piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
felipeeugenio (2025-08-20 18:50:14+00:00): Hola. No se trata de si queda igual o no al resto. se trata de la función que cumple.
Esto tiene aspecto de un camino privado para entrar a un predio, o no? Si es así puede ser un service.
Por favor comentar. mientras tanto yo lo puedo corregir.

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170739657
aparra09 (2025-08-20 19:06:34+00:00): Hola! Buenas. Perdón, me expresé mal. Cuando dije que traté de "dejarlo igual", es porque la unión que hice entre los caminos es el mismo tipo de camino que traté de conectar. Lo que pasa es que en la vista satelital no se distingue bien porque en los costados del camino en ese tramo hay arboles y zarza por ambos costados, por eso "desde arriba" no se ve bien. Además, no es camino privado, es un camino público de libre transito. Ese camino siempre ha existido, al menos desde que tengo memoria. Quizá cuando se hizo inicialmente en el mapa simplemente no se distinguía bien y por eso no lo agregaron.

Saludos!
felipeeugenio (2025-08-20 19:11:37+00:00): Hola.
ok, Si no estamos cuestionando la existencia del camino, solo queremos saber su naturaleza, porque de eso depende su clasificación.
Por lo que me dice está ok con =residential... quizás podría ser =unclassified, por la densidad de casas que hay, que se ve que es más potrero que zona residencial, pero gracias por la aclaración, con esto vamos a darle una vuelta con otros maperos.


En todo caso bienvenido a unirse al chat de la comunidad en Telegram. Puede acceder con el link que hay en mi perfil.

Saludos
aparra09 (2025-08-20 19:19:22+00:00): Vale, entiendo. Gracias por las correcciones. Intentaré ir aprendiendo cuando vea que puedo aportar con algo que no aparezca y que sé que está ahí. Además me uní hace un rato al grupo de Telegram.

Saludos!
felipeeugenio (2025-08-20 19:59:22+00:00): Buena, hablemos por ahí. Saludos
theophrastos (2025-08-20 18:51:01+00:00): Hallo,

Bist du dir sicher, dass das Gebäude 35442095 wirklich zum Raatschkatlweg gehört. Meiner Meinung nach handelt es sich um eine Adresse in der Hans-Birkmayer-Str., zumindest der Logik der angrenzenden Adressen nach.

MfG 
Klaus
MichaelFS (2025-08-21 15:40:57+00:00): Hallo Klaus, 
danke für den Hinweis, jetzt sehe ich es auch.
Ist geändert!
Ich bitte um Entschuldigung für den Fehler.
Gruß
Michael
Sylabowy Kot (2025-08-22 10:31:41+00:00): You've made a mistake - the greenery and fountaints were no longer visible because of lack of multipolygon. 

Fixed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170823293
marczoutendijk (2025-08-22 11:52:38+00:00): Sorry for that mistake and thanks for restoring it and using the correct area!
Rogoyski (2025-08-22 19:17:25+00:00): There are still a mistakes. Areas of steps must not be part of a pedestrian area (nor of a `area:highway=footway`).
marczoutendijk (2025-08-22 19:24:35+00:00): Are you going to fix those?
Rogoyski (2025-08-23 08:11:27+00:00): Yeah, I will fix.
theophrastos (2025-08-20 19:28:17+00:00): Hallo,

Die Adressänderungen im Industriegebiet von Hallstadt zu Bamberg halte ich für unnötig, da die Firma Centron im Heganger ihren Sitz mit Hallstadt angibt und auch die Firmen im Laubanger ihren Sitz mit Bamberg/Hallstadt angeben, aber von der PLZ Hallstadt zugeordnet sind. Weiterhin liegen die Gebäude überwiegend auf Hallstadter Gemarkung.

Dad Gebäude mit der Hausnummer 1 kann kaum zur Zollnerstr. gehören, da in diesem Bereich dreistellige Hausnummen liegen und außerdem die Straßenseite gerade Nummern hat.

MfG 
Klaus
MichaelFS (2025-08-21 15:32:30+00:00): Danke Klaus, 

habe es revertiert.

