piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
emersonveenstra (2024-08-25 16:39:56+00:00): Hi there,

It's incorrect to connect the house to the road, could you please disconnect those two objects? Thanks!
emersonveenstra (2024-08-25 16:41:42+00:00): Hi there,

Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway for how to tag driveways, and please add the correct tags to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1311070385

Thanks!
StC (2024-12-13 19:45:28+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a brisé la continuité de l'EV4 qui passe par là. Est-ce que les vélos passent toujours, ou est-ce que l'itinéraire a été déplacé ?
Pat_Lemoi (2024-12-14 09:34:41+00:00): Effectivement les vélos peuvent toujours passer mais plus les voitures
StC (2024-12-14 16:17:38+00:00): Merci ! Je vais tenter de corriger en ce sens.
emersonveenstra (2024-08-25 16:50:56+00:00): Hi there,

I've reverted this changeset here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155746755

There were several errors, including breaking a house, changing a driveway to a stream, and not adding crossing nodes or tunnels where streams crossed roads.

Please follow the editor walkthrough and read the wiki to understand the correct way to map waterways, and please pay attention to the warnings of the editor when you go to save. 

Thanks!
Frank Peng (2026-01-19 02:45:14+00:00): This road would probably be better tagged as highway=service instead of highway=unclassified.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155746266
baumgrenze (2024-08-26 12:29:41+00:00): I had deleted this trail because there is only a tractor track about 200m long, you can even see it on the aerial photo that the trail ends much earlier than marked.
What is the basis of your change, there is no track that long
-=|MisterY|=- (2024-08-26 12:35:09+00:00): I myself have seen the part up until the water pond. Actually, a few. The rest of the track is clearly visible on BEV INSPIRE, which usually has more fresh imagery, and as can be seen above in the Tags section, so I'm not sure which aerial photo you are referring to.
baumgrenze (2024-08-26 12:52:36+00:00): I am using basemap.at Orthofotos, i thing it is better. I don't know which one more actual.
I have change the tracktype=grade5, i hope its ok for you
-=|MisterY|=- (2024-08-26 13:01:00+00:00): If you really wish to be completely pedantic, you can cut it back to where it was originally, up to the water pond for live stock. Up to here I can confirm that it is clearly visible and flat, can't be mistaken. The rest I just saw on the aerial photos from BEV.
Yes, it does seem a soft soil. I just crossed it, did not really walk on it for longer distance. It seems like one of those tracks for getting the hay out of the pastures.
-=|MisterY|=- (2024-08-26 13:04:55+00:00): "The rest I just saw on the aerial photos from BEV. "
... so it seemed like a fair expectation that it would continue like in the section I saw.
Luzandro (2024-08-27 10:15:59+00:00): BEV Inspire has the same source images as basemap Ortho, namely Geoimage, it only gets updated earlier. So most of the time it's the same and when they differ BEV Inspire is newer. The images are usually updated every 3 years, although this area here seems to deviate a little from the usual pattern as the latest data should be from 2023 and the watermarks on basemap Ortho show the year 2021. See here for more details: https://www.geoimage.at/metadaten.html
-=|MisterY|=- (2024-08-27 10:38:36+00:00): Thanks for that clarification, Luzandro!
map per (2024-09-01 19:42:22+00:00): Wegen review_requested:
Hab noch das Gebäude und den Verein getennt und den Namen zu einer Beschreibung gemacht, ansonsten sieht die Änderung gut aus, danke!

