piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:32:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435450 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44059921 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:32:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435431 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44060381 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:31:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435429 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44060401 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:31:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435419 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44060860 because there was a problem with licence of data use
trigpoint (2016-11-30 18:50:27+00:00): Hi, what is the source of these reference numbers, and do you have permisson to use them?
Also I assume they are not verifiable on the ground so should be in admin_ref rather than ref. A satnav telling a driver to turn left into UX2 will be both confusing and annoying.
Cheers Phil
SiHollett (2016-11-30 19:36:49+00:00): 1) source - https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/28177/List-of-classified-roads/pdf/JW-LIST_OF_CLASSIFIED_ROADS.pdf

2) there's zero copyright on the document (and it's illegal for it's data to not be accessible to the public), though I should have sourced it

3) there's masses of unsigned roads in the UK (not mention the many other countries where its the norm to mark unsigned road numbers with ref= tags) marked with their numbers on OSM. I'm talking A and B roads, not just 'C roads'. If a satnav says 'turn left onto UX2', then its a bad product. I'm not sure why I need to spend additional time hiding information to allow commercial products to suck less, unless I'm getting paid.
SomeoneElse (2016-11-30 19:49:44+00:00): Ahem.  I'd suggest that your paragraph (2) could probably benefit from a bit of wider discussion - I'd suggest that talk-gb list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb for that - it's where youll probably find the widest audience of GB mappers.
Re (3) it's definitely worth following custom and practice in the UK, and custom and practice is _not_ to put the things in the "ref" tag that aren't usable as refs on the ground (e.g. are just internal council references).  http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/official_ref has significant usage for just that.
Finally, speaking as someone who creates maps for my own satnav based on OSM data, how am I supposed to make it know which refs are signed and which not?  Some (very few) C roads are signed, most not.
PS: No I am not planning to pay you anything :)
Richard (2016-12-01 07:39:20+00:00): Just because a document doesn't have a copyright notice on it doesn't mean it's uncopyrighted, I'm afraid. Quite the opposite- copyright subsists unless expressly disclaimed. 

Second, a document being "accessible" has no bearing on its copyright status. 

Third, as SomeoneElse explains, the consensus in the UK is that we do not add C/D/E/F/UX/etc road numbers to the ref tag, but rather to official_ref or somesuch (if they can be legally sourced). The problem with your (rather sweeping) "bad product" assertion is that OSM is an international project and it is not encouraged to unnecessarily add regional exceptions unless there's a compelling reason. ref= means the same thing the world over: let's not add a needless exception for one country.
SiHollett (2016-12-01 09:03:35+00:00): "ref= means the same thing the world over: let's not add a needless exception for one country."
Which is to include references that aren't signed with ref= tags. Unless Hungary, Estonia, Ukraine, Russia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Albania and all the other countries that include every road number, signed or not, have "needless exceptions" - AFAICS it's the UK that has the exception here. And, when it comes to A and B roads, every one is included, signed or not, so to not include Class III roads as they are unsigned is to be inconsistent with not only the rest of the world, but the UK's other roads.

"Finally, speaking as someone who creates maps for my own satnav based on OSM data, how am I supposed to make it know which refs are signed and which not?"
I don't know - those that don't fit the formulas for Motorways, A and B roads can be excluded with some code fairly easily, with very few false positives, but there's the issue that A and B roads that aren't signed but are mapped on OSM with ref= tags - which has nothing to do with me and surely a far more annoying issue. This can be mitigated somewhat by having the Satnav's instructions include road names too. If your Satnav says "turn left onto UX2" rather than "turn left onto UX2 Station Road" or "turn left onto Station Road" (filtering out the road number), then it is inherently a bad product - so my sweeping statement is perfectly justified.
SomeoneElse (2016-12-01 09:55:23+00:00): @SiHollett Your comments above seem to suggest that you believe that you and you alone have the correct answer - everyone else who disagrees with you must be wrong or somehow unenlightened.  If only life was so simple - n the real world there are different views that need to be taken on board and different versions of "true" to compare (and local authorities get plenty of things wrong - just look at the list of not:names http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=not%3Aname to see that).
A previous discussion on this was at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/thread.html#17390 - there have been many others.
You made three rather sweeping statements in your first comment above and have so far provided no justification for any of them.  I'd suggest that you do that, and would also suggest that the talk-gb list is the best place for that.  Incidentally, if you read back through there you'll see how I personally handle the problem that you say "can be excluded with some code fairly easily".
Regards,
Andy
SiHollett (2016-12-01 13:12:11+00:00): "Your comments above seem to suggest that you believe that you and you alone have the correct answer"
Not at all - that's you guys demanding that only you have the right version of true and that I conform to it. If you actually held to the idea that there's different versions of "true", you'd have simply gone and changed my edits to match your "true", rather than berate me for having a different version of "true".

