piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
skorasaurus (2024-05-29 16:50:15+00:00): thanks for adding all of the details to lakewood, especially things like opening hours, those are sometimes confusing :) 

regards,
will in cleveland
felipeeugenio (2024-05-28 20:26:58+00:00): Hola. Este tipo de cambios se comentan con la comunidad. 
Puerto Williams es una capital de nivel 6 y al ser una capital provincial está catalogada como town.
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151960379
HirschKauz (2024-05-29 07:00:20+00:00): Hi und willkommen bei openstreetmap und Danke für deine uploads. 
Eine kleine Bemerkung: Wenn ein Geschäft zu macht, aber die Baulichkeiten noch da sind (Café, Restaurant, Bäckerei, ...) dann bitte nicht den kompletten node löschen, denn die Räumlichkeiten (Küche, Ofen, EssSaal, Terrasse,...) sind ja noch da. 
Dafür gibt es "disused:amenity=cafe" und aus dem name=XY machen wir old_name=XY. Bei OSM legen wir Wert darauf, die History zu erhalten, in diesem Fall zB: https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/1263764420 
Grüße und weiterhin viel Spaß
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151960489
mikimapbuilder (2024-06-04 09:04:33+00:00): Hi, could you confirm weather there is an actual building here since there are no objects on available imageries?
NWBHHRJ8ZG (2024-06-05 13:48:15+00:00): Yes, there is. The pictures haven’t been updated online. This is a new subdivision with about 15 homes
mikimapbuilder (2024-06-06 06:08:58+00:00): Thank you for confirmation. Happy mapping.
pantufla (2024-06-17 20:18:12+00:00): Hola buenas, yo no pondría todo el parque como natural=scrub porque no es homogeneo así y creo que no es el tipo de vegetación que predomina en este área. Qué opinas?
rondoncamacho (2024-06-19 15:37:33+00:00): Hola, la modificación fue revertida.
pantufla (2024-06-19 22:11:16+00:00): Muchas gracias compa. Saludos!
pantufla (2024-06-19 22:12:02+00:00): Podríamos hacer un proyecto de colaborar y detallar la vegetación del parque entre varios :)
MxxCon (2024-05-31 03:53:17+00:00): Hello.
You created "Unmaintained Edge Trail" way. Is that an official name of this path or just a name you came up with?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151961300
DD1GJ (2024-05-29 05:34:06+00:00): Hallo Kelti_1,

willkommen bei OSM und Danke fürs Mitmachen. Die von Dir geänderten Stücke des Vulkanradweges waren bereits korrekt erfasst. highway=cycleway wird nur verwendet, wenn es ein Weg ausschließlich für Radfahrer und entsprechend beschildert (Zeichen 237, rundes blaues Schild mit Fahrrad) ist. Dies ist bei den von Dir geänderten Wegen nicht der Fall, weshalb ich Deine entsprechenden Änderungen zurückgesetzt habe. Die Bedeutung als Teil eines Radwegenetzes ist durch  lcn=yes und https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/22769 gegeben.

weitere Informationen zu OSM findest Du z.B. bei https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf

Viele Grüße, Joachim
Kelti_1 (2024-05-29 05:41:41+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Werde ich künftig berücksichtigen.
NeisBot (2024-05-28 20:03:25+00:00): Hi Max FF Nals, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11940425596

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
WoodWoseWulf (2024-05-28 20:36:31+00:00): per favore non aggiungere funzionalità false a OSM.
please do not add fake features to OSM.