Viele Grüße
map per
MaciekMma (2024-08-25 19:13:25+00:00): o, widze ze budowlancy podgonili z robota, nareszczie, serwus
m_p_13 (2024-08-25 21:00:50+00:00): A tak, dzieje się. 
Ale doszły mnie informacje, jakoby był problem: obiekt zapada się w grunt.
Tak że może to jeszcze potrwać.
mueschel (2024-08-29 17:42:40+00:00): Please stop editing immediately. You're destroying a huge amount of information.
Sanniu (2026-03-16 07:35:51+00:00): Hi,  about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/151524541 - you've changed name tag without changing the name:he - they should be the same here. And you've changed only Hebrew name, not the English one, is it deliberate?
Jarek 🚲 (2024-09-08 01:59:33+00:00): Hey, can you comment on what you've changed here and why? Is Addison Lane this zig-zagging shape now? It doesn't seem to match aerial imagery
Orblivion (2024-08-25 17:42:59+00:00): I went with "razed" instead of deleting for two reasons:

1) The segment across the Amtrak parking lot got *added* 2 years ago which seems surprising. Did the editor have a different source? Perhaps it was physically still present 2 years ago, but the change that created it was large spanning. I wonder if they were using aerial photos or something. I will point them to this change in case they want to comment, perhaps suggesting that I just delete this segment at this point.

2) There are other tags about the railroad history that I didn't want to delete without people more familiar with that world to look at it. With that said, I am happy to delete whatever people in that area suggest I delete.

The one exception to my deletion, btw, is the Silver Street tunnel because it still physically seems to be an abandoned railway tunnel.
Orblivion (2024-08-25 17:44:26+00:00): The segment along the parking lot, btw, is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1055270213
*abq* (2025-05-03 17:31:02+00:00): Hi Kaeru,
please don't delete the whitewater tags. If you want to add canoe tags, do so, but leave the whitewater tag, as there is no consensus which to use. 
Best regards,
Reiner
silversurfer83 (2024-08-28 19:46:31+00:00): Moinsen :)

meinst du hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1311081124
vielleicht eher ein Schachbrett wie in diesem Artikel in den Beispielen? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch

cheers
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155749023
mcliquid (2024-08-25 18:37:44+00:00): Merci!
mcliquid (2024-08-26 07:43:14+00:00): Eine Rückfrage noch: Warum hast du bei dem Lünersee-Rundwanderweg das Symbol entfernt? Bei anderen Wanderwegen (vgl. Golm) verwendest du es jedoch weiterhin.
Reinhard Müller (2024-08-26 08:00:47+00:00): Der Lünersee-Rundweg ist nicht einheitlich markiert, die westliche Hälfte ist gelb-weiß und die östliche weiß-rot-weiß. Darum hab ich beim Rundweg die Markierung entfernt und dafür zwei weitere Routen angelegt, an denen die Markierung jetzt festgemacht ist.
mcliquid (2024-08-26 08:27:10+00:00): Bist du dir sicher? Ich habe am Wochenende Fotos von den Wegweisern gemacht. Der obere Teil des Pfeils mit den Zielen Douglasshütte und Lünerseealpe (jeweils entgegengesetzte Richtung) ist gelb-weiß, der untere Teil des Pfeils mit den Zielen Brand bzw. Gafall/Cavelljoch ist weiß-rot-weiß. Ident auch zum Schweizer Tor / Lindauer Hütte: oben gelb-weiß, unten weiß-rot-weiß.
Reinhard Müller (2024-08-26 08:44:36+00:00): Beim Wegweiser direkt bei der Bergstation/Douglashütte sieht man's gut: https://data.vorarlberg.gv.at/raumplanung/wanderweg_standortblatt/91_Vandans/91.100.pdf - der Wegweiser Richtung Westen ist gelb-weiß/weiß-rot-weiß, der Richtung Osten ist nur weiß-rot-weiß. Auch auf den Wegweisern 91.105 bis 91.108 sind nur weiß-rot-weiße Markierungen.
mcliquid (2024-08-26 08:49:18+00:00): 91.102 ist wieder GW/RW gemischt. Würdest du den Weg wirklich mit weiß-rot-weiß einstufen?
Reinhard Müller (2024-08-26 09:07:12+00:00): Genau, der 91.102 ist wieder in der Hälfte, die gelb-weiß markiert ist. Die unterschiedliche Einstufung der beiden Abschnitte halte ich auch für berechtigt, weil die Osthälfte von der Wegqualität und vor allem auch Steilheit schon anders als die Westhälfte ist. Es ist auch offensichtlich bewusst so gemacht worden, z.B. steht auf der Webseite bei vorarlberg.travel "Der Lünersee-Rundweg mit Start gegen den Uhrzeigersinn ist bis zur Alpe Lünersee kinderwagentauglich." oder auf dem Standortblatt für 91.100 "Seerundweg westseitig neu GW markiert".
une abeille (2024-08-26 22:42:41+00:00): It looks like this bike path was already represented via tags on the street's main way and is now duplicated.
Sam Vermette (2024-08-26 23:59:43+00:00): I removed the bike tags from the main way, thanks.
jSeke (2024-10-19 12:01:43+00:00): see The Place Names of Edinburgh: Their Origins and History by Stuart Harris. It's not my own proposition.
eggie (2024-08-25 19:22:27+00:00): De hoofdtag is leisure=playground
Die kan er nog bij.
MVG
eggie
TheB55 (2024-08-25 19:05:59+00:00): had ik die fietsroute stuk gemaakt? Zo ja, Sorry, wat had ik anders moeten doen om die aftakking af te koppelen?
dvdhoven (2024-08-26 05:36:34+00:00): Alle drie de stukken Kanaalweg lagen los van elkaar. Hoe dat ontstaan is, kan ik niet zeggen, maar ik heb de 3 stukken weer aan elkaar verbonden.
Wat ik zelf in zo'n geval doe, is de af te koppelen weg selecteren, Ctrl indrukken en de knoop selecteren en dan Alt+J indrukken.