I'm not attacking your *answers* or even wanting you to accept mine. I'm refusing to accept your *reasoning* for your answers: consisting of sweeping statements (add Norway and Belgium as other countries that don't conform to the 'global standards' as I've just remembered that they ref= tag all their roads too) that are easily shown not to be true, and assertions with no justification.

"you'll see how I personally handle the problem that you say "can be excluded with some code fairly easily"."
Indeed - you refuse to handle it personally, instead demanding that *I* fix *your* problem. And for no fee ;).

I remain unconvinced that unsigned/paper-only routes get admin_ref= by consensus in the UK (and it certainly doesn't seem to be the case in many other countries: unlike what Richard asserted about ref= meaning the same the world over) - that the consensus is bespoke, and so poorly applied, means I had no clue that it was the case when I made my edits. But I'll use it from now on, in spite of the terrible reasons I've been given for doing so.
SomeoneElse (2016-12-01 13:19:54+00:00): > you refuse to handle it personally,
No - go back and read it again.
SiHollett (2016-12-01 13:53:30+00:00): "Finally, speaking as someone who creates maps for my own satnav based on OSM data, how am I supposed to make it know which refs are signed and which not?"

This reads like 'I, personally, don't deal with it as I'm clueless and must get other people to do that for me, relying on them to tag stuff that is obviously unsigned to tag it in a way that shows that'. ;)
SomeoneElse (2016-12-01 14:24:53+00:00): Seriously - when you've got three people suggesting that you might want to reconsider what you're doing, just how unable-to-consider-alternate-points-of-view do you have to be to think "I'm right; evereyone else is wrong".
If you'd actually read the links I provided above you'd understand how I've been handling the "everyone agrees this is the road ref / name, but there's no sign" problem locally to me.  The problem with internal council rnumbers that you are adding is that the consensus is that they are _not_ useful references (because you can't, er, _refer_ to them at all).  Note that this is a _consensus_ (it wasn't intiially my view, for example) but it makes sense that we all map the same things in the same way.
SiHollett (2016-12-01 14:58:29+00:00): "Seriously - when you've got three people suggesting that you might want to reconsider what you're doing, just how unable-to-consider-alternate-points-of-view do you have to be to think "I'm right; evereyone else is wrong"."

So, hang on, so beyond having not one, not two, but *three* people berate me for not holding to a poorly-applied and bespoke consensus (that I have now accepted) that I didn't know about. And beyond you continuing to berate me for thinking differently (rather than addressing my arguments) as the reasons given (here - elsewhere there were some decent ones) for the consensus were not only rubbish, but demonstrably so, you now are so unable-to-consider-alternative-points-of-view that you are claiming that I'm wrong about what I think I'm thinking? The mind boggles at this aggressive arrogance of yours, that you presume to not only read my mind as saying something different to what I'm saying, but that I am wrong about it!!!!


"If you'd actually read the links I provided above"
If you'd actually read my post, you wouldn't be attacking me for thought crimes that I'm not committing.


"The problem with internal council rnumbers that you are adding is that the consensus is that they are _not_ useful references (because you can't, er, _refer_ to them at all)."
At last a decent argument for the consensus in this thread! This is massively different to the generic unsigned one you were making earlier that was tosh.
Mike Baggaley (2016-12-02 14:54:33+00:00): Looking at Lees Road (way 23111785 and adjoining), the U prefix reference suggests this is a tertiary road, but the highway tag has secondary in it, so either the ref tag or the highway tag is incorrect. Can you please either put a B road ref or change highway to tertiary?

Thanks,
Mike
SomeoneElse (2016-12-02 15:20:50+00:00): @Mike Baggaley - I think you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4275498 (I keep doing that too!)
SiHollett (2016-12-02 15:59:16+00:00): Mike, any reason why you couldn't do it? surely it would have taken less time for you to do it than to ask me to?

also, why am I responsible, when someone else erroneously made it secondary, rather than tertiary?

Anyway, I've changed it, though I have no idea why I'm being so nice. I even changed the ref= tags on that road to official_ref= while I was at it.
Mike Baggaley (2016-12-02 16:32:06+00:00): Thanks for that, Si. I am not local to the area so don't know anything about the road, other than that it failed my check of secondary roads with a ref beginning with something other than a B, so I had no way of knowing which tag was incorrect. As the last change to the road was to set its ref, it seemed likely that whoever made that change had some knowledge of the road and would be the best person to be in a position to correct it. This is normal practice in the OSM community. There have been several occasions where a newly added ref turned out to be a previous ref to a road that has been downgraded, so blindly changing the the highway tag to match the ref is not a good idea (I have made that mistake before).