Reverted in 151962400
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-29 05:21:12+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151962400
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-29 05:21:43+00:00): Bitte keine fiktiven Strände hinzufügen! Danke.
MxxCon (2024-05-31 03:56:36+00:00): Hello.
You marked these crosswalks as "lines", but they are actually "zebra". https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:markings#Values lists all the documented values and their examples.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151961929
brandonbds (2024-05-31 04:15:11+00:00): Indeed, you are correct. The pictographs faulted in iD.
MxxCon (2024-05-31 04:17:32+00:00): For crosswalk mapping I recommend you try Rapid. It automatically synchronizes tags between ways and nodes. Makes consistent editing much faster.
aceman444 (2026-07-11 21:45:25+00:00): Naozaj je cesta uplne odstranena? 
Mozno by bolo lepsie dat ju removed:highway=... lebo doteraz je na vsetkych fotkach. A ked uz cesta nie je, ta jersey_barrier tam stale zostala?
mapko (2026-07-14 19:59:45+00:00): Ano, cestu kompletne rozobrali a new jersey tam zostali.
silversurfer83 (2024-05-28 21:10:57+00:00): Moin luk

gibt's da ein Verkehrszeichen? Die älteren Werte des Weges deuten zumindest darauf hin.

Blauer Lolli (VZ240/241) für gemeinsame Rad-/Fußwege sollte nähmlich immer ein "designated" erhalten. Wenn auch kein Kraftverkehr erlaubt ist (ausnahmslos), dann ist "path" richtig.

cheers
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151962074
luk323 (2024-05-29 12:12:43+00:00): Ja, der ist mit dem Rad-/Fußweg Schild angegeben. Wenn das so ist müsste der Weg an der ehemaligen B83 auch so eingetragen werden. Dieser ist nämlich zur Zeit als Bürgersteig angegeben. Danke für den Hinweis!
Op'tRad (2026-07-26 10:31:50+00:00): Martin,
De Pagaai had al drie nodes. Kijk even, na mijn bewerking, hoe je een vereniging op de kaart zet. 
Werner
habi (2024-05-28 20:30:17+00:00): Tagging nach https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dbirds_nest
Jordi MF (2024-05-28 21:01:10+00:00): Hola Luisfe,

Gracias por mejorar OpenStreetMap. Sobre el uso de la etiqueta leisure=park, te informo que la wiki ofrece una explicación sobre en qué casos debe de usarse: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark

Como ves, un "parque", en OSM, es un espacio con mucha más vegetación y en estado semisilvestre. No parece ser que el Parque del Frontón tenga mucha vegetación... También es cierto, como bien te corregiste, que no es un lugar para juegos infantiles. Yo me inclinaría por usar la etiqeuta landuse=recreational_ground (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Drecreation_ground). La descripción me parece que encaja mejor en lo que se ve en la ortofoto del Parque del Frontón.

Saludos!
englu (2024-05-29 17:42:43+00:00): Na usuniętej ścieżce jest czarny szlak pieszy. Czy w terenie były jakieś oznaczenia wskazujące na to, że szlak został zmieniony? Czy po prostu ścieżka sezonowo zarosła?
Tooomek (2024-06-03 12:08:49+00:00): Scieżka przynajmniej 2 lata nie istnieje, w miejscu które zaznaczyłem - gdy ścieżka odbijała na północ, jest gęsto porośnięta stroma skarpa. Poza tym pod skarpą jest ogrodzenie więc i tak nie ma szans na przejście nawet jeśli nie byłoby zarośnięte. Nie da się tego jeziora objechać (próbowalem rowerem) od tej strony.
englu (2024-06-03 12:59:54+00:00): Dzięki za informacje. Pozdrawiam.
gendy54 (2024-08-09 12:23:49+00:00): Il n'y a plus de structure appartenant au Sdis ici ?
Kurosawa06 (2024-08-09 20:31:48+00:00): Bonjour,
Selon une note OSM et le site du SDIS 76 tout est désormais ici :

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14361345

Cdt
NorthCrab_upload (2024-05-28 21:00:28+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1287502962

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
GovernorKeagan (2024-05-28 21:21:07+00:00): Hey! I think we may have some duplicates from both of us editing here.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151963204
perenniallylate (2024-05-28 21:32:46+00:00): Bad luck :) 
Do you mind if I remove the duplicates?
GovernorKeagan (2024-05-28 21:35:20+00:00): Of course, no problem at all!
perenniallylate (2024-05-28 21:38:56+00:00): Done, yours were mapped nicer anyways :) Thanks for the message. 
I think I have mapped all buildings in the town, and I've also continued the river just to the south of the town.
Frans S (2024-06-08 08:26:54+00:00): Here you did not tag the buildings as well.
Tags building=yes, added by another mapper.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151963302
Frans S (2024-06-08 08:26:24+00:00): Here you did not tag the buildings as well.
Tags building=yes, added by another mapper.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151963379
VLD280 (2025-07-08 20:03:18+00:00): Hello spiregrain,

