piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
aharvey (2025-12-07 03:02:28+00:00): I can't find any signage or markings on the ground indicating https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/470076706 is for bicycles, I would need to survey again though in case there is a sign at one of the entrances
CAM-Gerlach (2025-08-01 09:18:16+00:00): Thanks for fixing the issue from changset #169697932 !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169796175
aharvey (2025-08-01 04:39:27+00:00): regarding https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/962492246 I don't think there's any signage present indicating it's a shared path.

On my 2018 imagery https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=927023981175171 there's nothing visible, but it could have changed recently, I'll make a note to double check, but the council has a few paths around there that I think were intended to be shared path but they never installed any signage or painted any bicycle symbols... in which case they are only shared paths on paper not in on the ground. I'll make a note to check again.
Maradona11 (2025-08-01 09:00:28+00:00): That is interesting. I’m using the TfNSW cycling infrastructure dataset that is on open data hub. I know TfNSW gets its source from the councils more frequently nowadays. Very misleading if the are flagging these as shared paths. Please let me know if you find concrete example and I will make them aware. In the meantime I will stay away from areas where I can’t see anything n imagery and or Mapillary.
aharvey (2026-05-25 11:24:01+00:00): Based on my own observations and https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4886298 it seems like there is nothing on the ground here indicating it's a shared path.

Nearby https://yoursay.northernbeaches.nsw.gov.au/frenchs-forest-active-transport-network was recently built, but they didn't build any R8-2 Shared Path (https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/operations/roads-and-waterways/traffic-signs/r8-2-shared-path) signs, or paint any bicycle/pedestrian symbols on the path, or even paint a dotted centerline, so while it's clear it was intended as a shared path, and funded by the NSW Government as one, it's confusing for users of the path if they are legally allowed to cycle there or not. What they did do is paint the bicycle logo on the segregated crossings, so there's that, but nothing for the path itself.
aharvey (2026-07-22 05:59:51+00:00): Per https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4886298 part of this was changed back to footpath only, given no indication of it being a shared path on the ground.
TrickyFoxy (2025-08-06 20:01:02+00:00): Пожалуйста, не копируйте данные из других карт
Ворона Риша (2025-08-07 00:24:41+00:00): Спасибо, не заметила :)
AndreaDp271 (2025-08-01 07:28:04+00:00): Thank you for your contribution but try to make smaller changeset areas. osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169796664
AndreaDp271 (2025-08-01 07:27:44+00:00): Thank you for your contribution but try to make smaller changeset areas. osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169796670
Sylabowy Kot (2025-08-01 09:48:01+00:00): It's a StreetComplete issue. I hope they'll fix making such a big bbox.
Matt McCutchen (2025-08-01 17:11:28+00:00): Hey!  This changeset appears to consist mostly if not completely of spam, similar to the spam we previously saw from unknown246's account (discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169357242).  For now, I've gone ahead and reverted the whole thing in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169829340 .

What happened?  Was your account hacked too?  If you are intentionally creating new accounts in order to continue spamming, I'll have to ask what tools the Data Working Group has available to stop this.  If you believe some of your edits to elements are valid, please explain which ones and where you got the data (your changeset has an unhelpful description and no source) and we can reinstate those edits.

Thanks for your cooperation.
Matt McCutchen (2025-08-11 00:03:55+00:00): It looks like the vandalism has continued, e.g., in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170268366.  I've submitted a request to the Data Working Group to block cpapdaddy and will revert some of the vandalism in the meantime, though I'm not going to sit around watching for changesets to revert them as soon as they happen.
Matt McCutchen (2025-08-11 01:03:11+00:00): DWG has blocked cpapdaddy (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18566) and I've reverted the remaining changesets except for the stream names (I leave it to others to decide about those).  I'll be watching in case similar vandalism comes from another user account.
Supaplex (2025-08-01 10:56:36+00:00): 請問是整棟為伊雲谷數位科技嗎？如果不是請用點來表示即可
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169796856
user_5359 (2025-08-01 07:18:51+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please be careful. You moved two street nodes more than 100 meters crossing other streets and buildings. I moved this booth nodes back to the original position. Please check the area for other wrong positioning.
marczoutendijk (2025-10-03 18:59:52+00:00): What is your source for this names?

