piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Bickendan (2015-09-02 20:27:25+00:00): And the 'nature' of the road is a freeway with an expressway break. It is not a surface expressway. 
To use an absurd simile: 
A person has a prosthetic limb. They are wanting to clone their missing limb but can't afford it so the prosthetic must do in the meantime. 
By your standard, instead of accurately calling them a person with a prosthetic limb, they are a mannequin (I am discounting the fact that mannequins aren't alive for this comparison). 

No one in their right mind would make that argument, yet that argument is being made for WA 500. On a map that is designed for as much cartographic accuracy as possible, countermanding the definition of the transportation agency that built and maintains the route (which should be the final say for mapping purposes), and countermanding the mappers who live in the area and have field checked the route. 

This accuracy is ultimately for the benefit of the end user, the people who use OSM as an alternative to the other online maps who have become rife with errors. Putting routes under blanket tags is an error.
Baloo Uriza (2015-09-02 21:29:53+00:00): So what makes the northwest so special that they can just disregard common usage?  I'm familiar with the road, and with WSDOT's idiosyncrasies.
Bickendan (2015-09-02 21:36:56+00:00): If you were familiar with the road, why call it a Super-4 when it's not? Why compare it to OR 224, when such a comparison is disingenuous at best? 
And speaking of OR 224, it is incorrectly mapped as a twinned highway when it isn't.
Baloo Uriza (2015-09-02 22:06:44+00:00): Indeed you're correct on 224.  However, in both cases, neither operate completely as motorways for about the same reason.  If we were to tag it your way, it'd be switching back and forth between motorway and trunk every other junction (but you're right, it should be converted if they finally took out the K-rail for ease of maintenance like they were talking about doing).  You can have trunks with on and off ramps, which is basically what both are.  99E just off 224's another example of not-quite-a-motorway.  WA 500's close to it, and I see merit in tagging it as a motorway in the future once the only at-grade intersection with the expressway portion is 4th Plain, but until then, motorway sets the wrong expectation to viewers and routers, and flipflopping back and forth without any change in the nature of the road is disingenuous.  What makes entering the strip from east of 54th and west of Falk different from driving in the only segment of this expressway classified correctly?  Nothing, you're still having to look for a traffic light before the end of the high speed portion of the road.  If 224's undivided now, then the only real difference between 500 and 224 is 500 has a K-rail in the center of it.
Chris Lawrence (2015-09-02 22:11:38+00:00): To wade in here a bit, I don't think the North American usage of the "highway=motorway" tag has ever required that a road have freeway characteristics from end to end, merely that the segments tagged as motorway have those characteristics for a reasonable length. I really don't think an appeal to "common usage" flies here.

