piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Dawid2849 (2026-06-12 12:36:31+00:00): Jasne, absolutnie rozumiem i sam miałem spory dylemat czy duplikować te relacje. Gdyby był ten sam ref, to wcale bym się nie zastanawiał i zrobił tylko po jednej relacji. To note wydaje mi się wystarczające. 

I dzięki za miłe słowo :) Zacząłem od mojego Biłgoraja, bo nie było ani Hetmana, ani Kasztelana, później dodałem Cracovię, którą od czasu do czasu jeżdzę z/do Pragi i tak w sumie się wkręciłem w dodawanie IC. Postram się coś jeszcze dodawać
Anas masuris (2026-06-12 13:57:39+00:00): Relacji IC jest najmniej dodanych ze wszystkich kolejowych, także zawsze miło - jak coś, to są renderowane na https://openrailwaymap.app/#view=6.14/51.961/19.55 (gdy się kliknie na tor)
Patchi (2026-07-05 13:17:44+00:00): Bonjour Lisapple,

Petite question concernant la modification du nom du panneau indicateur https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4804272807 est-ce que le nom Chapelle Saint-Christophe apparait bien sur le panneau ou l'indication "Chapelle St Christophe" est toujours indiquée (comme auparavant) ?

Cordialement,

Patchi.
Lisapple (2026-07-06 11:25:56+00:00): Bonjour Patchi,

C'est bien toujours "Chapelle St Christophe" qui est indiqué sur le panneau (c'est pour cela que je l'ai mis en "official_name"), je l'ai modifié pour avoir le même nom que la Chapelle à proximité et donc éviter la tentation de renommer "name" (de St en Saint) en perdant le nom officiel (comme "note" le précisait, ce qui n'apparaît par toujours en évidence dans certaines applications d'édition).

Ça me semble le meilleur moyen de préserver le nom officiel du panneau (qui, j'imagine, doit aussi être celui référencé dans les données officielles pour ref=296). D'ailleurs, est-ce qu'il existe une base de données officielle pour ces panneaux (qui pourrait être renseigné dans source ou website) ?
Patchi (2026-07-06 18:24:32+00:00): Bonjour Lisapple,

L'utilisation de "official_name" me semble correcte. 

Malheureusement je n'ai pas connaissance de base de données officielle (du moins publique) pour ce genre d'information. Dans le Vaucluse la situation n'est pas mauvaise car les panneaux sont gérés par le département (ce qui n'est pas le cas partout en France). C'est pour cette raison que c'est parfois un peu difficile avec le nom. 

Bonne continuation,

Patchi.
zorglubu (2026-07-05 13:30:21+00:00): Bonjour,
Bienvenue sur Openstreetmap, et merci pour votre contribution.

Vous avez remplacé un parking par une location de vélo, ce qui est dommageable pour ceux qui recherchent un parking :-)

Je me suis donc permis de déplacer les informations SancyBike sur un point à part. Je vous invite à, si nécessaire, déplacer ce point pour le positionner au bon endroit.

Bien cordialement.
ervinjoshuadelrosario (2026-06-10 18:52:41+00:00): Also extended relation route.
artfulblahblah (2026-07-18 19:25:26+00:00): i previously changed all the access restrictions and road classifications around the TO-22 and A-42 cloverleaf to reflect the actual signposted restrictions, and this changeset reverts those changes and restores the old, erroneous state. no user account is associated with this change.
HellMap (2026-06-11 17:10:10+00:00): Please do not change living zone streets into other road types. You have broken classification here and removed living zone attributes. And service roads are not driveways when they are public connecting branching roads through public courtyards. Driveways are meant for final destination roads to individual properties that should not be routed otherwise. And then you left other roads and random segments not retagged at all, creating invalid and inconsistent road network. Your changeset comment does not explain what exactly you are doing and based on what sources and "wrong tags" is simply false here. And then there are a bunch of paths and footways that you mistagged. Almost everything here was correctly tagged. Please do not mass retag like this.
kartler175 (2026-06-12 16:19:14+00:00): beim Teilen von Multipolygonen die inner-members richtig zuordnen:
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=7.61272&lat=50.21716&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.95&overlays=ring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways
TangledRockets (2026-06-14 10:14:30+00:00): Ah ich habe eine verpasst - danke für den Hinweis, korrigiere ich gleich. Danke auch für das geofabrik link - das Tool hatte ich nicht am Schirm.
Grüße, TR
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-11 07:09:50+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20792
eggie (2026-06-10 20:19:15+00:00): Hoi..
Volgens mij 'overruled' moped en mofa=designated die conditionaltagging.
Maar ik heb alleen nu even op mn mobiel meegekeken. Even geen pc.
Er was ook ergens een discussie op het forum over die afluitingen.
Groet,
eggie
eggie (2026-06-10 21:15:06+00:00): Dit kan beter denk ik met algemeen access:conditional=no ipv die categorieën.
.. en gezien de lange periode denk ik meer aan highway=construction. 
Ik was er zelf ook nog niet uit.
Overleg even op het forum met de infraspecialisten.
De Baanhoek uiteraard anders, want die is voor hulpdiensten.
Groet,
eggie
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-06-10 19:38:34+00:00): see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3872056
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-10 23:46:35+00:00): See comment on the previous changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163755012#c1606407
flohoff (2026-06-11 11:04:08+00:00): Ich habe nur deinen Changeset kommentar gelesen und da sehe ich schon ein missverständnis, aber vielleicht kenne ich die situation vor Ort nicht.