Best regards  
Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
ZLima12 (2025-08-04 08:40:53+00:00): Reverted; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169746353 for discussion
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-26 16:34:17+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1419069320/history has width = 0 that was added in this edit
how something exist and have width=0?
Sanben (2026-02-22 09:21:58+00:00): Indeed, its a mistake. Its a narrow path.
fortera_au (2025-08-06 10:29:59+00:00): Hi, it's expected that your changeset comment describes your edit. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
fortera_au (2025-08-06 10:31:24+00:00): Also, where you've removed the bits of road going across the road named 早稲田通り, are you able to turn right there at all?
Black_Diamond (2025-08-17 05:50:46+00:00): I say that the neighborhood to the west of Rancho Rinconda is Wilson Park.
https://nextdoor.com/neighborhood/wilsonparkcup--cupertino--ca/

Further west, it's probably City Center.
The authoritative one from Cupertino doesn't officially recognize an HOA for Wilson Park.
https://gis-cupertino.opendata.arcgis.com/maps/Cupertino::neighborhoods-home-owner-associations.
buy_osmand (2025-08-01 05:03:55+00:00): 😳👍
contrapunctus (2025-08-25 00:40:06+00:00): Hey, KhubsuratInsaan. Why was the alt_name="Bahá'í House of Worship" removed in this changeset?
user_21183540 (2025-08-25 01:49:33+00:00): Because it is like setting the alt name of Kalkaji Mandir as "Mandir." Also, that thing isn't a common name. The religion tag already specifies that bahai too.
nyanpsyche (2025-08-07 05:17:27+00:00): Cycleway=no is not correct on SE Marine Drive by the night street bridge. The buse lane has sharrows meaning that it is shared cycleway.
joel56dt (2025-08-07 05:23:04+00:00): Thanks! Not sure how I missed that.

I have fixed it in CS 170087296.
nyanpsyche (2025-08-07 05:24:35+00:00): Haha didn't realize you were online so I went and did an edit of it as well. No harm no foul!
user_5359 (2025-08-01 07:11:35+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/relation/13834231,https://www.osm.org/relation/15031205,https://www.osm.org/relation/15031207.You have deleted some of your items.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-08-01 15:55:38+00:00): osm.org/relation/13834231, https://www.osm.org/relation/15031205, https://www.osm.org/relation/15031207. Fixed typos
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-08-01 16:01:35+00:00): Done ✅
Fraxi (2025-08-01 06:26:20+00:00): Разгеле! :D Даже от 2025 г.
Dimitar155 (2025-08-01 06:37:52+00:00): Горе-долу си спазиха обичайния график :)
rskedgell (2025-08-01 09:24:26+00:00): A 3.5m width restriction on a 2 lane slip road from a trunk road to a primary road roundabout? Do you have a link to street side imagery showing the TSRGD diagram 629A sign?
MarkoŠatrak (2025-08-02 02:50:21+00:00): I am writing as the lead of the OptimoRoute organised editing activity (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/OptimoRoute) for anyone following this changeset.

@rskedgell The sign is visible in recent Mapillary street level imagery, for example: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.8905273&lng=0.8320383&z=19.9&pKey=2141368906240557&focus=photo

It is possible the sign is temporary. If you have a link to more recent imagery showing a different situation, please share it and we will review and adjust the tagging. Thank you.
MihaelIvanjek (2025-08-04 10:33:26+00:00): Reverting an accidental node creation #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169946767
AndreaDp271 (2025-08-01 07:27:25+00:00): Thank you for your contribution but try to make smaller changeset areas. osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169799387
RedEyedVireo (2025-09-07 00:37:20+00:00): Hi,

I don't think that the merrimack river is surrounded by beach all the way from nashua to lowell. Can you provide the reasoning and sources behind this change? 

Thanks!
RedEyedVireo (2025-09-13 02:10:26+00:00): Hi,

If I don't get a response on this soon I am going to be left with no choice but to revert this edit as the edit to the nashua river is defiantly incorrect. I do belive that this was a mistake and if you would like help fixing this or reverting it yourself I'd be more then happy to assist.

Thanks again,
RedEyedVireo
rskedgell (2025-08-01 08:40:42+00:00): It's very unlikely that the restriction here is maxweight=*, unless it's for a weak bridge or weak road and had traffic signs which are pre-1994.