In WA 500's case, it appears the freeway is interrupted by a segment with two at-grades for maybe 15% of its length from I-5 to Fourth Plain Blvd. This seems somewhat analogous to the case of US 71 in Kansas City, where NIMBY opposition has left a section of the route without full access control. How is it tagged? See http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/39.0107/-94.5474
Baloo Uriza (2015-09-02 22:23:07+00:00): That seems to be an equally oddly tagged trunk; I'd probably have gone with trunk from Swope Pky to I 435 so there's at least an equal interchange at either end of the segment.  These things get backed up more than motorways more or less inherent to their design compared to motorways (if you except extremely rare once in a million cases like the Interstate Drawbridge or the Peace Arch Park border station, for which you have literally miles of warning for, rather than 800-odd feet for a traffic light like you would on a trunk.
jakeroot (2015-09-02 22:24:40+00:00): From the standpoint of someone who is just as familiar with the area, making the entirety of the road a trunk road when the entrances say "freeway" and the state map says "freeway" is misleading at best. And Mr Johnson, I understand your point that it's inconsistent within the OSM community (though I don't necessarily agree, and I think each road should be marked based on its individual merits), if continuity within OSM is more important than mapping what is actually on the surface of the earth, what's the point to begin with? This is absolutely baffling to me. The state clearly says that the roadway in question is freeway. Hell, if you read the wiki page for motorways, it says "[f]or roads that do not meet the above requirements ***consider*** using highway=trunk". We have considered it, but based on other facts present (the official state map and road signs), highway=trunk would be incorrect.
Baloo Uriza (2015-09-03 07:42:36+00:00): Well, let's look at it from the root of what the trunk and motorway definitions are, the AASHTO definitions of limited access, partially controlled access, and controlled access.  OSM would consider the former two as a trunk, and the latter as motorway.  AASHTO's definition would consider WA 500 from 5 to 4th Plain as partially controlled access.
Bickendan (2015-09-03 22:26:12+00:00): Again, isn't OSM's mission to provide the most accurate maps online through the use of open collaboration? Rigidly adhering to definitions that don't fit every situation compromises cartographic accuracy and disservices the end user. It's bad enough that OSM uses the Mercator projection (and note this is only a critique of the distortions inherent to Mercator, not a social commentary of the projection); why make things worse by stubbornly holding to rules that don't exactly fit situations at hand?
Baloo Uriza (2015-09-03 22:38:38+00:00): Yes, that is the point, Bickendan, which is why I'm rejecting WSDOT's assertation and substituting in one that is the most consistent in accurately describing this object.  One thing we do need to watch out for is an upward creep in tag classification as well or the higher classifications lose meaning.  When there's a concise way to accurately describe that, why not do that instead of trying to pass it off as a larger road because a state agency did?  What WSDOT has it down as on paper and how it functions in actual operation are two different things.
Bickendan (2015-09-03 23:00:16+00:00): But this is the point you're not considering: We are classifying how the road functions in actual operation, from in the field observation!
Baloo Uriza (2015-09-04 06:31:57+00:00): Evidently not, motorways are controlled access, divided exclusively.
Bickendan (2015-09-04 07:20:12+00:00): From I-5 to 42nd, is WA 500 divided? Is it controlled access? 
From 54th to Fourth Plain, is it divided? Is it controlled access? 
And, from 42nd to 54th, is it divided? Is it controlled access?
Baloo Uriza (2015-09-04 07:51:58+00:00): The only real difference between trunk and motorway in OSM classification is that trunks might be controlled access but lack a median, or are divided but lack a full control along a segment that people generally consider as contigous.  Certainly that is the case with WA 500, as just saying SR 500 or hearing it in a traffic report on KATU or KEX immediately evokes the entire partially-controlled expressway as a single unit.

