piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2026-01-19 14:08:21+00:00): Hi yonsantiyon, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 90% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 1 barrier(s)
- 90 building(s)
- 2 highway(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177430406
yonsantiyon (2026-01-20 02:03:18+00:00): Some of the edits were done intentionally on building mappings where buildings were sharing nodes, as I wanted to remap them in my own way. However, some deletions on roads and parks were unintentional.

Would it be possible to restore my account’s API access? I would like to continue and complete the mapping tasks that I have previously worked on.

Thank you for your understanding.
eggie (2026-01-19 14:57:14+00:00): Dag JvdKorth,

warnings:mismatched_geometry:unclosed_multipolygon_part 	1

De polygoon van de landuse was niet helemaal gesloten. Ik heb dat hersteld en gelijk de witruimte verwijderd zodat er niet opnieuw een weg zal worden ingetekend.

MVG
eggie
NeisBot (2026-01-20 07:31:09+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 32 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1014455198 v3 | 21 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/9359309478 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177431415
NeisReview (2026-01-28 07:01:03+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/177554543
NeisBot (2026-01-20 07:40:33+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/13203032931 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Air conditioning repair shop"
---
Por ejemplo, una versión más neutral y objetiva de tu texto podría ser: "Taller de reparación de aire acondicionado"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-28 07:29:39+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177792403
(No visible changes after review)
pitscheplatsch (2026-01-20 07:39:32+00:00): Welcome to OSM.

May we know the source of your newly added/mapped highways? 

Thanks.

---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz.php?c=177431620
NM$L (2026-01-20 07:37:57+00:00): Hi,

OSM follows the on-the-ground principle, please do not delete existing things, add fake features, and change main name tags which should be in the language the actual controlling country are using.

Your changesets from 177430054 to this are reverted.
NeisBot (2026-01-20 07:40:36+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/13468437583 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-28 10:27:39+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177798918
(Restore previous tags)
WRRyan02 (2026-01-19 15:25:43+00:00): Deleted by mistake
eggie (2026-01-19 16:53:22+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback   Tip Svp niet schuiven met de kaart in editmodus. Dat geeft vaak schade. Geef ook concreet commentaar met wat je edits inhouden.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-01-19 16:59:01+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback Trottoirs mappen als er een groenstrook zit tussen rijbaan en voetpad is prima.
Over Bushaltes en platforms lopen verschillende draadjes op het forum. Zag er vandaag nog een voorbijkomen.
Beetje snuffelen op het forum is dus altijd nuttig.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/algemeen-openbaar-vervoer-nl-topic/7050/271

Voor vragen kun je daar terecht. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
kadiwa (2026-01-19 15:32:36+00:00): Dankeschön
eggie (2026-01-19 18:07:25+00:00): Dag Jpe,

Dat Irma Bosmanlaantje staat op eenrichtingsverkeer. Daar komt ook een fietspad op uit. Meestal zijn tweewielers uitgezonderd van oneway=yes
De ham vraag is dus .. is het wel oneway=yes en moet daar niet de uitzondering bij oneway:bicycle=no ?

MVG
eggie
Minh Nguyen (2026-03-15 07:57:54+00:00): Regional importance is the primary criteria for highway=trunk, not necessarily highway=motorway when it comes to an isolated stretch like this. The Wilmington Bypass meets all the criteria for the exception for “motorway islands” under these guidelines. It came up many times in the discussions that led to these guidelines, with the overall consensus that this was a borderline case that could be kept as a motorway.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance#Exceptions_and_Borderline_Cases
Minh Nguyen (2026-03-15 08:02:08+00:00): Reverted, but