I was hoping I could get some clarification on a couple of edits in this changeset. Specifically, I am looking at W662478608 and W1202046938. I noticed you added foot=no to these cycleways, but the aerial and ground imagery I could find seems to contradict this tag value. On the East side of Blackhorse Lane, W662478608 appears to have pedestrian access alongside the bicycle path, albeit of less than ideal quality in places. On the West side of Blackhorse Lane, W1202046938 is connected to another cycleway segment with foot=designated and there appears to be signage designating both bicycle and pedestrian access. Since you referenced local knowledge in the changeset, I was wondering if your edits represented some construction or other changes to the area that are not visible in the remote sources I have access to. I have included links below to the ways in question, and to Rapid editor where Bing streetside imagery can be viewed. Thank you in advance for any information you can provide!

Happy mapping,
Isaac (VLD280)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/662478608 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1202046938 
https://rapideditor.org/rapid#map=20.50/51.58996/-0.04008&background=Mapbox&photo=streetside/1190489170&photo_overlay=streetside
spiregrain (2025-07-09 07:45:06+00:00): Thank-you for bringing these to my attention.  I think what's happened is that these ways are correctly (in my view*) marked as bike-only; BUT I've neglected to check the foot-routability of the surrounding roads a a result.  E.g. they're marked as sidewalk=separate, but I've ended up effectively removing the sidewalk by mistake.   I'll fix them up shortly.  (Either by making the sidewalk part of the roadway, or by making  most of the cycleway a shared, segregated sidepath with appropriate end points.
spiregrain (2025-07-09 07:53:28+00:00): Corrected in changeset 168681504.

If you come across a few similar errors, feel free to correct them.   If it looks like I've systematically made this error in loads of places, please let me know, and I'll fire up JOSM at the weekend and work through them.
Dawid2849 (2024-08-13 10:04:43+00:00): Cześć! 
Wiesz może, czy te pozostałe landuse=construction w okolicy rynku nadają się do skasowania (te nałożone na ulice odchodzące od rynku)?

Pozdrawiam, 
Dawid
m@rio (2024-08-13 19:29:09+00:00): Cześć,
dobre pytanie, ale niestety nie mam pewności - zweryfikuję na gruncie i naniosę poprawki :)

pzdr, m@rio
eggie (2024-05-29 06:13:32+00:00): Dag Elmar. Er is geen reden om paden in te korten. Dat pad ligt er toch.
Wel kun je het stuk na het hek afsplitsen en access=private toevoegen.
Een hek kun je toevoegen met barrier=gate access=private

Dus in principe geen wegen van de kaart halen in OSM.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=151963914

MVG
eggie
Elmar Hogenboom (2024-05-29 09:44:31+00:00): Ik vind dit toch allemaal wat arbitrair. Het is een tuinpad. Is mijn tuinpad dan ook een pad dat ik moet intekenen?
eggie (2024-05-29 10:15:31+00:00): Up to you  Ik zelf  zal ook niet snel paden in tuinen gaan intekenen.
Toegestaan is dat overigens wel mits de juiste accesstags worden toegevoegd.

Met weghalen van de kaart ben ik net zo voorzichtig.
De oorspronkelijke mapper ken ik als een leunstoelmapper die vaak willekeurig paden intekent op grond van luchtfoto's. 
Met dat kleine stukje zit ik echt niet mee. :)
Soms zijn oprijlanen juist weer van belang voor hulpdiensten (brandweer)
De brandweer rijdt immers ook op basis van OSM.
 