As this changeset and others have a comment about truck restrictions, the tagging you need is almost certainly maxweightrating:hgv=* + maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=*

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/maxweight-meaning-and-maxweightrating/132190/9
MarkoŠatrak (2025-08-02 02:04:45+00:00): I am writing here as a leader of OptimoRoute organised editing activity
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/OptimoRoute) for anyone who might be tracking this changeset.

The concern raised by @rskedgell is being discussed here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/optimoroute-organised-editing-activity-in-the-uk-truck-hgv-access/129894/4
rskedgell (2025-08-02 09:37:07+00:00): Replied at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/optimoroute-organised-editing-activity-in-the-uk-truck-hgv-access/129894/6
Leo Slager (2025-08-01 20:01:43+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
silversurfer83 (2025-08-01 15:25:12+00:00): Hallöchen :)

kleiner Hinweis: Das Feld "Name" ist bitte nur für echte Namen zu verwenden. Falls du weitere Hinweise hinterlassen möchtest, kannst du das idR ganz unten bei der Erzeugung neuer POI tun

happy mapping

(nebenbei: OrganicMaps ist wirklich nur *sehr* rudimentär zum Erfassen von Informationen für OSM geeignet. Klassische POI gehen ganz gut, alles andere ist schwierig)
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169801039
Dimitar155 (2025-08-01 07:08:26+00:00): *ФзФ
cuzi (2025-10-04 10:53:13+00:00): Why did you delete it?
achyutha (2025-10-10 16:11:11+00:00): Hello Cuzi,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the deletion of the alley segment. I wanted to explain our reasoning for this change.

Current Ground Reality: Our recent verification confirms that this location is actually a footpath, not an alley suitable for motor vehicles. (Please refer the below bing streetview link ).

https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=37.800003%7E-122.405375&lvl=17.0&v=2&sV=1&pi=-21.2&style=x&dir=336.3

Data Verification: While we acknowledge this segment has been marked as an alley for approximately 12 years, our updated resources clearly show this was likely based on outdated information.

Correct Classification: We plan to replace this with a proper footpath designation, which more accurately reflects the current ground reality and ensures safer navigation for all users. Please let us know that we can add footpath here.

Our primary goal is to maintain accurate, up-to-date mapping data that ensures safe navigation while preserving the integrity of OpenStreetMap. We're happy to provide additional information or discuss this further if needed. Thanks.
cuzi (2025-10-10 16:32:00+00:00): Thanks for the explanation! I have reverted this changeset, effectively restoring the alley as it was before. This way, the history is preserved. Feel free to reclassify it as a footpath based on your verification and resources.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173103898
rskedgell (2025-08-01 09:00:28+00:00): Why have you replaced correct tagging with a non-existent maximum actual weight restriction?
MarkoŠatrak (2025-08-02 02:36:22+00:00): I am writing as the lead of the OptimoRoute organised editing activity (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/OptimoRoute).

@rskedgell In this case, our team member made a change that goes against our internal guideline: change an existing tag only if it is plainly wrong. This would likely have been caught in our internal review.

For anyone following this changeset, the broader concern raised by @rskedgell is being discussed here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/optimoroute-organised-editing-activity-in-the-uk-truck-hgv-access/129894/4
gurglypipe (2025-08-04 21:48:47+00:00): I’ve reverted this change as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169978022, and added the missing maxweightrating:conditional=none @ destination tagging.

For this road, the signage is visible on Bing Streetside at the Owen Road/Lune Street junction.
gurglypipe (2025-08-04 21:54:06+00:00): ah, and now having read https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169801885, I’ve changed it to maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=none @ delivery in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169978175
rskedgell (2025-08-01 08:58:00+00:00): The signs on Bulk Road at its junction with Catton Road are TSRGD diagram 622.1A (Goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross weight indicated prohibited), with an "Except loading" plate. This should be tagged as:
maxweightrating:hgv=7.5
maxweightrating:hgv:conditional=none @ delivery

It does not help data consumers to add an incorrect maxweight=* tag, or to conflate exceptions for delivery (loading) and destination (access).

Who, or what, is #OptimoRoute? If this is an organised edit on behalf of a company, there are additional guidelines to follow:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Guidelines
MarkoŠatrak (2025-08-02 02:05:41+00:00): I am writing here as a leader of OptimoRoute organised editing activity
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/OptimoRoute) for anyone who might be tracking this changeset.