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179886419
Minh Nguyen (2026-03-15 08:03:17+00:00): Reverted but we can discuss this on the forum or Slack if you feel the national guidelines need to be revised from a minimum of 2 miles upward to 6 miles.
InsertUser (2026-01-21 02:19:50+00:00): The larger area looks like it's probably more of a subsea=bank ?
349179440 (2026-01-22 21:17:10+00:00): I think you are right, ill change it
NeisBot (2026-01-20 07:40:38+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/1468507277 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-28 07:29:40+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177792404
(No visible changes after review)
Kiana_Kaslana (2026-01-21 03:08:28+00:00): 不要将建筑(building=*)标签应用在用地上，套用iD编辑器的预设时请注意订正标签。
Ronald_Smith (2026-01-19 16:16:41+00:00): Спасибо
JakubS (2026-01-20 05:30:05+00:00): Zmiana doprowadziła do usunięcia tagu budynku (building). Prosiłbym o jego przywrócenie.
WieKo68 (2026-01-20 06:10:37+00:00): tam mi się wydawało, że gdzieś mi coś uciekło. Już poprawiłem
aTarom (2026-01-21 08:40:42+00:00): Hola se revierten los cambios, son ediciones de prueba?
addr:unit = metros ?
name=Paso de peatones ?
...
Gaessje (2026-01-21 08:22:36+00:00): Hallo,
bei diesem Änderungssatz (und auch bei weiteren?) sind in Bad Kreuznach viele Gebäude "wieder auferstanden", die seit geraumer Zeit abgerissen sind. Das lässt sich z. B. mit der Rheinland-Pfalz DOP20 gut nachvollziehen. Teddy73 sollte seine Vorgehensweise nochmals prüfen.
Gruß - Gaessje
Gaessje (2026-01-21 19:15:33+00:00): Teddy73, 
bist du sicher, dass diese umfangreiche Datenübernahme, die du momentan durchführst, so zulässig ist?
Teddy73 (2026-01-22 07:42:30+00:00): Hi Gaessje, ja, das kann vorkommen mmit den alten Gebäuden. Ich versuche zuerst die ALKIS Daten zu mergen und im nächsten Schritt zu vergleichen mit den Luftbildern. Bei einer großen Stadt dauert das etwas länger als bei nem Dorf, aber es wird kommen. Die Datenübernehme ist zulässig. ALKIS RLP ist freigegeben für OSM.
VG Teddy
Gaessje (2026-01-22 08:00:19+00:00): Hallo,
die veränderten Geometrien führen allerdings auch zu inhaltlichen Fehlern bei der Zuordnung von Attributen, die kaum zu kontrollieren sind.
Gruß - Gaessje
Nakaner (2026-03-20 10:50:37+00:00): Hallo Gaessje,

ich bin über https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/import-von-gebaude-geometrien-etc-durch-nutzer/142460/9 auf diesen Änderungssatz aufmerksam geworden.

Kannst du Gebäude mit OSM-ID benennen, die abgerissen sind und von Teddy73 wieder ergänzt wurden?

Es gehört zum guten Ton, bei Fehlern, die man anderen vorwirft, direkt exemplarisch einige Objekte anhand ihrer ID zu benennen. Das erleichtert die Nachvollziehbarkeit.

Viele Grüße

Michael
Gaessje (2026-03-23 13:38:36+00:00): Hallo,
ich freue mich ausdrücklich über die Übernahme von ALKIS-Daten durchTeddy73 und habe die Darstellung abgerissener Gebäude, die mir bekannt sind, korrigiert. Wie ich dir dazu eine ID nennen kann, weiß ich nicht.
Gruß Gässje
ceirios (2026-01-19 16:45:18+00:00): Helo GafrPiws

Thanks for contributing/diolch am gyfrannu!

House names should go in the addr:housename fields in the addresses section, rather than the "name" field at the top

Diolch
Ceirios
GafrPiws (2026-01-19 18:12:27+00:00): I was following the example of local houses that have already been mapped. Regardless, I had looked at the wiki, and there's no guidance one way or the other for house names—not using the name field for house numbers yes, but house names are left unremarked upon. In the absence of instruction otherwise, filling in the name field felt like the correct course of action.

Additionally, putting the house name in both name and addr:housename better matches my understanding of what a house name is? The name is the name of the building, and the address derives from that name. In cases such as Fanog, a farmhouse accidentally flooded in the construction of the Llyn Brianne Dam, the name outlasts the address (in this case applying to the ruins that sometimes peek out of the water in a drought). The name in the address is derived information, and ultimately more ephemeral than the name of the building.

—GafrPiws
MappSurfer (2026-02-14 18:39:49+00:00): Hallo

Ich bin selbst mit dem Hockeyexpress gefahren und kann dir deshalb sagen; Dass der Bus über den Rad-/Fussweg fährt, ist nicht etwa ein Versehen sondern tatsächlich so.

Zum Verständnis eine hier eine Schilderung der Situation: Damit der Bus während des Eishockeyspieles den regulär verkehrenden Linienbussen an der Haltestelle Stadien/Stades nicht im Weg steht, wird er während dieser Zeit dort abgestellt, wo ich die Haltestelle "Biel/Bienne TISSOT ARENA" (Benennung gemäss dem Fahrplan) hinzugefügt habe.
Nach dem Spiel kann er von dort aber nicht direkt auf die eigentliche Fahrbahn zurückgelangen, da sich zwischen dem Fuss-/Radweg und der Fahrbahn ein höherer Bordstein befindet. Also fährt der Bus dem Fuss-/Radweg entlang bis zur Wendestelle, ab wo er dann auf der Fahrbahn weiterfährt.

