piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NorthCrab_upload (2026-01-30 14:11:15+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4377973209
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1472707762

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
bjam55 (2026-01-30 17:21:11+00:00): Hi, hoping to understand the issue with the original change? What about the new relation is incorrect?
MappingMore (2026-01-31 04:52:42+00:00): Hi bjam55, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.
MappingMore (2026-02-03 14:23:04+00:00): Hi bjam55,
Thank you for your feedback.
While reviewing the route relation, I noticed there was a gap in the sequence of members, which was breaking the continuity of the route. I also saw that two relations — 20151235 and 1976278 — appeared to represent the same route but were tagged with different networks (US:CA and US:CA:Scenic). This resulted in a duplicate relation situation and some confusion in the route structure.

To avoid duplication and keep the route continuous, I removed the relation that had the gap and fewer members, and kept the more complete one. The intention was only to improve consistency and data quality, not to remove any valid information.

If you think US:CA:Scenic should not be deleted, but fixed, I can either revert my edits and fix continuity, or update the remaining route relation to reflect the scenic route as well. 

Thank you for reaching out and for keeping the map accurate.
bjam55 (2026-02-06 23:34:56+00:00): Hey MappingMore, thanks for looking into it. Not sure about the gap, it's possible I missed a small way somewhere. I agree with you, that's a definite data quality issue.

The relation with fewer members is expected though. I've noticed in a few places Scenic Byways end up being subsets of other routes. This one, for example, the Scenic Byway only begins at Highway 92 but the US:CA route at begins way up north in San Francisco.

As I'm new to OSM contributions I'll defer to you on the appropriate path forward.
MappingMore (2026-02-12 09:56:05+00:00): Hi bjam55,
Thank you for checking and for the helpful clarification.
I reviewed the relation again and noticed a small discontinuity that was creating a gap in the route continuity. Instead of only patching a segment, I restored the complete relation and then corrected the missing connection so the route is continuous now.
Your explanation about Scenic Byways being subsets of larger routes makes sense. After reviewing further, it’s clear that the relation with fewer members represents only the scenic segment starting from Highway 92, while the broader US:CA route continues further north. So both relations serve different purposes rather than being true duplicates.

I’ve therefore focused only on fixing the continuity issue while keeping the scenic relation intact. Please feel free to review, and if you notice anything else that could be improved, I’m happy to collaborate further.

Thank you again for the constructive discussion and for contributing to improving the map.
NeisBot (2026-01-31 07:29:51+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 15 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/192394375 v19 | 9 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/2511487583 v6

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177891602
NeisReview (2026-02-07 07:49:04+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178037935
Marek-M (2026-02-06 12:49:50+00:00): Nie powielaj `public_transport=platform` na zatokach autobusowych.

Ten tag już jest przypisany do węzła przystankowego i jest to zupełnie wystarczające. Wygląda na to, że wszystkie Twoje aktualizacje przystanków opierają się na tym samym błędzie.

Mam nadzieję, że kolejne edycje będziesz robił poprawnie. Dzięki!
kamasytrix (2026-01-31 09:12:04+00:00): По останніх правилах адреси з літерами пишемо через -. 1-Б 4-А
SPEC1AL1ST (2026-01-31 09:17:48+00:00): Дякую, не знав. Буду притримуватись
NeisBot (2026-01-31 07:29:52+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 7 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1431700283 v2 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1431583422 v1 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/2643542344 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177892063
NeisReview (2026-02-07 07:49:04+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178033330
marc__marc (2026-02-09 23:44:51+00:00): Bonjour,
je te conseille survey:date au lieu de source=survey xxxx, c'est plus facile pour retrouver plus tard les vieux objets
Cordialement,
Marc
marc__marc (2026-02-09 23:46:15+00:00): qu'est-ce qu'on y construit ?
Justin1234 (2026-02-04 07:35:43+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

1. You deleted the building key. That should be kept since this is also a building.
2. The syntax for opening_hours is incorrect. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours for info on the correct syntax, and you can also use this website to make it way easier: https://projets.pavie.info/yohours/

Also, what's the source?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177892268
Herman Lee (2026-02-02 06:32:12+00:00): 本修改集已退回，详见：https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177992072
silversurfer83 (2026-01-30 19:11:19+00:00): Hi there :)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1472717034 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1472717033 are no highway=service. Please remove those
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177892424
santoshipanwar_lyft (2026-02-03 08:40:42+00:00): Hi silversurfer83,
My name is Santoshi, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for your attention. Regarding my edits, I created the following ways (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1472717033#map=19/41.771445/-71.353592&layers=P and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1472717034) using Lyft-owned aerial and street-level imagery. Due to the presence of a physical divider, drivers can enter through the ways, and there is adequate space for vehicle movement.The attached images (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gd20lGfqYDQrbxk6Y_Xvfqa-Tk-fvzee/view?usp=sharing & https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wZoaYXD_3X-BzSfIwZv9mokdtPwQZBaT/view?usp=sharing) support this. I hope this explains the rationale behind my edits. 