Vriendelijke groeten,
Dick van den Hoven
mcliquid (2024-08-26 08:08:05+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
trigpoint (2024-08-25 19:00:33+00:00): Hi Luna
Please don't delete objects and redraw them. This loses history from the database and is disrespectful to other mappers.

Cheers Phil
clay_c (2024-11-06 23:24:12+00:00): Changeset partially reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158836684
LunaFox (2024-08-25 20:12:41+00:00): This location does not work with any OSM/Overpass API's due to outdated/incorrect mapper technique. Overpass suggests remaking the location with OSM, which will not harm anyone, as I doubt many local mappers will feel deeply attached to their incorrect mapping of the Corn Exchange.....
trigpoint (2024-08-25 21:31:01+00:00): Please can you post the overpass query you are using?

Cheers Phil
trigpoint (2024-08-25 21:53:52+00:00): What techniques do you believe are outdated and what are you trying to achieve?
Cheers Phil
eggie (2024-08-25 19:16:04+00:00): Dag Niels..

Je kunt beter  description gebruiken iov name=...
Dit is geen geografische naam.

Je vraagt bij elke bijdrage om een review. Denk je dat dat echt nodig is?

Mvg..
eggie
HellMap (2024-08-26 21:17:35+00:00): Sveiki!

Šim gabalam https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27282589 ir `maxspeed=30` bet `maxspeed:type=LV:urban` . Laikam bija domāts `LV:zone30`?
Pilsetkartetajs (2024-08-28 19:55:55+00:00): Uj, jā, tur nepareizo nospiedu.
Izlaboju tikko un pievienoju arī pārējām ielām ap Jūras ielu trūkstošās ātruma zonas:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155898445
smithkm (2024-09-19 02:12:59+00:00): The correct way to tag that a protected bike lane is currently under construction is 

construction:cycleway=track

not

cycleway=track
construction=yes

The construction tag is supposed to be used to clarify when 

<waytype>=construction is also tagged.

