 134045911, 134058112 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible source - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6981].
silversurfer83 (2023-03-14 07:40:04+00:00): diese Beschreibung hat nichts in der OSM Datenbank verloren. Habe sie wieder entfernt.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133651743
mavl (2023-04-25 09:05:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
silversurfer83 (2023-03-14 07:44:12+00:00): Hör bitte auf Objekte AUF die Lininen von Wegen zu schieben. Die haben dort nichts verloren. In 99,9% der Fälle sind diese Objekte neben (manchmal über oder unter dem Weg) dem Weg. Bitte achte darauf
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133652128
mavl (2023-04-25 09:01:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
Frans S (2023-03-14 09:50:28+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator, at random or as requested. 
Please don't map landuse objects like farmland, orchards etc.
These are not a part of the project.
In general, Projects mapped with task manager is not the place to map these. You are limited to a single task.
A landuse object often covers bigger areas. 
Mapping of these objects are to be done by other mappers outside TM.
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133652682
Frans S (2023-03-14 09:40:34+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.

You are a new mapper. Welcome to HOTOSM.

We cannot expect that you are already familiar with all issues around mapping. Therefore, I inform you about the most issues,

Please pay attention to next points:
Buildings are in general rather rectangular. Just 4, 6 or 8 nodes are sufficient.
The object here is a small rectangular building just above the black spot, you mapped. It is already adjusted.

Tag buildings as building=yes. Nothing more, no names.

Please map each building accurate over the rooflines and squared(rectangular only).


Don't connect nodes to other buildings or features.

The shadow of a building is not a part of the building. 

Do not cluster buildings. Each building need to be mapped individually.

See also this document:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11PsAW0bzUZHbS8YnbaFzqOYhJY7tSPYG/view?usp=share_link


Best regards and keep mapping !
Frans S
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133652807
Strubbl (2023-03-14 22:10:56+00:00): Hallo Mario,
bitte lies https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments und passe deine Änderungssatzkommentare an und schreibe bitte nicht nur "Anpassungen".

Danke & viele Grüße
mario1974 (2023-03-24 14:45:57+00:00): Hallo Strubbl,

ich werde bei größeren Änderungen gerne etwas ausführlicher Beschreiben, aber wenn ich nur kleinere Anpassungen vornehme, werde ich auch weiterhin keinen Roman verfassen. Dafür ist mir die Zeit zu schade.

Gruß

Mario