Geschwindigkeitsbeschränkungen gelten bis sie aufgehoben werden. Und eine Einmündung oder Zeichen 306 hebt keine Streckenbeschränkungen auf. Da gibt es reihenweise Urteile zu. 

Also nur weil etwas nicht wiederholt wird, wird entgegen Urbaner Mythen das nicht aufgehoben.

Es macht deshalb sinn die ganzen Schilder einzeln zu mappen als traffic_sign=DE:274-70 z.b.

Flo
Muhmaker (2026-06-11 15:03:06+00:00): Es gibt in dem Bereich relativ frische Mapillary Bilder. Es liegt glaube ich noch mehr im Argen. Der 70er Bereich an der Auffahrt beginnt glaube ich deutlich weiter westlich als aktuell eingetragen. Und auch die 50 auf der Auffahrt am Kreisel sind entweder falsch oder müssten weiter in Fahrtrichtung Osten fortgesetzt werden nach meiner Interpretation. Bin mir da aber nicht 100% sicher bezüglich der Regeln. Hier müsste dann mit maxspeed:forward und maxspeed:backward relativ zu der Richtung der Straßenlinie gearbeitet werden.
mariem_mohamed (2026-06-11 08:43:48+00:00): Hello osm10005,
Thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap in Morocco.
I noticed you removed a section of the road, leaving a gap between these two ways:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1528281874
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/451796402
According to the most recent source available to me, the satellite imagery on Vantor Hub (2026-06-03), the road appears to be continuous, and these two ways should be connected to each other.
Could you please share the source or reasoning behind this change? If there is no updated or verifiable source, I kindly ask you to reconnect them or revert the edit so that the map reflects the most accurate and up-to-date real-world situation.
Best regards,
mariem_mohamed
Joseph R P (2026-06-19 22:32:04+00:00): Is 'California National Historic Trail' signposted here? If not, this may be a commemorative name and not a common one. The common name here seems to simply be US/Route/Highway 93, which is already supplemented by the ref=*.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-19 22:47:22+00:00): I don't think so, though I haven't checked this whole segment. All of these highways are part of the "California National Historic Trail Auto Route," so I assumed that would be the name used here.
Joseph R P (2026-06-19 22:59:09+00:00): Going off of that I believe that would not be the name of the road, and the name isn't used for navigation purposes like a name such as Great Basin Highway (which is signed) would be. I think unless there is some other signposted name, the road should be left unnamed as technically the ref=* serves as the name in this case since it is what 
buildings are addressed to and what the road is most commonly referred to by its users.
dcapillae (2026-06-10 21:39:09+00:00): Hola, Alberto.

Este conjunto de cambios fue revertido. He mantenido tus ediciones sobre la altura del obelisco y el tipo de material (¡gracias!).

Respecto a los monumentos conmemorativos, tengo bastante experiencia mapeando este tipo de elementos en Málaga. A continuación te explico los motivos de la reversión.

Antes de nada, quiero aclarar que una reversión no tiene mayor importancia. No tengas miedo de editar lo que veas; si alguna edición es incorrecta, te lo comentaré para que podamos corregirla.

Si necesitas ayuda para empezar a mapear, puedes consultar la guía de principiantes:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Gu%C3%ADa_de_principiantes

Te explico brevemente:

Una estatua en OSM puede ser tanto una obra de arte (artwork) como un monumento conmemorativo (memorial). En este caso, al tratarse de una estatua que representa a un personaje histórico (Pablo Picasso) y que tiene una finalidad conmemorativa, corresponde etiquetarla como monumento conmemorativo (memorial).

En cuanto al obelisco de Torrijos, fíjate en que están mapeados por separado el obelisco y la tumba situada debajo. Cada uno tiene su propio elemento en OSM: un nodo en el caso del obelisco y una vía cerrada en el caso de la tumba.