Best wishes,
Mike
SiHollett (2016-12-02 16:37:59+00:00): OK, thanks Mike, that makes sense
EdLoach (2017-05-11 13:30:25+00:00): I just stumbled across UX6 and wondered why ref has been used in place of official_ref - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:official_ref but see there has been discussion already. It looks like we're being left to correct them as we find them?
streinger (2016-11-30 14:41:54+00:00): Да вы как я вижу исправились)))))
Подъезд к асфальтобетонному заводу это secondary)))))
ну напишите хоть чем вы руководствуетесь, вы же тут, или на самом деле  это бот у которого глюки какие.
streinger (2016-11-30 15:03:48+00:00): дорога на Первомайский от развилки(Светлый-Первомайский-подъезд к посту Светлый),мимо завода, ну в крайнем tertiary, нет других дорог, она ведет только к Первомайскому, а дальше к Первомайский-Полевой это unclassified, а дальше-то поля.
str74 (2016-12-04 06:28:33+00:00): Вы сами то смотрите сюда http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:highway ?

Причём здесь вообще поля непонятно. Оценка дороги от перекрёстка (развилки) до перекрёстка, то же странно.

Почему а/д Светлый - Первомайский нужно по вашему оценивать по частям непонятно.

а/д Первомайский - Полевой соединяет два села, подходит под описание highway=tertiary.
А то что дальше поля... Ну и что?? У а/д
а/д Первомайский - Полевой есть протяжённость 12.4 км затем она упирается в улицу внутри села, а затем уже ваши поля.
streinger (2016-12-05 12:56:27+00:00): написал я вам в другой правке про связность дорог, ключевое слово упирается, у вас получается от развилки secondary-tertiary-unclassified, что это связность, ну можно tertiary оставить но пусть его  по основным улицам и замкнуть, или как я сделал, а если у поселка(деревни) 1 улица, что упирать в эту одну улицу?  Переделал, считаю так правильней, или полностью от развилки unclassified сделать.После Первомайского увидел только 1 поселок-Полевой(ну эт не главное)
Supaplex (2016-12-01 17:53:24+00:00): 恭喜您完成第一次的地圖編輯！ 歡迎加入開放街圖，群眾共同參與，繪製生活週遭大家關心事物的共編地圖。以下是相關的參考資料，歡迎隨時指教與提問。

編輯須知
台灣的標示依循準則可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taiwan
常見的圖徵標示方式可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features

台灣社群網站
台灣 OpenStreetMap 網站 http://www.openstreetmap.tw
臉書粉絲頁OpenStreetMap台灣 https://www.facebook.com/opestreetmaptaiwan/
台灣社群Facebook社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Slack https://osm-tw.signup.team/

Happy Mapping!
DemoLogin (2019-05-15 07:44:23+00:00): можно просто добавить noname=yes
FTA (2016-12-01 02:52:07+00:00): Hi Ema,

Thanks for using OpenStreetMap and Maps.me! I noticed you were adding a lot of points that seem to be related to a bike or other sort of race. Unfortunately, we only map things in OSM that are on the ground and not temporary, as opposed to custom objects. Furthermore, edits through Maps.me aren't even propagated to other people until the next app update.

So, if you want to make a custom map and add this sort of data, I would suggest using a tool like http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ that provides the ability to add custom waypoints and share the resulting map with anyone else. If you are interested in using umap, you can access your changesets through the OpenStreetMap website and paste the osmChangeXML url into the umap import window, then select OSM file type to import your currently added data. I'm happy to walk you through that in more detail if you'd like. Feel free to send me a private message if so.

Best,
Ethan aka FTA
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:30:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435416 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44061828 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:29:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435402 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44061853 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:29:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435401 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44061904 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:29:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435399 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44061942 because there was a problem with licence of data use
jleedev (2016-11-30 15:39:35+00:00): the tiger: keys don't actually do anything and should mostly be deleted. change the name instead.
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:29:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435393 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062173 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:28:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435387 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062322 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:28:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435384 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062329 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:28:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435381 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062373 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:28:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435378 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062471 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:27:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435376 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062546 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:27:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435375 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062557 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:27:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435374 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062570 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:27:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435372 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062583 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:27:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435370 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062609 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:27:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435369 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062629 because there was a problem with licence of data use
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:27:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435367 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062651 because there was a problem with licence of data use
andi9876 (2016-12-01 15:39:41+00:00): Hi, please stop add artworks
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:27:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435364 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062783 because there was a problem with licence of data use
andi9876 (2016-12-16 03:48:06+00:00): Dear, please stop add artworks and attractions.
fredi_alf (2016-12-15 23:27:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44435362 where the changeset comment is: reverted 44062882 because there was a problem with licence of data use
Karthoo (2016-12-05 21:01:30+00:00): Sorry, but the railway crossing is obstructed now! The bing imagery is not up to date!
piligab (2016-12-06 15:34:28+00:00): Hi doktorpixel14,