What you've tagged could best be understood as that the cycle track is complete, but some sort of other undefined construction is taking place.
woodpeck_repair (2024-08-27 21:18:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 155851871, 155851861, 155851813, 155851893, 155851796, 155851836, 155851832, 155851785, 155851884, 155851790, 155851856, 155851847, 155851807, 155851810, 155851849, 155851818, 155851815, 155851889, 155851769, 155851844, 155851823, 155851802, 155851877 where the changeset comment is: revert buggy and undiscussed import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16625
silversurfer83 (2024-08-28 18:18:50+00:00): moin :)

warum?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155753311
Herwescheluc (2024-08-28 20:03:35+00:00): HUHU!

Deshalb:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154310333

Hab ordentlich gefragt, aber keine Antwort erhalten - also OSM-typisch nach eigenem Gusto gehandelt. Hätte ja gern was gelernt - vielleicht jetzt von Dir?

Grüße aus Herborn
Andreas
silversurfer83 (2024-08-28 20:15:37+00:00): Ah. Verstehe.

Ich persönlich sehe das so, dass es eine relevante Info ist, die, auch ohne explizite Erwähnung im Wiki, jeder Art Weg mitgegeben werden kann. Auf dem Luftbild sieht das Teil auch so aus als wäre es nicht verkehrt.

Ob etwas ausgewertet wird oder nicht entscheiden ja nicht wir Datensammler. Daher versuche ich es auch mit dem Grundsatz zu halten, dass wir nur "falsche" Informationen entfernen und nicht solche, die wir nicht ganz verstehen. Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#L%C3%B6sche_keine_Attribute,_die_du_nicht_verstehst%E2%86%99

Nur weil der Autor nicht geantwortet hat sind die Attribute nicht ganz falsch.

Also dem track selbst kann schon gerne smoothness gegeben werden. Die Gesamtanlage eher nicht.

Meine Meinung ;)

Grüße aus Korbach
silversurfer83
Scout Jens (2025-08-02 15:39:53+00:00): der Weg: 1311106951, den Du eingetragen hast kreuzt einen Wassergraben - ich habe da mal eine Rohrdurchführung eingetragen, weil mir eine Brücke nicht plausiebel vorkommt; bitte achte in Zukunft auf solche "Details"; Go Map!! halte ich auch nicht für eine gute Sahe, ihc habe es ausprobiert und es verursacht viele Fehler. 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Jens
Schönberger (2025-08-02 17:07:10+00:00): Da ist eine schöne gepflegte Wassertretstelle, ich hab ein Foto. Ich habe nur die Teile des Panorama-Kneippwegs verbunden, weil diese Verbindung gefehlt hat, sie existiert aber. Ob Brückchen oder Rohr oder Furt weiß ich nicht mehr.
Was empfiehlst du denn wenn man unterwegs ist und nur ein iPhone hat?
Scout Jens (2025-08-02 17:59:08+00:00): Foto machen und dann zu Haues mit dem Editor mappen - so mache ich das
lololailo (2024-08-31 16:35:42+00:00): Hola, podrías aclararme porque has eliminado la referencia, ¿cual sería la nueva referencia? En los carteles de la carretera sigue poniendo n-340. Es un tema que me interesa. Gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155753750
KikeTM (2024-08-31 19:23:26+00:00): Hola Lololailo, los tramos de la N-340 dentro de la Region estan cedidos a los municipios por los que discurre. Al ser vias municipales, cada municipio las puede nombrar o agregar la referencia que decida. En la practica, los ayuntamientos no suelen agregar referencia alguna.

Puedes obtener mas informacion en la seccion de carreteras del Ministerio.