El obelisco no es la tumba ni la tumba un monumento conmemorativo, aunque estén relaiconados. Cada uno cumple su función y tiene su propio elemento en OSM, con su propio etiquetado.

Atentamente,
Daniel Capilla
Shoorick (2026-06-10 21:36:26+00:00): source=survey
See Mapillary https://mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1684145726245672
See also comments of https://osm.org/changeset/175569613
Hetisbakkerijdepinknietdegier (2026-06-10 21:21:42+00:00): I mean removed
MassCartog (2026-06-11 00:07:23+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM. This feature was mapped right just the wrong feature type. I fixed it, read more about flow lines here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dflowline
StC (2026-06-11 13:29:05+00:00): Bonjour,

sauf erreur de ma part (historique difficile à analyser) ce changeset a brisé  la continuité d'un itinéraire pédestre qui passe par là. Je m'occupe de la réparation.
ChRogel (2026-06-11 20:30:24+00:00): Exact, j'ai fait l'erreur dene pas rétablir les relations ans le segment créé au N de l'intersection principale du bourg, car le Chemin du Donjon ne peut la rejoindre; J'y serai sans doute revenu, mais merci de le faire. Ma balade sur place aura permis de faire quelques améliorations. J'ai laissé "Placa du Bourg", mais c'est probablement ue ânerie de la BAL recopiée dans la BAN.
wireguy (2026-06-20 13:09:38+00:00): Keanu, can you look at the phone number for the Reality you added, it is missing digits.  thx.
woodpeck (2026-06-11 07:47:03+00:00): Dear frfjfjfjfjjdjdj, in this changeset you deleted a number of administrative boundaries, and explained the deletion with "-". This is not a sufficient explanation, and your changes have therefore been reverted. The next time you wish to delete a lot of things, please give us a better reason than "-". Thank you.
Wildsharky (2026-06-15 12:12:17+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:183954110
Timmy_Tesseract (2026-06-11 07:16:47+00:00): Maayong hapon and thanks for your contributions to OSM. Please don't add personal notes in the name field as they will be visible for all map users. Maps.me has a bookmark function that can be used instead.

Also here you added two stores at the same location, is this Cagabcabon or Labrada Store? Or are they next to eachother?
ScrawnyMeowth1 (2026-06-12 04:13:14+00:00): What's your justification for changing this road to a trunk?
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-12 06:13:52+00:00): To connect the trunk spur left behind by WA 240 to either another trunk road or a motorway.
hoserab (2026-06-10 23:22:36+00:00): Superfluous *and erroneous*, I ought to have said.
keithonearth (2026-06-11 04:44:12+00:00): Nice! I just passed by this way today, for the first time since it opened.
MappingMore (2026-06-14 05:10:59+00:00): Reverted in changeset ID:184079727
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:58:26+00:00): Reverted adding the same building >600+ times seemingly at random across a ~1 km2 area in changeset 183962530

https://osm.org/changeset/183962530
Iván Renison (2026-06-18 22:06:23+00:00): Pienso que la parada de Cuesta Blanca está mal ubicada, el colectivo de Tanti no pasa por ahí. ¿De dónde sacaste la información?
Ferviarg (2026-06-19 12:25:23+00:00): Hola, pues la información la saqué del mapa de idecor de líneas interurbanas https://mapascordoba.gob.ar/viewer/mapa/397 ahí me apareció el recorrido de tanti a cuesta blanca
Iván Renison (2026-06-20 12:23:40+00:00): Gracias por la respuesta. Veo. Por lo visto lo que está en Idecor no es lo que hacen los choferes en la práctica (aunque puede que sea lo que se supone que tienen que hacer)
En Cualquier caso, ni en Idecor ni en la vida real hay una parada exactamente dónde la pusiste, si no que está un poco corrida. Voy a actualizarlo
Ferviarg (2026-06-20 18:14:51+00:00): Ahhh bueno, muchas gracias, osea si pensé que ahí estaba la parada porque era el final de la línea, aunque también me pasó que note eso con algunos Interurbanos de mi zona, por ejemplo como los buses lep, no atraviesan las localidades de acá sino que se meten por la autovía nueva que hay
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:46:35+00:00): Reverted adding a building 18x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183962434

https://osm.org/changeset/183962434
mueschel (2026-06-17 12:54:22+00:00): Hallo,
was ist denn "destination:ref:arrow"? Das gibt es bisher nicht.