Zie het als een tip hoe we omgaan met paden op privégrond.
De paden bij Huis ten Bosch staan ook gewoon in OSM.. Uiteraard met access=private.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.09293/4.34436

Zodra je zaken gaat verwijderen krijg je daar vaak vragen over. Er wordt soms onterecht iets verwijderd. 
Soms verdwijnen er hele lappen grond en paden op een landgoed.
Een eigenaar van de grond maakt hem niet automatisch eigenaar van de kaart. Dat misverstand speelt steeds weer op.

MVG en mapse,
eggie
Langlaeufer (2024-06-01 16:24:22+00:00): Hallo klnkengi,
ich nehme mal an die Beschliderung des Radweges hat sich seit 2023 zu Radverkehr frei geändert und ich kann die osmose-Meldungen als false positive abhaken? https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/de/map/#zoom=10&lat=52.3856&lon=9.95&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2%2C3&tags=bicycle%2Ccycleway%2Crestriction&loc=15/52.76876/13.03978
klnkengi (2024-06-01 17:28:21+00:00): Ja, das ist so. Der Weg war am 25. Mai defintiv mit "Fußweg, Radfahrer frei" bzw. in Gegenrichtung nur mit "Radfahrer frei" beschildert. Wahrscheinlich gilt das auch für die anschließenden Abschnitte, da bin ich mir aber nicht sicher, weil ich nur dieses Stück gefahren bin.
Langlaeufer (2024-06-01 17:40:24+00:00): o.k, danke
Langlaeufer (2024-05-29 06:55:18+00:00): Hallo Tohomc,
Würde eine Trennung der Garagen an der Straße weiter westlich, dort wo es auch baulich unterschiedlich ist, mehr Sinn ergeben? Oder ggf. alle Garagen einzeln zeichnen. nach dem Prinzip: "Gleiches gleich, Verschiedenes verschieden."
Grüße und weiterhin frohes Mappen
Langläufer.
Tohmc (2024-05-29 07:25:06+00:00): Die Garagen befinden sich auf verschiedenen Höhen. Die von Haus 2 liegt auch auf dem Grundstück von Haus 2 alle anderen sind in einer Eigentümergemeinschaft und gehören nicht den eigentlichen Häusern zugeordnet.
Langlaeufer (2024-05-29 08:48:25+00:00): O.k. macht Sinn. Danke
mikimapbuilder (2024-05-29 07:58:17+00:00): Removed descriptive name
vasony (2024-06-01 18:15:25+00:00): This is not one building, reverted your changes
NorthCrab_upload (2024-05-28 23:00:33+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2321959101
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/300077473

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
eggie (2024-05-29 05:55:32+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback Tip format phone begint met +31...


MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
une abeille (2024-05-29 03:29:36+00:00): Hey, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for contributing! I moved that one crosswalk back in place for you, no harm done. :) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151969273

If you decide to do any drawing or moving of stuff like buildings or roads in the future, please check out the wiki page below. We use a specific offset in Montréal, and it's important that everyone use the same number or stuff ends up misaligned. For adding points of interest like you've been doing, it's not super important. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Montr%C3%A9al

If you have any questions, feel free to message me!
archpdx (2024-05-29 03:07:40+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM!

It appears that this changeset adds access=no to a trail. According to RLIS, this property is owned by Metro and City of Gresham. There is also evidence that this is a regularly traveled trail from Strava heatmap. Unless it's specifically signed prohibit access from the general public, access=no shouldn't be added to this path.
NeisBot (2024-05-28 23:33:25+00:00): Hi pepe123uy, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/2738793328

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pepe123uy (2024-05-28 23:41:42+00:00): Thank you for the feedback, NeisBot! I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on my contribution.

Source of the beach:
The indoor beach is a new initiative recently added as part of a community project to enhance urban green spaces. The source of this information is local municipal planning and the involvement of neighborhood residents in the garden’s development. The beach is designed to provide a recreational area for the local community, similar to other urban beach projects seen elsewhere in the Netherlands.

Additional context about the location:
Although this beach is located in a residential area, it is part of a redevelopment project for urban greening and community bonding. The beach has been carefully created with sand, lounge chairs, and surrounding greenery to create a relaxing environment. It is intended as a place for neighborhood residents to relax, children to play, and community events to take place.