Also, I'm going to have to add additional justification to revert this changeset and the related ones along 500 as this also seems to have reversed around 12-15 hours of hard work removing lane tagging I spent a lot of effort on.
Chris Lawrence (2015-09-04 15:42:22+00:00): Paul: It was *your own edits* that deleted the lane counts. Reverting this changeset wouldn't fix that. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history and http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32790788
jakeroot (2015-09-05 21:40:01+00:00): I don't think this particular changeset had any lane modifications, but my original changeset which changed the roadway from trunk to motorway did include quite a few merged ways on my part (I was not aware how much detail there was in regards to lanes). I did not intend to ruin any detail that you had implemented, Mr Johnson, and despite the fact that I believe the segments as drawn should remain as motorway, changeset's #33669446 and #33587233 should be reverted. That said, the segments in question should still be changed to motorway.
Baloo Uriza (2015-09-05 23:16:12+00:00): Sorry for coming in a little bit hot.  Let's go ahead and get that reverted and work to coming to some agreement on classification.  Can we come to an agreement that most people in the region view WA 500 west of Fourth Plain as a single unit?
jakeroot (2015-09-07 04:07:08+00:00): Who exactly reverts the changeset? I would do it, if I knew how to without potentially exacerbating things.
rickmastfan67 (2015-09-07 04:45:20+00:00): We could ask somebody in the DWG to do the revert, because of being a neutral party.
Baloo Uriza (2015-09-08 16:07:51+00:00): Yeah, let's get the DWG to handle the revert since there's apparently more than one changeset involved and this is hella-messy.
Víctor L (2015-08-30 16:05:23+00:00): Hay que cambiar lo que dice en la wiki antes de hacer los cambios, porque otros usuarios que no vean esos cambios en esa página podrán con todo su derecho deshacer los cambios respetando lo que hasta ahora aparece ahí.
s3b4s5 (2015-08-31 02:09:23+00:00): Hecho. Coloqué la info en la wiki Argentina e hice una tabla para ser ordenados en los cambios. Saludos!
Víctor L (2015-08-31 10:59:36+00:00): Perfecto. Yo ya estuve pasando (en el caso de RP6) los ingresos, salidas, retornos y otras infraestructuras a trunk_link. Conforme al tiempo libre que tenga continuaré con lo mismo. Saludos.
SomeoneElse (2015-09-02 13:35:09+00:00): Hello, 
Would it be possible to use more informative changeset comments than simply "corrections"?  That doesn't explain what ws changed, why, and what the source was?
We're all updating the same map and we have to work together to do that, so it really helps everyone else if we all use descriptive changeset comments.
Cheers,
Andy
poshbakerloo (2015-09-02 16:14:21+00:00): Hi, yes I know it is a bit vague. I was putting more before the amount of changes I'd make at anyone time (50+) means it would be a huge amount to write
SomeoneElse (2015-09-05 11:41:15+00:00): Changeset comments are really helpful to other mappers though.  I occasionally visit the Dane Valley and nearby and map stuff there, and it'd be interesting to know what had actually changed and why.  Was some extra attribute mapped that wasn't before (perhaps the width of the roads)?  Was there an alignment problem?  Without going through each object in detail it's not possible to tell, and even after that it's not possible to know whether the updates were based on survey, local knowledge, or something else.
SomeoneElse (2015-09-05 14:35:36+00:00): It's been a while since I was there, but I'm pretty sure that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32151252/history#map=18 didn't used to run half in the residential area and half not.
Nigel Greens (2015-09-05 16:12:35+00:00): A bit of lazy mapping there. Apologies. I've amended it so the path is separate from both the field and the gardens.
adamino (2015-08-29 23:29:58+00:00): Z tego co wiem, droga nr 901 jest nieprzejezdna w Wielowsi jedynie na odcinku ul. Główna - ul. Gliwicka. Czy można prosić o jakieś potwierdzenie tego, że odcinek dalej na południe również jest nieprzejezdny?
maraf24 (2015-08-30 10:03:27+00:00): Nieprawidłowo. noexit oznacza, że nie ma żadnych możliwości kontynuuowania trasy, a tutaj dalej idzie chodnik.
maraf24 (2015-08-30 10:21:37+00:00): Teraz trzeba już dodawać nawierzchnie, bo samo path po ostatnich dyskusjach uważa się za twór ułomny.
Robin007 (2015-09-01 08:52:50+00:00): Rozumiem, że w tym wypadku temat jest już zamknięty?
maraf24 (2015-09-01 16:21:52+00:00): path to tyle co "jakaś droga". Może to być wydeptana ścieżka a może być i brukowany chodnik. Dlatego warto dodawać surface.
Robin007 (2015-09-01 21:23:17+00:00): A co z pozycją? Nawierzchnia - grunt.