Regards,
Santoshi
ceirios (2026-01-30 15:01:44+00:00): Hi there,

These AI slop buildings are mostly semi detached and terraced houses, and therefore should be split according to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels.

Can you please ensure you split these to ensure accuracy?

Diolch
Ceirios
okwithmydecay (2026-01-30 15:11:50+00:00): I would have split using the parcels but they aren't loading in the editor, so I didn't have access to that information.
ceirios (2026-02-02 12:29:41+00:00): Yea, some people have noted they were having issues, no worries then :)
Herman Lee (2026-02-02 06:32:08+00:00): 本修改集已退回，详见：https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177992072
Thorsten2219 (2026-05-01 16:52:55+00:00): Hallo Karthoo.
Ich bin bei der Bearbeitung mit ID auf einige "road_marking" gestossen. Diese liegen auf der B3 Richtung Rastatt direkt auf der B3 und machen die Selektion des Wegs, naja, "knifflig".

Wenn ich mir das Wiki dazu anschaue, sind road_marking's explizit nicht dafür gedacht Strassen nachzuzeichnen. Hat das einen besonderen Grund? Kann das ggf. auch in die Eigenschaften des Wegs übernommen werden (also: wenn ich darüber stolpere, dann ändern?).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:road_marking

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:lane_marking

Besten Dank im Voraus und LG, Thorsten
Dodko (2026-01-31 17:11:14+00:00): Ulica je Štefánikova
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/226122953/history
Dodko (2026-01-31 17:14:20+00:00): ref:minvskaddress patrilo inej adrese
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1472722828/history
rempshaener (2026-01-30 23:54:38+00:00): Hallo,
die Geometrien, du du hier und an anderen Stellen einrichtest, entsprechen weder dem tatsächlichen Verlauf, noch berücksichtigen sie, dass dort keine tatsächliche bauliche Trennung vorhanden ist.
Ich habe deine Änderung in Teilen zurückgesetzt.
Viele Grüße
Michi_10 (2026-02-10 15:02:21+00:00): Okay, alles klar!
Notiz: Falls du weitere Änderungen von mir siehst, die evtl. nicht korrekt sind, ich bin neu bei OSM, ich habe mich in vereinzelten Teilen von Mapping noch einzufinden.
Viele Grüße und einen schönen Tag noch
rempshaener (2026-02-10 15:53:51+00:00): Hallo,
kein Problem.
Ich habe tatsächlich die eine oder andere Kleinigkeit angepasst. Sobald es was Größeres ist, sag ich aber Bescheid.
Wir haben alle mal klein angefangen.
Viele Grüße
NeisBot (2026-01-31 07:31:25+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/474904331 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Shoe store"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-08 09:28:09+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178257641
(No visible changes after review)
Herman Lee (2026-02-02 06:32:03+00:00): 本修改集已退回，详见：https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177992072
NeisBot (2026-01-31 07:31:27+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/654494878 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "oficina de desarrollo web"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-08 09:28:09+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178257642
(No visible changes after review)
rempshaener (2026-02-01 12:09:56+00:00): Hallo,
auch hierzu eine Anmerkung:
Als „ref“ wird ausschließlich eingetragen, was oben rechts auf dem Hydrantenschild steht.
Viele Grüße
gablerto (2026-02-01 17:05:04+00:00): Hallo.
Das steht bei uns so auf dem Schild, bzw. auf dem Hydrantenplan vom Versorger.
Gruss,
Tobias
rempshaener (2026-02-01 17:20:50+00:00): Hallo,
auf dem Schild oder auf dem Hydrantenplan? Bitte auf keinen Fall die Daten aus dem Hydrantenplan übernehmen.
Wieso ich darauf komme: Die Abkürzung "OH" (statt ÜH) auf öffentlich einsehbaren Schildern wäre eher ungewöhnlich.
Viele Grüße
gablerto (2026-02-01 17:35:04+00:00): Hallo.
Steht so im Hydrantenplan und habe ich auch schon bei anderen Orten gesehen das da OH bzw UH mit dabei steht.
JJIglesias (2026-01-30 16:57:42+00:00): Por Favor deja de colocar DATOS INCORRECTOS EN EL MAPA.

Es el segundo Changeset que hemos tenido que revertir en pocos dias por colocar DATA INCORRECTA en el mapa. Si quieres hacer estas ediciones, ve a la pagina de la ABC y alli encuentras el plano de la Red Vial Fundamental(RVF).

Antes de realizar cambios asi, debes consultar, para ver si es correcta la data. Si insistes en colocar data incorrecta al mapa puedes ser Baneado del OSM por vandalizar el Mapa.