Gruß
Michael
user_5359 (2025-08-21 08:11:26+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Thanks for your addition!
Please note: an address is only complete if addr:housenumber and addr:street are present.
VLD549 (2025-09-11 06:13:45+00:00): Hi, I was asked to verify name changes.  I can't find Boljewistenplein on GRB, neither on Bing maps. Could you provide a link of some sort to display the name change? Thank you!
JosV (2025-09-11 08:22:01+00:00): goto geopunt.be , search for Boljewistenplein, Oudenburg and you will find.
mcliquid (2025-08-21 13:40:51+00:00): Hallo, warum hast du "outdoor_seating=terrace" zurück in "outdoor_seating=yes" geändert und damit bereits gepflegte Details entfernt?
BeJotEl (2025-08-21 19:37:18+00:00): Bitte vielmals um Entschuldigung. Die verwendete App (Go Map!!) hat den Eintrag nicht als solchen angezeigt. 
Kann gern wieder zurück geändert werden. 
BTW: Wir haben sehr gut auf eben jener Terasse gespeist.
mcliquid (2025-08-21 19:49:11+00:00): Gar kein Problem! Ich hab es wieder ergänzt :)
Gab's einen Kräuterschnaps aufs Haus?
eggie (2025-08-20 18:30:43+00:00): Je hebt hier de toegang tot de parkeerplaats verwijderd en een brandgang.
Ik heb ze weer teruggelegd. Wat is het probleem daar?
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=170741242

MVG
eggie
oko2708 (2025-08-20 19:43:00+00:00): Het doel was eigenlijk alleen om de missende paden, rechts onderin het vak toe te voegen, maar ik zag oppeens dat ik blijkbaar ook andere nodes had geraakt. Ik dacht dat ik die wijzigingen weer ongedaan had gemaakt, maar blijkbaar toch niet helemaal goed gegaan.
eggie (2025-08-20 19:47:16+00:00): Alle begin is moeilijk en osm kent wel een heel steile leercurve.
Iedereen was ooit beginner.

Mapse..
eggie
MooPoo7 (2025-09-16 18:30:47+00:00): Please do not add buildings that already exist. When adding new buildings, make sure to use proper capitalization.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-08-20 18:21:01+00:00): 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/363454767

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
eggie (2025-08-20 20:27:38+00:00): Formeel is het een path, maar motor_vehicle=no geeft wel problemen met moped en mofa dus mofa en moped=yes toevoegen. 
Het langsliggende pad is een G12a
Gr eggie
Kendall County GIS (2025-08-22 14:27:00+00:00): I am extremely skeptical that this is actually a landuse=forest area. And even if it were, the operator is in all caps, that needs fixing.

Is that a double-space in the operator on Clark Park?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170742472
eggie (2025-08-20 20:22:17+00:00): Beste Jos... Op een fietspad zetten we geen foot en bicycle=designated
Het is immers al een fietspad.

Neem nu contact op met de voorgaande mappers als je zoiets wil aanpassen. Ernie C heeft al een paar keer gereageerd.

Ik draai dit weer terug.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-08-20 20:23:38+00:00): Tagging van fietspaden:

G11: mofa=yes, moped=no, traffic_sign=NL:G11
G12a: moped=designated, mofa=designated, traffic_sign=NL:G12a
G13: moped=no, mofa=no, traffic_sign=NL:G13

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Cycleway
Sébastien Pi (2025-12-21 12:14:06+00:00): Bonjour,

Merci pour vos contributions.
Afin de mieux comprendre les modifications effectuées, pourriez-vous utiliser un commentaire plus adapté lors de vos prochaines éditions ?
Ce guide vous fournira toutes les informations : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications

Merci
TrickyFoxy (2025-08-29 17:45:48+00:00): Тут несколько магазинов автозапчастей?
AndyB_66 (2025-08-31 18:17:23+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
EzyPup (2025-08-23 00:11:15+00:00): I have created a note to allow for discussion on this topic. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4924589
eggie (2025-08-20 20:14:29+00:00): Wanneer er een C14 bordt staat dan is het bicycle = no.. Staat er geen bord dan bicycle=use_sidepath gebruiken.
Het heeft gewoon simpel met de verkeersregels te maken en uitzonderingen op die regel. 
Het zijn van die weetjes.
Het heeft ook te maken met regels in andere landen.
In Nederland mag je soms van het fietspad af bij bepaalde breedte. In Duitsland mogen fiets-peletons op de rijbaan. 
Dus geen bebording dan bicycle =use_sidepath (Dus geen verbod) 
Een fietser hoort wel  het fietspad te volgen.
Jos Hebing (2025-08-20 22:23:04+00:00): Ik zie al waar het verschil ontstaat, de tag use_sidepath is in de browser niet beschikbaar
eggie (2025-08-20 20:03:26+00:00): Dag Jos... Er loopt hier een wandelroute Doddendaelpad. Bewegwijzerd.
Die staat op slot voor wandelaars? Waarom?