Dodałem to, bo jak widzę mimo "surface" Nawierzchnia nie była uzupełniona.
maraf24 (2015-09-01 22:17:56+00:00): Jest dobrze.
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-01-26 23:08:47+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/270055625 - maybe it would be better to remove that highway=track to prevent broken routing? And keep fixme until someone resurveys?
messpert (2022-02-14 20:28:45+00:00): I have finally found time to look at this.
I have followed your suggestion.
The service  road on the other side of the river leading to the alleged ford is marked as No through Road, so that is additional evidence that there is no ford today. I really need to walk down that road and survey properly, but there is nowhere to park anywhere near. And while I have walked around 20 miles to that area with a group, I couldn't hold up the party while I went off on a survey of that area. So I am not sure that it will be properly surveyed anytime soon.
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-02-15 09:14:08+00:00): Thanks! And I wish you a good luck with trips :)
NicEd (2015-09-12 22:12:24+00:00): Hi. Thank you for adding this feature.
Astrospark (2015-08-30 00:21:19+00:00): Added Turweston FP5 as designated by Buckinghamshire CC
woodpeck_repair (2015-09-08 19:00:44+00:00): Some maxspeed related changes in this changeset were reverted in changeset 33890248 because switching to kilometres instead of miles per hour for UK rail speed limits had not been discussed with the UK community.
rickmastfan67 (2015-09-03 12:53:46+00:00): Can you please explain why you think this small interchange along US-220 Alternate should be tagged as a motorway? https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/40.9467/-77.7955   As I mentioned when I downgraded it back to a 'primary' less than a month ago ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33230103 ) after your previous upgrade here, a "single interchange doesn't = motorway".  So, can you explain why you think this would be one?  Not even PennDOT considers this area to be a 'motorway'.
rickmastfan67 (2015-09-03 13:05:58+00:00): Also, when tagging as a 'motorway', you break bicycle routing unless explicit tags are added to allow them.  Are there any signs on the ramps saying that bicycle's and pedestrians are 'prohibited'?  I doubt it.  This segment should still be primary, nothing higher as I-99 is the 'true' motorway in this area for N/S traffic.
Chris Lawrence (2015-09-03 17:32:05+00:00): I concur with rickmastfan67. The lack of any pedestrian restrictions would also suggest this isn't a motorway. While pedestrians are occasionally permitted along a motorway-type facility (most commonly on bridges), it's almost always using a segregated pathway.
rickmastfan67 (2015-09-11 04:20:17+00:00): Waited over 8 days for a response back from Matt1993, got nothing here.  Meanwhile he's still been editing in OSM during the time between the comments left here, so he's had time to do leave a comment here...... Reverted back to primary in Changeset 33947278. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33947278
Matt1993 (2015-10-11 22:12:43+00:00): IF you would like to contact me, please sent a message. I would gladly respond. Thank you.
Matt1993 (2015-10-11 22:13:23+00:00): I believe it should be tagged as such because it is up to the standards of such. It is a limited access road, and should be represented as such on the map.
Matt1993 (2015-10-11 22:16:52+00:00): And please, a bit of professionalism would be nice. Citing "common sense" implies that the editor (myself) lacks it. That is unacceptable, and would surely get you penalized in the world of academia. Please be advised, I will not respond to such rude comments in the future. Thank you.
Matt1993 (2015-10-11 22:18:19+00:00): Also, US 322 directly north or Harrisburg is tagged (rightfully so) as a motorway, while it fully allows bicycle traffic. There are always exceptions to general rules such as these, which is why I tagged it as such, it fits the description.
ajfroggie (2015-11-01 14:02:50+00:00): Generally speaking, roads designated as freeway are continuous for multiple interchanges, or more than a few miles.  This section of ALT 220 has neither.
CloCkWeRX (2015-09-02 06:24:33+00:00): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Victorian_Government_data - afaik, we've never managed to successfully get explicit permission. Fantastic if you've got it, but you'll want to be mindful of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Ensure_that_the_data_license_is_OK
TheSwavu (2015-09-03 06:45:29+00:00): Hmm, that's an interesting point. I had used the data on the basis of this:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2013-October/010086.html