Außerdem muss es statt destination:to:arrow  heißen  destination:arrow:to.
MrAnderson (2026-06-18 12:04:51+00:00): Hallo mueschel,

ja, destination:ref:arrow gibt es bisher nicht. Ich habe es verwendet, weil ich es für eine offensichtliche Erweiterung halte: Es gibt für Wegweiser eine Unterscheidung konkreter Ziele mit destination, wie z. B. destination=Stuttgart und Nummern der Straßen, die dort hinführen mit destination:ref, z. B. destination:ref=B 27. Soweit ich destination:arrow verstehe, lassen sich die Ziele auf einem Wegweiser (destination=Stuttgart) den Richtungspfeilen zuordnen. Analog dazu möchte ich die Straßennummern (destination:ref=B 27) genauso den Richtungspfeilen zuordnen. Entsprechend drängt sich für mich destination:ref:arrow auf (und natürlich auch vergleichbare Schlüssel mit lanes und forward/backward).

destination:to:arrow habe ich geändert zu destination:arrow:to.
mueschel (2026-06-18 12:09:53+00:00): Hast du ein Foto von diesem Wegweiser?
MrAnderson (2026-06-18 14:23:20+00:00): Ein eigenes Foto habe ich gerade nicht. Auf mapillary gibt es ein unscharfes Photo, auf dem man das meiste erkennen kann (wenn man die Wegweiser kennt, weiß man, was an den nicht erkennbaren Stellen steht):

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=153363136754972&focus=photo&lat=48.5960236&lng=8.8603128&z=17&x=0.8547765116167445&y=0.2885717594553182&zoom=3
MrAnderson (2026-06-18 14:37:11+00:00): Das zuletzt war der Wegweiser in der Nagolder Straße. Das hier ist der in der Mühlstraße:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1352895808681787&focus=photo&lat=48.596250385705&lng=8.8610156081077&z=17&x=0.7683534505613376&y=0.48607147331958145&zoom=1.344753116366382
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:45:32+00:00): Reverted adding a building ~100x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183962395

https://osm.org/changeset/183962395
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:44:38+00:00): Reverted adding a building ~500x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183962351

https://osm.org/changeset/183962351
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:51:46+00:00): Reverted adding the same building >100+ times seemingly at random across a ~1 km2 area in changeset 183962635

https://osm.org/changeset/183962635
felipeeugenio (2026-06-11 14:22:23+00:00): Hola. Por favor, cuidado con cómo pega los elementos que agrega a los elementos ya existentes. Hacerlo un poco más lento, por favor.
Ya solucioné todo en todo caso.

saludos
silversurfer83 (2026-06-11 04:46:28+00:00): Moin

Ich folge der Diskussion im Forum und aktuell tust du deinem gutgemeinten Anliegen keinen Gefallen in dem du erstmal weiter"rodest".
Nakaner (2026-06-11 06:34:14+00:00): Hallo ticki_52,

du hast in diesem Änderungssatz area=no an Boundary-Relationen erfasst. Ich bitte dich hiermit, das künftig zu unterlassen.

Viele Grüße

Michael
Nakaner-repair (2026-06-11 07:35:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 183957267 where the changeset comment is: Revert changeset 183947441: Continued tagging changes during ongoing discussion at https://c.osm.org/t/144453, broken multipolygon relation
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:43:46+00:00): Reverted adding a building ~100x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183962322

https://osm.org/changeset/183962322
dknelson9876 (2026-06-13 17:46:16+00:00): I've reverted this change in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184064467. PLEASE, start looking at the history of a road before changing its name like this. If an experienced local mapper has already worked on it, then the name is probably already correct. 

I admit, the street names for these frontage roads are unusual. That's why I've already taken the time, as a local, to survey the street signs along these frontage roads multiple times.

Additionally, it's perfectly acceptable for a road to have a ref=* and not a name=*. Especially when that name you incorrectly tagged doesn't fit its placement in the street grid.

Also, route_ref=* and street:name=* are existing tags that have meanings documented on the wiki, which are not the meanings you've used here. Please don't make up new meanings for existing tags.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:42:39+00:00): Reverted adding a building ~100x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183962253

https://osm.org/changeset/183962253
rodolfovargas (2026-06-11 14:21:19+00:00): Hola!
Por favor las viviendas NO llevan nombre "casa". Esta etiqueta está destinada para nombre propios, por ejemplo nombres de edificios, instituciones, etc.
Y tomar una foto con Mapillary o StreetComplete ayuda a mejorar tu mapeo.