Daarbovenop teken je weer een pad?
Waarom? Er was toch al een pad op de kaart.
We noemen dat duplicated ways .

Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=170743484
Ik draai even wat terug om te kijken hoe het er eerst uitzag. 
Gr eggie
eggie (2025-08-20 20:06:10+00:00): Ik heb je bijdrage teruggedraaid en foot=permissive toegevoegd om het routeren voor wandelaars weer mogelijk te maken. 
Wellicht was dat je bedoeling?
Jos Hebing (2025-08-20 22:12:05+00:00): Ik kreeg geen pad te zien, vandaar dat ik een pad getekend heb. Daar moet dan in de editor iets fout zijn gegaan
eggie (2025-08-20 22:15:02+00:00): Dat komt omdat paden die op slot staan veel minder duidelijk renderen op de standaardkaart.
Glassman (2025-08-21 21:55:54+00:00): #TIP: We don't use descriptive names, just tag it properly has you have is sufficient.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170743505
yelisey90 (2025-08-20 20:50:46+00:00): reverted with respect to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17854258 & https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17854260 : structurally these are parts of a single building connected by a stylobate

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170747031
Gregory Peony (2025-08-22 03:38:50+00:00): Welcome to OSM! you spotted buildings in imagery, tagged and squared them correctly however they are slightly oversized. 

When mapping buildings, please trace the shape accurately. Accurate building footpritns aid population estimates and prevent issues like data overlaps. Zoom in so that you can see the outline of the building and mark the corners carefully. Exclude shadows and yards when tracing the footprint.  Keep in mind that you are looking at the roofs of buildings, but mapping their footprints. Depending on how the scene is lit, pitched roofs may have light and dark sections that belong to one building. Generally pitched roofs overhang the walls of a building, so a footprint slightly smaller than the roof is accurate. You can scale selected features in ID with shift+(-/+), or JOSM with ctrl.+alt+Lclick & drag.  Take care to make contributions that others can build upon.

Thank you for your contribution.
Gregory Peony (2025-08-22 03:40:00+00:00): I think that the southern most footprint is mapped as well as the imagery allows.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170744013
gurglypipe (2025-08-21 11:39:34+00:00): What are your sources?
Pete Owens (2025-08-22 10:13:41+00:00): The complete absence of blue signs.

It is illegal to cycle on pavements in the UK - so the onus is very much on those who claim that cycling is allowed to provide evidence. You cannot simply assume that cycling is allowed because it intersects with other ways where cycling is designated. You have to map what is there on the ground, rather than what you think ought to be.

In this case it is particularly clear that not only is the pavement not signed for shared use, but not designed for that purpose either. Just compare the obvious differences to the clearly signed and surfaced shared use pavement on the other side of the road. This is most obvious at the approach the fairly recently reconstructed junction with the Bay Gateway. Here the pavements have been newly designed and constructed for their purpose. You can see that the pavement on the NE side of the road has been constructed to the minimum standard (at the time) for unsegregated shared use (3m), while the pavement on the SW side is designed to minimum footway width (1.8m).
gurglypipe (2025-08-28 15:45:43+00:00): OK, that reasoning makes sense. Thank you for sharing it.

It’s not completely clear cut, because councils have historically labelled quite a few different standards of path as a cycle path (narrow ones, ones without repeater signs, ones with unsuitable surfaces) and I’ve had the misfortune of cycling along them. Given the signage on the opposite side, as you say, that does make it more likely that this path isn’t meant as a cycle route, despite linking to a toucan crossing. Perhaps they put the toucan crossing in for future proofing.