which is the closest thing I could find to formal permission to use any data.vic stuff. But I suppose you could interpret this to only cover the datasets specifically mention at the time rather than applying to any dataset and then adding it to the list.

Are you suggesting that there isn't any permission to use the things listed under:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Victorian_Government_data? Or that it only applies to the datasets listed?
TheSwavu (2015-09-04 09:07:24+00:00): I emailed data.vic yesterday asking them to confirm or deny any permission we may have. I'll post any response I get to list-au and revert this changeset (and the other) or update the contributors page depending.
Adrián Perales (2015-08-30 01:41:22+00:00): No estaba seguro si ponerlo como Bar o Restaurante, pero realmente es un sitio para sentarse a comer tapas así que creo que es adecuado.
Nakaner (2015-11-01 23:04:40+00:00): Warum hast du in diesem Änderungssatz https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33645558 revertiert? Wie ich im Changeset-Kommentar schrieb, ist "DB Netz Infrastrukturdatenbank" eine unzulässige Quelle.
Kakaner (2015-11-01 23:08:17+00:00): Weil die Angaben stimmen.
Nakaner (2015-11-01 23:24:38+00:00): Das tun die amtlichen Daten meistens auch, trotzdem ist die Nutzung amtlicher Daten in OSM in Sachsen nicht erlaubt. Dasselbe gilt für die Daten der DB.

Siehst du das anders oder warum sollten Daten der DB Netz Infrastrukturdatenbank eine legale Quelle darstellen?

Die Daten der DB enthalten auch Fehler, wie man mir selbst neulich bei einem Gespräch in Frankfurt mitgeteilt hat.
Kakaner (2015-11-01 23:26:42+00:00): Ach du warst bei einem Gespräch in Frankfurt? Wusste ich gar nicht.

Wenn ich schreibe, dass die Angaben stimmen, dann stimmen sie. Willst du mir etwa widersprechen?
Peda (2015-11-02 13:06:51+00:00): Hallo,

aus den mir vorliegenden Fakten wurde in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22626277 etwas gemappt, das als Quelle "DB Netz Infrastrukturdatenbank" angibt. Das wurde von Nakaner in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33645558 revertiert. Das geschah scheinbar ohne vorherige Diskussion, aber mit ausführlichem Changeset-Kommentar. Ob der Benutzer benachrichtigt wurde, weiß ich nicht, der Account wirkt allerdings inaktiv. Dann wurde das ganze von Kakaner in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33675202 erneut revertiert. Auch das geschah scheinbar ohne vorherige Diskussion und ohne aussagekräftigem Changeset-Kommentar mit Quellenangabe "survey".

Ich schlage daher folgende zwei Möglichkeiten vor. Möglichkeit 1: Kakaner weist brauchbar nach, dass "DB Netz Infrastrukturdatenbank" eine erlaubte Quelle darstellt, dann können die Daten in der DB enthalten bleiben. Kann er das innerhalb von 3 Tagen nicht, dann bitte ich Nakaner um einen Revert der Daten (ansonsten werde ich revertieren). Möglichkeit 2: Jeder erkennt die Quelle als nicht legal an, dann kann Nakaner oder Kakaner sofort revertieren.

Die Information selbst darf in beiden Fällen natürlich sowohl von Kakaner als auch Nakaner neu eingetragen werden, allerdings *nur* solche Informationen, die aus einer legalen Quelle stammen bzw. erneut gesammelt wurden! Es ist keinenfalls glaubhaft, dass der Revert auf (oder das Eintragen von) Daten eines komplett anderen Benutzers als Quelle "survey" hat. Ich bitte das künftig zu unterlassen, da so das Projekt OpenStreetMap als ganzes angreifbar wird, wenn wir es erlauben, urheberrechtlich geschützte Daten in unsere Datenbank aufzunehmen!