Continua contribuyendo : )
JJIglesias (2026-06-13 07:54:10+00:00): Te sugerimos leer esto sobre el Chalet que agregaste:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dchalet

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Turismo
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:50:54+00:00): Reverted adding the same building >100+ times seemingly at random across a 100 m x 100 m area in changeset 183962589

https://osm.org/changeset/183962589
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-12 10:49:09+00:00): Reverted SEO spam POI with advertising/nonsensical tags added with explicit source=* of Google Maps in violation of OSM policy and potentially copyright and contract law, in changeset 184010978

https://osm.org/changeset/184010978
QuiLe (2026-06-11 01:49:28+00:00): Hello and welcome to OSM! I noticed you are mapping "proposed" features within DFW and Texas. Can you please provide where within the community you had a discussion for adding these features? Usually, this tag is reserved for roads that are scheduled to be built, but where any construction work hasn't yet been started. If it's on a plan like in NCTCOG or TXDOT SMTP that shouldn't be mapped unless you are for sure that the feature will be built. Additionally, a source tag to the feature should be added to verify your claims. Note that generally, OpenStreetMap encourages information to be verifiable on the ground. Proposed features that are not visible on the ground should therefore only be mapped in exceptional cases and after a discussion with the relevant OSM community, lest they might be deleted for lack of verifiability. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=proposed
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183948067
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:39:28+00:00): Reverted adding a building ~1000x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183962140

https://osm.org/changeset/183962140
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:37:30+00:00): Reverted adding a building ~1000x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183962060

https://osm.org/changeset/183962060
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:36:34+00:00): Reverted adding a building ~1000x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183962025

https://osm.org/changeset/183962025
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:35:50+00:00): Reverted adding a building ~1000x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183961994

https://osm.org/changeset/183961994
muralito (2026-06-11 13:10:46+00:00): Hola BrunoUY. Ya estaba mapeada por el medio como es la bicisenda. Los elementos en OpenStreetMap se corresponden uno a uno con la realidad.
BubbaJuice (2026-07-07 16:37:30+00:00): Hello, 

Thanks for marking this as open! However you made an easy-to-make mapping mistake. In the editor there will be an easy way to ignore warnings of crossing highways by simply clicking "Add tunnel." However, in doing this you are adding harmful and incorrect data. (ie. https://www.osm.org/way/1528338833/history) Please physically connect the highways next time with a node with the tags highway=crossing. Thank you!

BubbaJuice
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:35:11+00:00): Reverted adding a building ~1000x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183961977

https://osm.org/changeset/183961977
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-11 09:33:50+00:00): Reverted adding a building ~1000x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183961753

https://osm.org/changeset/183961753
橘ヒカリ (2026-06-12 13:21:54+00:00): Reverted in 183949717 

恢复北京局铁路配线及起终点数据。原数据基于 LKJ 基础数据精准绘制，近期部分修改与实际不符
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183949717
pwbriggs (2026-06-11 02:49:40+00:00): Hello! This changeset seems to have added the same building at least 5744 times. I'm reverting this for now, until we can figure out what went wrong.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183950013
Udarian (2026-06-11 02:57:25+00:00): as with changeset 183949735 this changset seems to add essnetially the same building over and over, one on top of the next, there should only be one object per building for the most part. for more info see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buildings and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element for more info.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-11 09:22:57+00:00): > there should only be one object per building for the most part. for more info see osm.wiki/Buildings and osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element for more info.

NB, it's all but certain that it was some sort of process or tooling error rather than a mapper deliberately doing this (assuming its not intentional vandalism). Perhaps maybe something related to an import of the descriptively named "unknown.geojson" mentioned in the "imagery_used".
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-11 09:24:29+00:00): Reverted adding a building >1000x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183961542

https://osm.org/changeset/183961542
LeifRasmussen (2026-06-13 21:20:34+00:00): I have reverted this changeset, since it included significant edits to highways under construction that marked them as open to traffic when they are not.
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-11 09:22:33+00:00): Reverted adding a building >1000x times in the ~same spot in changeset 183961490

https://osm.org/changeset/183961490
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-12 04:23:37+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20805
mavl (2026-06-11 03:02:45+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 183640873, 183642778, 183642835, 183642864, 183642886, 183645347, 183680231, 183680955, 183680984, 183681021, 183681035, 183681094, 183681832, 183682245, 183682365, 183682389, 183694288, 183694307, 183694354, 183694451, 183818212, 183829769, 183905913, 183907307, 183907316, 183907333, 183907350, 183908423, 183908450, 183908459, 183908524, 183909711, 183909926, 183910651, 183911372, 183911623, 183913896, 183918337, 183918433.
LeifRasmussen (2026-06-12 21:59:03+00:00): FYI I reverted the edits in this changeset since NC 540 won't open until 2028.  
Best regards,
Leif Rasmussen