Un saludo!
lololailo (2024-09-01 07:01:53+00:00): Gracias por tu respuesta KikiTM, después de dejar el mensaje entré en web de la red de carreteras de la Región y en visualizador iderm, siguen denominandola N-340a y en la cartelería de la propia carretera ocurre lo mismo. No crees que sería mejor dejarla como estaba porque parece que el ayuntamiento no ha cambiado la referencia. 
Un saludo
KikeTM (2024-09-01 10:48:41+00:00): Hola de nuevo, esta carretera no es competencia de la CARM. La señalización puede estar desactualizada, como pasa con casi todas las señales en nuestras carreteras, por desgracia; pero los datos oficiales son los que aporta el ministerio en la sección de carreteras, y si la hubiera, en los ayuntamientos de Totana y Alhama. Es algo muy frecuente, pasa en Murcia con la antigua N-301, o Cartagena con la antigua N-332.

Saludos!
lololailo (2024-09-02 14:45:55+00:00): Hola, pues parece que es así. Yo no controlo mucho el tema de carreteras, si tu crees que es mejor así pues bien. Un saludo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155753750
mueschel (2024-08-27 14:26:46+00:00): Hi,
please check the parking tags you added. The ":side" in the key needs to be replaced by left/right/both.
Byenin (2025-02-17 05:44:07+00:00): Hello Kingsley AMANKWE
 Thank you for mapping!
 I restored a deleted building way 1316100182
 way 1316100181
 Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
 Happy Mapping!
Dani CS (2025-04-06 19:59:28+00:00): No le veo relación al nombre "Avenida El Florío" y la etimología que le atribuyes (Q200535 = "wealth" en inglés). ¿Quizá haya un gazapo?
kapazao (2025-04-07 07:29:35+00:00): Hola, según el libro el significado viene de ahí :). Quizás estaría bien dar detalle sobre esto en algún etiquetado tipo name:ethymology:description, pero creo que esto de las etimologías se va un poco de las manos como empecemos a describir todas por aquí. Veré si puedo añadir algo.
Un saludo
citrula (2024-08-26 00:44:05+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155759648
CommanderStorm (2024-08-29 12:36:08+00:00): Hi, you removed the area tags that indicate that those walls in the ground floor are in fact surprisingly big walls.
The reason for this is that https://osminedit.pavie.info/ does have that tag distinction, but the wiki does not.

I have changed this to indoor=room, access=no, wall	concrete (despite this being a wall) which does follow the wikis advice of not having polygons as walls.
NotAvailable (2024-08-26 11:28:13+00:00): سلام ساختمان هایی که ایجاد کردی باعث خطا در نقشه شده لطفا آن ها را رفع کن.
Erexsha (2024-08-26 16:11:02+00:00): سلام
عجیبه؛ دیشب که آپلود کردم مشکلی نداشتن ولی الان اصلاحشون کردم
ممنون که اطلاع دادید، امیدواریم درست شده باشه
mueschel (2024-08-26 07:16:14+00:00): Hi,
please check this way, it doesn't have any valid tags
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1311117945
EP_Repair (2024-10-16 02:35:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 157944578 where the changeset comment is: Reverting changesets due to incorrect railway speed limit edits by a now-deleted user. Without source verification and based on local reports of errors, we are restoring prior data. Ticket#2024101510000176
emersonveenstra (2024-08-25 22:37:33+00:00): Hi there,

I don't think this entire path is a boardwalk, could you please double check it? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/946566705
Marcel Saintin (2024-08-27 19:18:20+00:00): ok, fixed
Rodrigo Rega (2024-08-25 21:29:08+00:00): Source: Bing.
tyfi (2024-08-25 21:37:56+00:00): These were incorrectly imported as administrative boundaries despite not being administrative entities. The boundaries as mapped are census-designated places (CDPs) and are decided by Census Bureau and its partners as opposed to through annexations.
tyfi (2024-08-25 21:40:06+00:00): I also changed roles on node members from admin_centre to label, and I made sure each relation had up to date Wikidata and Wikipedia tags (although the former is sufficient, the latter probably won't go out of date for CDP boundaries).
tyfi (2024-08-25 21:41:16+00:00): Many many more CDPs in Missouri remain, but most of the remaining ones are mapped as points. This isn't wrong, but it would be cool to have the boundaries. That's a job for the future. Several CDPs are flat out missing, though, which is higher priority IMO.
aq123 (2026-03-10 05:40:25+00:00): Hi!
All of these places were already tagged and some of them, like Cascade, with exactly the same tags.
dpolovinkin (2026-03-11 08:50:14+00:00): hm, but this isn't true, Blue Mosque for example doesn't have any "tourism" tag whatsoever, and all of the places here (yes, apart from Cascade) didn't have tourism=attraction tag, only some other "tourism" tag there, so I've added additional POI... so, what's the problem here? :)