I’ve added a note to the way in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171142314 to point other mappers to this discussion in case they think it’s mistagged in future.
Gregory Peony (2025-08-22 03:41:17+00:00): I think the waestern footprint envelopes two buildings. Each footprint should represent one building. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170744076
Kendall County GIS (2025-08-22 14:17:17+00:00): parkview already exists as an amenity feature. please check a little closer before adding a new feature
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170744206
Gregory Peony (2025-08-22 03:48:31+00:00): Did you intend to tag this as a house, or was it a mistake? Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170744217
Gregory Peony (2025-08-22 03:46:22+00:00): A valid highway that looks accuraetly tagged. The line should follow the centre of the highway, a few more nodes could have been added on the corners to make it more accurate. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170744384
Rodrigo Rega (2025-09-21 00:38:25+00:00): Boas. Nesta edición cambiouse "name=Cinturón comarcal" por "name=Ponte do Mazo". Fixácheste en que ese nome xa estaba como "bridge:name=Ponte do Mazo"?

Un saúdo.
Monchinho (2025-09-21 12:19:32+00:00): Pois non me fixara. Erro meu, corrixo. Saúdos.
Kai Johnson (2025-08-23 20:16:02+00:00): (Moving the discussion to changeset comments so others can see it.)

Regarding https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144563499, on 2025-08-20 18:54:48 UTC Beakerboy wrote:

> You tagged a rock tower on the bank of the Kentucky River, at -84.6173,37.79381.
> 
> Are you sure about the location? Satellite map is showing something that looks right at -84.620107, 37.794919

Hi! Thanks for following up on this! The coordinates came from GNIS (see https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/summary/2564699), which is not to say that they're exactly right. Sometimes GNIS is spot on, sometimes not.

In changeset/144563499, I was adding GNIS features that were missing from OSM. Where I could verify the location of the feature from aerial imagery or other sources, I adjusted the coordinates if necessary. I guess I wasn't able to find another definitive source to confirm the coordinates of this feature, so I just used the GNIS coordinates as they have them. In general, getting features like this into OSM is better even if they're not exactly right because then we can correct them like we're doing in this discussion.

As you mentioned, it looks like there's something at -84.620107, 37.794919. The question is whether that is the "Chimney Rock" or something else. I couldn't find anything in historical USGS Topo maps to answer the question. Do you have any other sources that we can use to confirm the location of the feature?
Beakerboy (2025-08-24 02:28:28+00:00): Thanks for following up. I spoke with someone who has climbed Chimney Rock and he’s pretty sure it’s the more northern of the two object that I’ve tagged. I plan on visiting the area at some point and can adjust the location then.
Kai Johnson (2025-08-24 04:55:36+00:00): Local knowledge and firsthand experience is always the best! If you do update the location, we can try to let USGS know about it to update the GNIS data. They might accept our input but sometimes they like sources they can verify. But if it's a popular climbing route, there might be some web sites that mention it with coordinates.
Beakerboy (2025-08-24 13:55:47+00:00): It is not a popular climb. In fact it might be private land so they may have been trespassing. I plan on kayaking so I could photo the tower as well as the area with the GNIS coordinates to prove that the “impressive tower” is where I see it on areal imagery. I wish the LiDAR scan showed it.
Kai Johnson (2025-08-24 20:04:18+00:00): Sounds like a good plan! Especially if you can check the GNIS coordinates and confirm there's nothing there. LMK how it goes and maybe we can make a case to USGS to update their data.
Kai Johnson (2025-08-24 20:06:45+00:00): FWIW, it looks like that area is owned by The Nature Conservancy. It's possible they might allow public access.
wies1 (2025-08-22 10:34:03+00:00): Hallo,

mal eine Frage:
Was besagt der tag clacks_overhesd=GNU Terry Pratchett?

Gruss

wies1
silversurfer83 (2025-08-22 12:13:54+00:00): Moin

Das wird hier erklärt:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:clacks_overhead

Und danke für die Frage. Du hast mich auf einen Tippfehler in dem tag aufmerksam gemacht.

Schönes Wochenende
silversurfer83
wies1 (2025-08-22 13:36:18+00:00): Hallo,
danke für die Rückmeldung.
Gruss
wies1
user_5359 (2025-08-21 07:54:14+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have never actually come across a notation stating that you must meet a certain requirement in order to use a parking space. Nevertheless, I have changed your notation because there cannot be an equal sign in the key.
Glassman (2025-08-21 21:57:45+00:00): This is a good contribution but a better one would also include a tag to describe the business, such as amenity=cafe
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170744952
pwbriggs (2025-08-24 07:50:43+00:00): Hey @Felix borges! The building you edited looks like an apartment building to me. Can you confirm that you chose the correct building (and whether the business fills the entire building or is just located within it)? Thanks!
TinPetreković (2025-08-20 20:18:26+00:00): Reverting because of unnecessary modification #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170746100
mueschel (2025-08-27 10:11:10+00:00): Hi,
you added a strange tag here:
"fee:type\=federal_recreation_pass = yes"  
What does that mean? You can only park if you own this pass?
Will Gattiker (2025-08-29 15:48:10+00:00): Yes, these trailheads require a USFS pass to park there (Northwest Forest Pass or similar). I can delete the tag if you think this is beyond the scope of OSM
mueschel (2025-08-30 13:39:05+00:00): I'd say this is a authentication method:

authentication:permit = yes
permit = federal_recreation_pass
Glassman (2025-08-21 21:58:47+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170745623
Glassman (2025-08-21 21:59:40+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170745623
Leo Slager (2025-08-21 22:24:02+00:00): Dag sSmits,
highway=cycleway leidt tot een foutmelding. Bovendien ontbreekt het daarvoor benodigde verkeersbord.
Ik zet de way terug naar residential, met de juiste access tags.
Glassman (2025-08-21 21:59:36+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170746039
felipeeugenio (2025-08-20 21:00:55+00:00): Hola. El local no es el número de la dirección. El Local va como addr:unit=.

Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170746088
dcapillae (2025-08-20 21:28:14+00:00): La facultad de Psicología y Logopedia ya está en el mapa. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1155619845

Atentamente,
Daniel Capilla
Dani CS (2025-08-20 21:39:42+00:00): Gracias, no me había dado cuenta; revierto.

¿Quizá debería llevar area=yes?
dcapillae (2025-08-20 22:05:57+00:00): La clave «faculty» se usa tanto en nodos como en áreas: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:faculty. No necesita «area=yes».
Glassman (2025-09-15 23:44:55+00:00): I merged the 2 short sections of cycleway on 22nd St & M Ave. into a tag on 22nd St to allow routing. The two stand alone section could not be routes.
StC (2025-11-07 17:29:38+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a brisé la continuité d'un itinéraire pédestre en prolongeant un chemin au-delà de sa connexion avec le chemin suivant dans la relation. Je m'occupe de la réparation.
eggie (2025-08-20 21:51:38+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
itineris (2025-11-18 14:11:56+00:00): Szia!

Ha közutakat darabolsz, ne feledd el az új vonalakat is felvenni azokba a kapcsolatokba, amikben az eredeti út benne volt!

Köszönöm:
Ákos
AndyB_66 (2025-08-27 11:10:22+00:00): Ten odcinek nie ma zatwierdzonego przebiegu - brak DŚU

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171074470
NieWnen (2025-08-21 22:11:30+00:00): Podjazdy to nie są przejścia dla pieszych.
Adam Haba (2025-08-21 22:32:35+00:00): Myślałem, że oznaczenie to jako „nieoznakowane" rozwiąże sprawę.
Gregory Peony (2025-08-23 19:48:38+00:00): Welcome to OSM and thank you for your contribution! 

You spotted buildings in the imagery but some of the footprints you mapped are inaccurate. Every footprint should represent only one building. Please complete the ID editor tutorial if you haven't already.

When mapping buildings, please trace the shape accurately. Accurate building footpritns aid population estimates and prevent issues like data overlaps. Zoom in so that you can see the outline of the building and mark the corners carefully. Exclude shadows and yards when tracing the footprint.  Keep in mind that you are looking at the roofs of buildings, but mapping their footprints. Depending on how the scene is lit, pitched roofs may have light and dark sections that belong to one building. Generally pitched roofs overhang the walls of a building, so a footprint slightly smaller than the roof is accurate. You can scale selected features in ID with shift+(-/+), or JOSM with ctrl.+alt+Lclick & drag.  Take care to make contributions that others can build upon.

Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
eggie (2025-08-20 21:33:15+00:00): Formeel klopt charging_point, maar dar doet niets in osm.
Meestal gebruik ik charging_station en in dat vlak kun je dan de losse palen zetten. 

Die parkeermogelijkheid (geen parkeerterrein)  heb ik aangepast naar parking=street_side... orientation=perpendicular..  Dat levert een kleinere P op.
FdeM0165 (2025-08-20 21:38:43+00:00): Bedankt voor je aanvulling en tips, ik ga ze meenemen in mijn verdere mapping.