Additional information:
The specifications of the beach, including its location, are documented in municipal plans and neighborhood feedback. There are also flyers and information available in the area announcing and explaining this project. This indoor beach is a temporary (but potentially annual) project, which might explain the unusual characteristics you noticed.

I hope this provides enough clarity. Let me know if you have any further questions!
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-29 05:25:22+00:00): Thank you for the detailed answer.

I'm not sure whether other or additional attributes are required here. Perhaps someone from the local community can take a look at this? Thanks!
eggie (2024-05-29 06:02:35+00:00): reverted due to PokemonGo vandalism.
Your edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=151966467

Greetz,
eggie
archpdx (2024-05-29 03:08:00+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM!

It appears that this changeset adds access=no to a trail. According to RLIS, this property is owned by Metro and City of Gresham. There is also evidence that this is a regularly traveled trail from Strava heatmap. Unless it's specifically signed prohibit access from the general public, access=no shouldn't be added to this path.
archpdx (2024-05-29 03:08:13+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM!

It appears that this changeset adds access=no to a trail. According to RLIS, this property is owned by Metro and City of Gresham. There is also evidence that this is a regularly traveled trail from Strava heatmap. Unless it's specifically signed prohibit access from the general public, access=no shouldn't be added to this path.
LindseyMaps (2024-05-29 15:48:26+00:00): Thanks for the feedback. The property is indeed owned by Metro and Gresham, though the trail is not in RLIS trails. I work at Metro and the site managers asked me to remove the trail as they do not maintain or manage it. I thought I changed the trail to "informal path" and foot access to "discouraged".  I also changed bike access, horse access, and dogs allowed to "no". Is there a better way to show the trail is not an official one, but only a user-created path?
VictorIE (2026-07-24 12:03:37+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1287529479/

"FIXME=Check extent of this house, back gardens make it confusing"

These are new / recent houses.

I've added garden walls and fences. Hopefully I have it right. The oddness of the layout is so that everyone gets at least some private outdoor space from a planning permission point of view.
ivanbranco (2024-06-25 17:01:14+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17647703

Hi Fresno, could you take a look at this relation? natural=tree should be a node

also is weird for an element to be both natural=* and man_made=* at the same time

also layer=1, 2 seems an error to me

thanks and good mapping
Fresno map (2024-07-03 16:57:50+00:00): So, as you noted, there are several things going on with this edit that make this unusual.
Firstly, "Sequoiascape" is a beuatiful art installation at the Fresno Yosemite International Airport lobby open to the public that is a replica of several Sequoia trees that are found in the Sierra Nevada Mountains near the airport. As such, I marked these reproductions as both natural=* and man_made=*. I did not want to tag the materials it is made of because that would be too complex. Please let me know if you think it should be just one but I believe both tags are warrented in this unique instance. 
I added a node as you reccomended and changed the layer of this relation in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153511130 let me know if anything else looks off to you. Have a great day!
Henny Vianelde (2024-05-29 03:28:17+00:00): Great Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151967369
Dhruv Rathee (2024-05-29 07:04:58+00:00): Thank you for the review.
Anil Basnet (2024-05-29 07:06:13+00:00): Thank you for the review.
Henny Vianelde (2024-05-29 03:27:53+00:00): Great Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151967371
Henny Vianelde (2024-05-29 02:05:05+00:00): Great Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151967375
Henny Vianelde (2024-05-29 02:04:35+00:00): Great Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151967377
Henny Vianelde (2024-05-29 01:58:43+00:00): Great Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151967384
Dhruv Rathee (2024-05-29 07:04:23+00:00): Thank you for the review.
Anil Basnet (2024-05-29 08:16:54+00:00): Thanks for reviewing
Henny Vianelde (2024-05-29 01:56:32+00:00): Great Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151967386
Henny Vianelde (2024-05-29 01:53:34+00:00): Great Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151967388
NeisBot (2024-05-29 01:36:25+00:00): Hi chicoaldeota, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11940932164

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
NeisBot (2024-05-29 05:27:46+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151971246
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-29 05:29:30+00:00): Please don't add fictional map elements. Thank you!