and I see somebody already managed to delete basically all of those points I've added, for some reason...
aq123 (2026-03-11 19:19:45+00:00): I think it contradicts https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

According to wiki tourism=attraction is more often used as an additional tag, than as the main one. So there was no need to create duplicate POI nodes.

And this tag looks like indeed a pretty subjective thing. Every museum is probably attractive for someone, but hardly it'll make any sense to tag all of them as attractions.
dpolovinkin (2026-03-13 09:42:23+00:00): hm... well, I think One Feature - One Element practice is reasonable enough, agree, no need to duplicate POI and places :)

And yep, I think it's quite subjective, but as far as I've seen mapping many places around the world, this tourism=attraction tag is often used for relatively important or well-known places or sometimes maybe even small things, but not for museums as they already have tourism=museum tag
aceman444 (2025-03-01 22:24:24+00:00): Hi, why did you draw the cycleways as separate ways alongside the roads for cars? What barrier is there between the lanes for bikes and for cars?
aceman444 (2025-03-01 22:26:35+00:00): I guess the lanes are all wrong. How can there be lanes:both_ways=3? There surely aren't lanes where you can drive in both directions. What did you mean there? lanes=3 ?
aceman444 (2025-03-01 22:30:21+00:00): Also, do not use busway tags, they are deprecated, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Abusway .
Spr3 (2025-03-02 12:56:51+00:00): there are concrete blocks at the ground level separating the bike path, in other parts it is separated by parked cars

other criticisms are probably valid idk, don't remember what was the rationale for both ways (probably though it's the overall number of lanes)
aceman444 (2025-03-02 15:16:44+00:00): Thanks. It seems the lanes are now visible on ESRI imagery and yes, there are at least the parking spaces and a lot of lines separating the cycleways.
So I will try to improve it from the imagery.
EP_Repair (2024-10-16 02:35:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 157944578 where the changeset comment is: Reverting changesets due to incorrect railway speed limit edits by a now-deleted user. Without source verification and based on local reports of errors, we are restoring prior data. Ticket#2024101510000176
NorthCrab_upload (2024-08-26 13:32:31+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/12136578593
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1200824640

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/207250172
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/841697017

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
clambake92115 (2024-11-11 19:40:21+00:00): Can you review this change? "permissive" means open for general public use, but access is not protected by law. Those Mount La Jolla street are littered with "private property" and "no tresspassing" signs and curb painted messages. The access should be "private" IMO.
PStern (2024-11-12 02:25:41+00:00): I agree, the whole neighborhood appears to be private.  I will change Caminito Circulo Sur back to private.  I'm not sure who originally set the other roads in the neighborhood to "permissive".
miroslavuzice87 (2024-08-26 09:21:01+00:00): Hello! Thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. However, with this recent edit, it seems that the natural=coastline tag has been removed from some parts, and as a result this caused issues with coastlines tag not being connected as a whole. It would probably be best not to delete the natural=coastline tag. Instead, you might want to add the natural=wetland tag as a separate way or as a multipolygon. This way, both natural features can coexist without any rendering and broken ways problems. Thanks again for your work, and happy mapping!
Friendly_Ghost (2024-08-26 17:38:36+00:00): Hi. This must have been an error on my part. Sorry for that. Could you point out for me where that happened, so I can learn from my mistake?