The concern raised by @rskedgell is being discussed here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/optimoroute-organised-editing-activity-in-the-uk-truck-hgv-access/129894/4
MarkoŠatrak (2025-08-02 03:03:41+00:00): @rskedgell Aside from the obvious difference between maxweightrating:hgv=* and maxweight=*, the tags applied otherwise align with what you described. We are also a data consumer, and in practical terms we do not see how delivery versus destination would be conflated in this case. If you have an example of a consumer or tool where that happens, please share it so we can adjust.
rskedgell (2025-08-02 09:44:04+00:00): With reference to delivery and destination, the two most common permitted plates under the diagram 622.1A sign are "Except for loading" and "Except for access". As OSM has distinct access tag values where loading -> delivery and access -> destination, it does not seem unreasonable to expect the exception to be tagged *as signed*. It doesn't matter whether any current data consumes differentiate, because the law in the UK *does*. The delivery and destination values are similar, but not synonyms and should not be used interchangeably.
MarkoŠatrak (2025-08-02 11:06:46+00:00): Thank you @rskedgell. I've included the delivery vs destination part in our editing activity discussion as well, so we can have more visibility and a conclusion on the way to move forward with our edits in one place:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/optimoroute-organised-editing-activity-in-the-uk-truck-hgv-access/129894/7
gurglypipe (2025-08-04 22:04:48+00:00): I’ve reworked the tagging on Bulk Road in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169978440 to use the updated maxweightrating:hgv and maxweightrating:hgv:conditional tagging, and also to extent the restricted area to the Factory Hill junction, where there’s another restriction sign (see Bing Streetside imagery).
rskedgell (2025-08-01 09:51:11+00:00): Updated to the actual, signed, restriction on Ashford Road at its junction with Scotforth Road.
gurglypipe (2025-08-01 21:33:50+00:00): (The update was done as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169808418, for reference)

Thanks, both of you, for looking at this. I believe there’s another sign about the restriction at the Caspian Way/Ashton Road mini-roundabout, which would mean that the entire section which IvaKraljić tagged should be tagged with some kind of maxweight tags, I believe. Not just the section nearest the A6 crossroads.

I suspect the weight restriction is for the benefit of the Piccadilly Lane and Ashford Road bridges.
MarkoŠatrak (2025-08-02 03:24:37+00:00): I am writing as the lead of the OptimoRoute organised editing activity (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/OptimoRoute) for anyone following this changeset.

The general concern raised by @rskedgell is being discussed here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/optimoroute-organised-editing-activity-in-the-uk-truck-hgv-access
gurglypipe (2025-08-04 22:26:00+00:00): I’ve updated the tagging here as I suggested above, in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169978801
Leo Slager (2025-08-01 20:16:27+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
Leo Slager (2025-08-01 20:19:59+00:00): Hallo DVQuattri,

review:
In principe beginnen we liever niet met access=no.
motorvehicle=no voldoet  prima om het routeren over deze weg te verhinderen.

Veel plezier met verder mappen.
Mom Tomahawk (2026-02-11 18:20:12+00:00): Freeway (Motorway) has a very specific meaning for highways, including no at-grade intersections. Please do not change tags until the highway has actually been upgraded.
VA00 (2026-04-06 18:50:32+00:00): Dlaczego na DK94 jest foot=no? Wisi od 12 lat, ale  nie widzę ku temu formalnych podstaw. Np. od ul. Tysiąclecia w DG nie ma żadnych znaków.
Tomas Straupis (2025-08-01 13:44:02+00:00): Ne, šitas adresas yra Rastinėnų, kaip ir buvo pažymėta. Atstačiau.
SAW700 (2025-08-02 06:24:53+00:00): Tai neteisingas adresas! Aš gyvenu čia, o adresas yra čia: Mėtų 3-ioji g. 4, Bubų kaimas, Sudervės seniūnija, Vilniaus rajonas
Tomas Straupis (2025-08-03 11:39:35+00:00): Pagal LR įstatymus, adresai yra tokie, kokie jie yra paskelbti Registrų Centro. Pagal registrų centrą čia yra Restinėnai. Čia ne pirma tokia situacija, kur gyventojai galvoja, kad jų adresas vienoks, o oficialiai jis kitoks. Matyt galima kreiptis į savivaldybę, kad sutvarkytų.
Tomas Straupis (2025-08-03 11:41:12+00:00): Beje visas šitas rajonas yra žiauriai netvarkingas adresų kadastro prasme, aš dar prieš n metų buvau būtent apie šitą vietą rašęs: https://blog.openmap.lt/2019/03/07/idomiosios-administracines-ribos/
A67-A67 (2025-08-01 10:02:01+00:00): Bedankt voor het openzetten. 
Een pad onder een spoorviaduct hoort niet zomaar de tag tunnel=yes te krijgen. Pas als het daadwerkelijk ondergronds is, maken we er een tunnel van. Ik heb het aangepast.
ivanbranco (2025-08-12 13:51:37+00:00): Ciao Riccardo, come mai hai cancellato la residenziale che collega Via Mulino a Vento con Via Palombaro 13?
Riccardo_DDD (2025-08-12 15:48:25+00:00): Ciao, ho cancellato la residenziale perché non è una strada che si collega a via palombaro 13 in quanto c'è di mezzo il mio hotel "Borgo Mulino a Vento", il cui accesso avviene da Via Palombaro, e per il quale il tratto cancellato corrisponde a una strada privata di viabilità interna. Inoltre è confusionario l'accesso alla struttura, in quanto risultando collegata spesso gli ospiti vengono portati erroneamente su quella strada cancellata, e sono costretti a rimettersi in macchina e tornare indietro.
ivanbranco (2025-08-12 15:50:59+00:00): > e per il quale il tratto cancellato corrisponde a una strada privata di viabilità interna