Thank you for bringing this to my notice. This edit was done during connecting motorable roads using to-fix. Agreed that the imagery is outdated and what you have mentioned is right. Hence, I have reverted my changeset. Henceforth, I will make sure to double check and add a note in case of doubts. Thanks for your feedback
Hjart (2016-11-30 16:38:35+00:00): Please note the discussion at http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44017219
yurasi (2016-11-30 17:24:29+00:00): Hi Hjart,
I understand, I've reverted my change.
literan (2016-11-30 17:00:08+00:00): не надо удалять здания, которые еще видно на снимказ (кто-то придет и нарисует по снимку заново). Надо удалить с него все теги, и вместо этого поставить was:building=yes + note=снесено
rkham (2016-11-30 17:08:06+00:00): Снимки слишком старые. Им уже несколько лкэет. Они очень сильно отличаются от действительности. Многих зданий давно уже нет и местность во многом изменилась. Здание находится у меня в районе, по соседству с моим домом.
literan (2016-11-30 17:29:39+00:00): подозреваю, вы не совсем внимательно прочитали, что я написал :-) Повторю: надо удалить с линии все теги и поставить was:building=yes + note=снесено ЧТОБЫ НИКТО ЗАНОВО НЕ НАРИСОВАЛ это здание по снимку (кроме нас с вами-то никто не знает, что оно снесено, а на снимке - вот оно, пожалуйста)
rkham (2016-11-30 17:32:32+00:00): Понял. На свойства обращю внимание. Я так рисую только то что лично вижу и знаю. Надеюсь большинство делает аналогичным образом. Поэтому не стоит вводить народ в заблуждение. Да и здание ... Это же не иголка в слоге сена. Его нет. )
literan (2016-11-30 17:34:46+00:00): с этими тегами это здание нигде отображаться не будет (нажмите F5 - я там даже стройку уже нанес), они как бы служебные
SomeoneElse_Revert (2017-02-14 19:32:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 46087845 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some Google-sourced edits
Hjart (2016-11-30 16:38:58+00:00): Please note the discussion at http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44017219
ridixcr (2016-12-01 23:01:02+00:00): Hi Hjart,
Thank you for reaching out and notifying me about this error. This is was a to-fix detection error, which now we know to not consider as an error. We will make sure that this is not repeated.

Thanks for your feedback
lgsreal (2016-11-30 16:06:08+00:00): Araçatuba**
user_5359 (2016-11-30 18:45:16+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM description of the objects has the highest priority. Objects that have only one name, have little sense. As home page for the question "How do I describe you?" I recommend the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_to_map_a.
lorandr_telenav (2017-10-27 11:23:08+00:00): Hi.
Scuse me. Here i see 100km/h and on the way is 90km/h. Can you help me how did you put it?
Thanks!
BushmanK (2017-01-01 19:32:14+00:00): Каков источник названий "Северный Хапиловский сквер" и "Южный Хапиловский сквер"?
neo-plan (2017-01-01 19:46:54+00:00): Это народные названия, закрепившиеся за лесными массивами.
BushmanK (2017-01-01 19:51:50+00:00): Тогда это loc_name. Плюс, живя на Преображенке с детства, ни разу их не слышал. Спросил нескольких знакомых - аналогично, все первый раз слышат. Указание на "северный" и "южный" отдают каким-нибудь казенным документом.
neo-plan (2017-01-01 20:52:57+00:00): Мы, когда бухать туда из автопарка напротив ходили, называли из "Верхний" и "Нижний", а саму территорию - "Хапиловка".:-)
BushmanK (2017-01-01 21:01:06+00:00): Вот именно что. Признавайтесь, откуда-нибудь вроде http://gorod.mos.ru/?show=objects&id=1729957 списали?
neo-plan (2017-01-01 21:09:10+00:00): Нее, я по таким "непристойным" сайтам не лажу. По ВАО - либо собственные знания, либо газета "Восточный округ".
BushmanK (2017-01-01 21:15:46+00:00): Газета, значит... Еще более непристойный источник - казенная перепечатка другой казенной ерунды.
neo-plan (2017-01-01 21:19:58+00:00): У меня подобный спор, только с несколькими участниками, возник после названия мной парка возле Святого озера в Старом Косино. Я указал народное название, которое там на табличке временно поставили и выставили в этой газете на голосование. В итоге, удаляли, называли по-своему как-то, а в итоге сейчас всё равно то название, что первоначально написал я...