Gracias
5m4u9 (2026-01-31 04:06:00+00:00): Hola, y esta era la F53 :(

la revertí, sorry!
Herman Lee (2026-02-02 06:31:59+00:00): 本修改集已退回，详见：https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177992072
フーヴァー　リー (2026-02-01 14:16:17+00:00): 怎么又乱改啊？市区种地可太离谱了！改之前你还是亲自来一趟嘉善吧。哦对了，顺便穿一件写“我爱嘉兴”的衣服，看看嘉善人会不会把你打一顿。
user_21812011 (2026-02-01 14:21:44+00:00): It's truly a pity that the mainland community hasn't received the respect it deserves... I will continue to fight against the puppet accounts of the Chinese authorities.
フーヴァー　リー (2026-02-01 14:30:34+00:00): 郊区有那么多建筑和POI给你画，你非要把市区未建区域变成农田。你还是实地考察一下，又不难。
NeisBot (2026-01-31 07:31:29+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/334468906 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Office building"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-08 09:28:10+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178257644
(No visible changes after review)
NeisBot (2026-01-31 07:31:30+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13509660209 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Law office"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-08 09:28:12+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178257646
(Cleaned up leftovers from previous edits)
JJIglesias (2026-01-30 16:49:55+00:00): Por Favor deja de colocar DATOS INCORRECTOS EN EL MAPA.

Es el segundo Changeset que hemos tenido que revertir en pocos dias por colocar DATA INCORRECTA en el mapa. Si quieres hacer estas ediciones, ve a la pagina de la ABC y alli encuentras el plano de la Red Vial Fundamental(RVF).

Antes de realizar cambios asi, debes consultar, para ver si es correcta la data. Si insistes en colocar data incorrecta al mapa puedes ser Baneado del OSM por vandalizar el Mapa.

Gracias
5m4u9 (2026-01-31 04:04:27+00:00): Hola, lastimosamente entendiste mal la ruta F57 y la marcaste como 53. La F57 es monteagudo->cruce simón (F11) algo como una paralela a la F9 por camiri.

La ruta F53 es está -> https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=-20.744901%2C-65.240232&point=-20.796479%2C-65.561439&point=-20.834491%2C-65.660888&point=-20.931825%2C-66.220408&point=-21.061033%2C-66.527377&point=-21.154237%2C-67.15171&point=-21.042449%2C-67.40388&point=-20.912924%2C-67.568046&point=-20.755536%2C-67.649413&profile=car&layer=OpenStreetMap

voy a revertir el cambio, sorry!
felipeeugenio (2026-02-01 13:50:47+00:00): Hola Bruno.
Para predios con control de acceso, el gate tiene que ir con access=private y el service, luego del gate, con access=private también.
Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177896812
Leo Slager (2026-01-30 23:11:26+00:00): Prima gedaan !
Dawid2849 (2026-02-02 13:39:30+00:00): Cześć,
mam drobną uwagę co do oznaczeń kamer OPP, np.: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13512495370

w surveillance:type powinna być wartość ALPR zamiast camera. ALRP pochodzi od Automatic Licence Plate Recognition i właśnie do tego służą kamery OPP - do automatycznego czytania tablic rejestracyjnych.

Fragment z artykułu o OPP na wikipedii (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odcinkowy_pomiar_pr%C4%99dko%C5%9Bci): " System automatycznie odczytuje numery rejestracyjne, obliczając czas przejazdu między danymi punktami. Na jego podstawie obliczana jest średnia prędkość, a gdy jest ona większa od dozwolonej, kierowca otrzymuje mandat jak w przypadku zdjęcia z fotoradaru[1]."
Dawid2849 (2026-02-02 13:40:44+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Asurveillance%3Atype%3DALPR
Dawid2849 (2026-02-02 13:42:32+00:00): Sam dopiero ostatnio odkryłem tę wartość i przetagowałem OPP w mojej okolicy: DW871 Jamnica - Stalowa Wola oraz DW835 Gniewczyna Łańcucka - Gniewczyna Tryniecka
d3mol3k (2026-02-02 19:16:00+00:00): Dzięki @Dawid2894 - korzystam z szablonu josma dla kamer i tam nie było takiej wartości (nie ma) ale postaram się popoprawiać w najbliższym czasie wszystkie #opp i jego kamery
Jarek 🚲 (2026-02-06 17:28:32+00:00): Hello #Uber,

There are no sidewalks along Lake Shore Boulevard West other than what is already mapped.

Please do not map narrow paved verges as sidewalks. They are not designed as sidewalks and not safe as sidewalks.