Peda
i.A. OSMF Data Working Group
Kakaner (2015-11-02 13:09:59+00:00): Ich bin die Strecke gefahren und habe mit OsmAnd vergleichen. Ich kann gerne die Fahrkarte der Fahrt vorzeigen.
Peda (2015-11-02 13:39:05+00:00): Das ist doch schön! Aber nochmal: Deshalb kannst du trotzdem nicht einfach die Daten des ursprünglichen Changesets wiederherstellen, da dieser eben aus urheberrechtlich geschützten Informationen erstellt wurde. Daher Revert: Nicht Ok. Dein Wissen selbst eintragen: Ok. (Details siehe oben). 

Ich würde daher vorschlagen, diesen Changeset hier zu revertieren bzw. zumindest soweit zu revertieren, dass die Informationen aus https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22626277 wieder entfernt werden.
Kakaner (2015-11-02 13:41:39+00:00): Wieso? Ich komme durch andere Quellen auf die gleichen Daten. Lass die DBAG doch klagen, machen die eh nicht. Nakaner hat gute Connections und war auch letzten Monat bei der DBAG diesbezüglich zum Gespräch. Nakaner, berichte doch mal davon.
Peda (2015-11-02 13:46:38+00:00): Ob die klagen oder nicht und wen Nakaner kennt oder nicht ist nebensächlich. Wir wollen in OpenStreetMap keine Daten aus urheberrechlich geschützten Werken und als DWG sind wir damit beauftragt, genau solche Daten in der Datenbank zu verhindern. Für mich wurde somit alles gesagt und ich bitte darum, diesen Changeset zu revertieren.

Peda
i.A. OSMF Data Working Group
Kakaner (2015-11-02 13:49:04+00:00): Die Signale inkl. Bezeichnungen sind in der Örtlichkeit erkennbar. Daher liegt gar kein Urheberrechtsverstoß vor.
Peda (2015-11-02 13:55:31+00:00): Mit dieser Begründung kannst du auch Straßennamen von Google abschreiben. Wir haben uns aber als Projekt entschieden, dass wir genau solche Dinge nicht machen, da wir uns nicht angreifbar machen wollen. Da ist es auch egal, dass du das persönlich anders siehst. Es steht dir natürlich frei das Thema auf der Mailingliste oder bei der Licensing Working Group zu diskutieren und für deine Sicht der Dinge zu werben. Bis dahin bleibt die Quelle nicht erlaubt und dieser Changeset wird revertiert.
Kakaner (2015-11-02 13:58:25+00:00): Ich habe die Angaben aber vor Ort geprüft und werdwäe unverzüglich wieder zurück revertieren.
Peda (2015-11-02 14:18:09+00:00): Inhaltlich ist hier wohl alles gesagt. 

Damit wir hier Editwars und Edits fraglicher Herkunft verhindern, untersage ich dir, Kakaner, hiermit in diesem Gebiet für 6 Monate Daten einzutragen, zu ändern oder zu revertieren. Andernfalls wird dein Account gesperrt.
Kakaner (2015-11-02 14:21:45+00:00): Für ein solches Verbot sehe ich keine Rechtsgrundlage. Ich werde befreundete OSM-Mitglieder bitten, die Daten einzutragen.

Übrigens ich lüge nicht. Ich fahre wirklich oft dort lang und habe wirklich die Signale vom Zug geprüft. Das sind keine dummen Sprüche von mir.
Kakaner (2015-11-02 14:32:40+00:00): Peda wird jetzt ein Fall für den Staatsanwalt. Mal sehen, was noch so passiert.
Kakaner (2015-11-02 14:33:33+00:00): Die Herausgabe seiner vollständigen Personalien wurde bereits durch mich angefordert. Einstweilige Verfügung folgt.
Nakaner (2015-11-02 21:39:40+00:00): Dieser Änderungssatz wurde durch https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35044237 revertiert.
BeKri (2017-11-17 03:42:26+00:00): Servus,
weiß nicht, ob Du noch aktiv bist,
mir ist aufgefallen, dass es die Hs-Nr. 23
in der Sophie-Scholl-Weg 2* gibt ...
Kannst Du das überprüfen ?
Gruss derBeKri