Ich habe den Routenverlauf bereits wieder zurückkorrigiert. Diese Ausführungen wollte ich dir aber noch geben, damit es (hoffentlich) keine weiteren Missverständnisse gibt.

Liebe Grüsse
MappSurfer
Rainero (2026-03-19 08:33:49+00:00): Revert mit changeset/180095422
(unzulässige Quelle)
Colbertson (2026-01-20 11:51:54+00:00): You should make circular things circular. In iD the hotkey for that is O.
Jordi MF_import (2026-01-19 18:33:13+00:00): Hola jandrillox,

Gracias por mejorar los datos de OSM. En el caso de esta edición, se había añadido la denomianción que consta en la clasificación oficial de vías pecuarias de Atzeneta del Maestrat (Assagador Real del Mas de la Serra). Puedes consultar el plano en el siguiente enlace: https://icvficherosweb.icv.gva.es/doc_asociada_visor/internet/forestal/vias_pecuarias/fdvp/120017/

Este azagador pasa por el Mas de la Serra y, ciertamente, también pasa por el Mas de la Xaparra de Vistabella. Pero tú consideras que es mejor la denominación "Assagador del Mas de Chaparra. ¿Cuál es la fuente que lo denomina así?

Un saludo!
NeisBot (2026-01-20 07:31:27+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 11 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/499717524 v1 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/499717518 v1 | 5 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/4909535371 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177439710
ika-chan! (2026-01-20 14:36:43+00:00): Node drag fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177479289
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177439710
RicoElectrico (2026-01-20 14:50:28+00:00): 500th mapping day! Congrats :)

https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?DJ%20Cane
tguen (2026-01-25 00:08:07+00:00): Please don't cut out parts of buildings just because they're covered by trees. Also be aware that aerial imagery can be taken from an angle that makes the shape look different than it actually is.
ika-chan! (2026-01-20 14:34:10+00:00): Please do not use random gibberish as a changeset comment. This does not help us understand what you were doing, and can increase the chance of confusion with vandalism.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177440818
Metzor (2026-05-11 13:53:46+00:00): Hallo der König!

Ich habe diesen Teil der aufgegebenen Bahnstrecke gelöscht:
https://api.openstreetmap.org/way/1468534935/history#map=19/48.500642/9.203108

Bitte wirklich nur das eintragen, was noch sichtbar ist!

Bitte ein ok/nene/... damit ich weiß, dass dich die Nachricht erreicht hat. Danke.

Viele Grüße
Metzor
dknelson9876 (2026-01-20 02:57:24+00:00): Hello Hypsometric, what was your reasoning for moving the number for this fire station to ref=*?

In my experience, the number for a fire station is treated more like it is part of the name, and less like an identifier. This overpass query also shows that holds true for pretty much anywhere in Utah where multiple stations are run by the same department

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2j1X
Hypsometric (2026-01-21 17:36:45+00:00): Thanks for asking. It is similar to a store number for a business. Except there are far less fire stations within a network.

There are some things that were imported from a large data set (e.g. GNIS) that do not follow what is described in the wiki. But the majority are named with whatever naming convention the source dataset had. Fire stations seem to be one of those features that were often imported from large datasets.

If I am missing or misunderstanding something, please let me know.
dknelson9876 (2026-01-21 18:29:43+00:00): That's precisely my point, that fire station numbers are *not* treated like store numbers. Where store numbers are generally only used by employees and in internal documents (store specific URLs being an exception), fire station numbers are included (sometimes rather prominently) on the building, uniforms, and vehicles.

Only 8 out of 270 fire stations currently mapped in Utah have a ref=* value. Further, I randomly looked at ~15 fire stations mapped in urban areas, and none of them were imported. They all were mapped by survey or local knowledge, and the ~7 different mappers who added them all put the number in the name. 

Similarly, of the 34,000 fire stations mapped in the USA, 34% have gnis:feature_id=* (so it's likely that 66% weren't imported), and only 4% have ref=*, further demonstrating that the change you performed here is highly unusual. This is why I think this change is incorrect.
SimonPoole (2026-01-20 14:52:41+00:00): Please refrain from adding more of these routes until the community has come to a consensus. Thank you.