Here is what the road looks like now. The verge is covered with half a metre of snow. Can you see the sidewalks that you added?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lake_Shore_Boulevard_West_west_of_Ontario_Drive,_looking_east,_February_2026_01.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lake_Shore_Boulevard_West_east_of_Ontario_Drive,_looking_east,_February_2026.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lake_Shore_Boulevard_West_east_of_Ontario_Drive,_looking_west,_February_2026.jpg
pidugu konda reddy (2026-02-06 18:00:22+00:00): Apologies for the mistake I committed. Thank you for the valuable feedback. I look forward to your suggestion/feedback in the future as well. Thank you. Regards, Prasanna Devi
Jarek 🚲 (2026-02-07 02:13:43+00:00): Thank you, I have made the necessary corrections in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178211908
kitsee (2026-01-30 20:46:55+00:00): Hi there Portal,
Most, if not all, of these farmlands look more like meadows to me. Due to the uneven terrain it is very rare to see crops being grown within the Welsh Valleys. Most land is used for grazing instead.
no details provided here (2026-01-30 17:37:26+00:00): Hi John - is there any further detail you can add to this path and the others?  Surfaces/width/incline etc?  I've reached out again as a fellow local mapper and happy to discuss as I'm in Worsley about twice a week.  Thanks.
John54321 (2026-01-31 23:18:11+00:00): This path is the same surface as the Swinton Greenway. No incline, not sure on width.
no details provided here (2026-01-31 23:57:52+00:00): Thanks. Are you able to add that information to the ways data? I've reached out a few times via messages as I'm local. Just keen to get the most info out of your site visits into the linear features on the map itself.  Thanks!
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-27 12:10:33+00:00): Cleaned up SEO spam and other mistagging for Lucid Private Offices POI in changeset 184692013

https://osm.org/changeset/184692013
felipeeugenio (2026-03-28 20:16:47+00:00): Hola. LA Vereda está separada varios metros de la calle aquí. No corresponde sidewalk=right. es sidewalk:right=separate y dibujar el footway aparte. Por favor, no usar Street complete tan solo para completar.

Saludos
Baloo Uriza (2026-02-02 22:30:13+00:00): Right lane is permanently closed and coin chute has been removed.  Both lanes have ETC transponders on the gantry, and formerly would also trigger the green signal on the coin lane if you had taken that lane inadvertently.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177897909
Linus W Frische (2026-03-19 11:42:10+00:00): Hej kamillz

De enkelte ladestandere bør tagges som man_made=charge_point mens den samlede ladestation, der kan have flere ladestandere, er amenity=charging_station

Jeg plejer at tegne amenity=charging_station som en polygon, men det kan også være et punkt. Ellers super!
Rainero (2026-03-17 18:46:40+00:00): Revert mit changeset/180023332
(unzulässige Quelle)
FroschForscher (2026-01-31 16:57:34+00:00): Hello voschix, you tagged https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1472754067 with `buildingyes=church`. What is correct `yes` or `church`?
voschix (2026-01-31 18:09:00+00:00): Danke fuer den FehlerFund!
tbi1233 (2026-02-01 16:57:02+00:00): This crossing has been discontinued
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174031127#map=14/44.18633/28.63187
WasserMountain (2026-02-03 10:26:49+00:00): Hello tbi1233! It looks like the original highway=crossing you’re referring to was removed on October 31, 2025 in this changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174031127). Looking at Mapillary from December 18, 2025  it appears the crossing and pedestrian way still exists, indicated by painted road markings and curb ramps on the sidewalk (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=882362634265676). If you have local knowledge or more recent resources indicating otherwise, I would be happy to remove the crossing. Thank you and happy mapping!
tbi1233 (2026-02-04 11:41:46+00:00): If you look closely on mapillary on the right you can see a sign saying "Trecere pentru pieton desființată" meaning it has been removed. The black paint used to cover up old road markings wears off faster than the paint for the marking itself, making it still appear.
WasserMountain (2026-02-05 18:29:48+00:00): Hello tbi1233! Thank you for mentioning the signage stating that the crossing no longer exists. I’ll go ahead and remove the crossing and footway. Happy mapping!
tbi1233 (2026-02-05 18:51:18+00:00): Thanks.
mueschel (2026-02-01 10:04:18+00:00): Hi,
what does "rollway" mean? This tag isn't used in any other place.
kaasbroodje (2026-02-01 13:32:19+00:00): I think it should somehow indicate that this rubber tyred tram uses the road as "rollway" instead of rails. It is a Translohr tram system. I followed this OSMwiki guide proposal for unconventional railway details https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Unconventional_railway_details#Rubber-tyred_tram
mueschel (2026-02-01 13:52:40+00:00): Alright - I've never seen this page, and you're the first one to make use of these tags.
kaasbroodje (2026-02-01 14:09:13+00:00): Yes it was the most convincing way to tag it that I could find. As this is indeed an unconvential tram system it would be wrong/misleading to not tag it like a standard tramway. I checked beforehand also how some other similar system were tagged but couldnt find a correct and established way. Thanks for the feedback!