In questi casi andrebbe aggiunto access=private, non cancellata la way. Qua trovi una spiegazione (c'è scritto "sentieri" ma è applicabile a ogni tipo di strada): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
ivanbranco (2025-08-12 15:54:20+00:00): Se invece l'intera strada cancellata non è privata ma solo da un tratto in poi (vedo moltissimi edifici, presumo non siano tutti parte dell'hotel?), andrebbe mappato il cancello, e segnata come privata dal cancello in poi.
Riccardo_DDD (2025-08-12 15:56:44+00:00): Ho capito. Ora quindi deve essere rimessa? In ogni caso, bisognerebbe metterne solo un tratto, in quanto i sentieri mappati corrispondono ai viali di passeggio all'interno del resort, e non a strade vere e proprie. Ragion per cui non c'è collegamento tra la via cancellata e via palombaro, e non vorrei si creasse ancora confusione.
Riccardo_DDD (2025-08-12 15:57:30+00:00): La maggior parte degli edifici che si vedono fanno parte del complesso alberghiero Borgo Mulino a Vento
schoka (2025-08-01 13:51:59+00:00): Hallo hecticane, "Hans im Glück" existiert bereits. Deswegen lösche ich deinen Eintrag wieder.
Arga M (2025-08-03 11:21:36+00:00): Halo, ini sourcenya darimana?
vasony (2025-08-02 12:02:55+00:00): Hi!

Why have you changed then primary road to trunk?

Tamas
literan (2025-08-01 21:14:33+00:00): не надо ОРАТЬ. капсом только аббревиатуры
OSMchik (2025-08-02 19:00:54+00:00): Просто на сайте застройщика название капсом, поэтому и написал так
literan (2025-08-03 17:46:09+00:00): на рекламных сайтах почти всегда названия пишут капсом, но нас это не должно волновать
OSMchik (2025-08-04 07:12:29+00:00): Понял, спасибо
user_23120382 (2025-08-01 17:40:54+00:00): How interesting..
johnruciak (2025-08-01 09:06:58+00:00): https://www.cardwellauto.com/ shows address
marczoutendijk (2025-08-01 19:28:05+00:00): Hello,

What is your source for the speed changes you are adding to the highways?
Qual é a sua fonte para as mudanças de velocidade que você está adicionando às rodovias?

Best regards  
Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
gscscnd (2025-08-02 09:00:24+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:teryt:simc
Coś takiego by się przydało?
krzysiuup (2025-08-03 16:32:47+00:00): Dzięki za info, dodam tag
gurglypipe (2025-08-01 21:35:24+00:00): (For anyone reading this in future, this edit is in response to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169802057)
marczoutendijk (2025-08-03 15:21:51+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18547

Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
NorthCrab_upload (2025-08-01 10:00:51+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, dodaj ją w addr:street. Jeśli nie, zamień addr:city na addr:place - tak oznaczamy adresy bez ulic.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/408966727

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