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/ski-routes-import/138798 for the discussion.
SimonPoole (2026-01-20 14:53:29+00:00): PS: you would need to add the specific source to the contributors page if we do decide to keep them.
RandomMappppist (2026-01-20 15:02:45+00:00): Noted for the first comment. As for the 2nd comment, not sure what you're referring to?
SimonPoole (2026-01-20 17:14:42+00:00): While the licence situation is not totally clear, assuming it is the standard swisstopo open data licence you need to provide attribution (you did read the licence before you copied the data?), and our agreement with swisstopo in such cases is that we provide it on the contributors page.
RandomMappppist (2026-01-20 17:40:47+00:00): Yes, I did see that I needed to provide attribution, but didn't really know where and how. I thought it was only when used in an application.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-04-24 12:01:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181761661 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious changes in Somali, Ethiopia.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20179
Frans S (2026-06-15 14:17:25+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
A bit late; however, I want to share my comments on your mappings.
Your mappings are very odd. You just mapped an area around houses, actually the plot with the building on it, and tagged them as a building. You also named them with a generic name.
Please refresh your knowledge how to map and tag buildings.
Best regards.
LordGarySugar (2026-05-08 15:46:17+00:00): Hi, unfortunately I have had to remove a lot of the expressway=yes tags you have added as these roads do not qualify - please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:expressway. Related changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182388915
Supaplex (2026-01-20 08:05:15+00:00): layer=1
不要一個物件上傳一次請不要用非正規編輯器，會跳過不少QA工具的檢核
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177442421
Supaplex (2026-01-20 08:05:02+00:00): 位置並非月台
不要一個物件上傳一次請不要用非正規編輯器，會跳過不少QA工具的檢核
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177442425
Supaplex (2026-01-20 08:04:34+00:00): layer=2
不要一個物件上傳一次請不要用非正規編輯器，會跳過不少QA工具的檢核
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177442428
Supaplex (2026-01-20 08:04:19+00:00): 不要一個物件上傳一次請不要用非正規編輯器，會跳過不少QA工具的檢核
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177442432
Supaplex (2026-01-20 08:04:10+00:00): layer=1
不要一個物件上傳一次請不要用非正規編輯器，會跳過不少QA工具的檢核
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177442436
Supaplex (2026-01-20 08:03:54+00:00): 不要一個物件上傳一次請不要用非正規編輯器，會跳過不少QA工具的檢核
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177442440
Supaplex (2026-01-20 08:03:41+00:00): 位置跑到校園外，新竹機場了
不要一個物件上傳一次請不要用非正規編輯器，會跳過不少QA工具的檢核
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177442441
Glassman (2026-01-20 18:19:09+00:00): Please notice that this shop was already in OSM.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177442596
Glassman (2026-01-20 18:19:36+00:00): Please notice that this shop was already in OSM.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177442596
infeeeee (2026-01-22 14:00:22+00:00): Szia! Üdv az OpenStreetMapen!

Nagyon vicces volt, hogy az iskolát átjavítottad börtönre...

Mapillary alapján a két épület a parkban szeptemberben még állt, azóta történt változás?

Javítottam ezeket itt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177565996

Ha kérdésed merülne fel, a magyar szerkesztő közösség elérhetőségeit megtalálod ezen az oldalon: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hungary/Közösség#Elérhetőségek

További jó térképezést!
AndyB_66 (2026-02-26 21:31:49+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
NeisBot (2026-01-20 07:40:40+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/11836523880 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-28 07:29:40+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177792406
(No visible changes after review)
kaleidoscopica (2026-06-27 00:09:31+00:00): You added a long "track road" that covers multiple, seemingly unrelated, private properties. What is this, really?
LandShrk1348 (2026-06-27 00:21:51+00:00): Perhaps I used the wrong road type. It is a service utility road that runs the length of the Webster pipeline.
kaleidoscopica (2026-06-27 14:43:05+00:00): Is it really traversable? It's visible on Esri imagery, but seems to be frequently stopped at property boundaries. At the very least it should have an access=private tag (not any vehicle can follow the road, just private utility service vehicles) and I'd probably rather it be tagged as an unpaved highway=service, which is more appropriate for utility access roads. It'd also be good to tag any gates or obstacles along the way. The main reason I noticed it is because it "crosses" Opossum Creek, which is clearly not traversable.

But that all said, I also wonder if it should be mapped at all - most dug up areas to lay ground utilities aren't, because they get grown over quickly and only recleared when access is necessary again. In other words just because it appears like a "road" now because the work was recently done, doesn't mean it will always be one. Usually I just see the actual utility pipeline, rather than the "road" that laid the utility.

And finally, is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1468550157/history#map=19/30.702987/-97.589632&layers=N really a bridge? It doesn't look like it from aerial.
kaleidoscopica (2026-07-07 16:38:13+00:00): Do you have any thoughts on this, LandShrk1348?
NeisBot (2026-01-20 07:40:42+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/13468852806 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-28 07:29:40+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177792407
(No visible changes after review)