piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
mavl (2022-05-20 15:56:37+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
mavl (2022-05-20 15:56:33+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
user_5359 (2022-04-13 05:31:35+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please don't add any standard name like "House", "Another Random House"
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
user_5359 (2022-04-13 06:36:33+00:00): Hello! Please have a look https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8980777335 (one of twenty three objects). What is the meaning of the tag "monumentor" = "United States Geological Survey"?

By the way: I don't believe the name PUSH, STRONG, etc.
BubbaJuice (2022-04-13 14:37:31+00:00): Hey user_5359, 
The meaning of the tag "monumentor" I have started using for benchmarks is which agency monumented the benchmark. In the case of "PUSCH", it was the USGS. The names are completely legitimate. I have visited all of these benchmarks personally and I added them to the database for a rendering proposal, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:BubbaJuice/Survey_Points_Rendering, where you can find images of each of them, with their stamped names. The coordinates I have are from the NGS database, which is in the public domain as it is a government work.
user_5359 (2022-04-13 18:26:48+00:00): Please have a look on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:heritage. I am sure you mean heritage:operator.
BubbaJuice (2022-04-14 01:24:07+00:00): I'm not sure if I do. By "monumentor" I mean the government agency that placed the benchmark there. From what I read on the wiki (I didn't totally understand it as it doesn't actually describe what it is) but it is for a protected feature. These are not really protected. If they're gone, they're gone, unless someone decides to reset it with a new disk (very unlikely). What the tag means is just what government agency had employees go out and set the benchmark.
mueschel (2022-04-16 08:31:09+00:00): How about 
"erected_by" (used 160 times)?
"builder" (used 1200 times)?
"constructor" (used 60 times)?
"surveyor" (not used, but maybe the most precise)?

They are all not perfectly describing the situation, but at least are words that can be found in dictionaries.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
topius (2022-04-13 08:37:44+00:00): Hi there. I changed the classification back to tertiary, as here it even connects to a small town. I would appreciate if you could contact me for any further changes to roads drawn by me, as I am one of the few PNG mappers who tries to get some sort of standard in road classification going.
Guanabacoa (2022-04-14 06:06:12+00:00): Hi topius. Thanks for your message and editing these routes to the appropriate classification. There seems to be ambiguity on the OSM Wiki between tertiary and unclassified roads in Papau New Guinea (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea_Tagging_Guidelines). I noticed there are schools where the tertiary roads end (such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7418665147). Would you like to add to the description on the OSM Wiki that tertiary roads can lead to/end at schools, and any other standards that help differentiate tertiaries from unclassifieds?
topius (2022-04-13 08:34:19+00:00): Hi there. I changed the classification back to tertiary, as it clearly connects to a larger village (large for PNG standards). I would appreciate if you could contact me for any further changes to roads drawn by me, as I am one of the few PNG mappers who tries to get some sort of standard in road classification going.
Guanabacoa (2022-04-14 06:07:07+00:00): Hi topius. Please see the comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119647312. Thanks, Guanabacoa.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
topius (2022-04-13 08:35:38+00:00): Hi there. I changed the classification back to tertiary, as it clearly connects to a larger village (large for PNG standards).
Guanabacoa (2022-04-14 06:07:45+00:00): Hi topius. Please see the comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119647312. Thanks, Guanabacoa.
aixbrick (2022-04-13 05:43:30+00:00): Hallo,
hattest du in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118546062 nicht verkündet, erstmal abzuwarten?
Warum machst du also einfach weiter?
Wenn dich die Darstellung der Gewannnamen dermaßen stört, dann erstelle einen Taggingvorschlag und stelle ihn zur Diskussion, aber höre bitte mit diesem maßenhaften Umtaggen auf. Überhaupt: Woher weißt du, dass das alles ehemalige Namen sind? Hast du mit Anwohnern oder Fachleuten darüber gesprochen?
Und "minor correction" trifft es übrigens auch nicht. Hier ist nicht nur ein verschobener Node oder ein Tippfehler korrigiert worden. Du verschiebst Werte von einem zu einem anderen Tag, vor allem damit sie nicht mehr auf einer Karte angezeigt werden (das hast du in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117559338 (#5) deutlich gemacht).
Gruß
physi_retired (2022-04-13 08:58:52+00:00): Hallo aixbrick,

vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag, in welchem du auf kürzlich geführte Diskussionen hinweist. Die dort von mir formulierten Überlegungen halte ich nach wie vor für richtig. Das geänderte tagging von ALKIS-Lagebezeichnungen ist nicht optimal, aber meiner Ansicht nach besser als der Zustand vorher.

Gruß,
physi
aixbrick (2022-04-13 09:45:28+00:00): Deine Überlegung besteht im Moment darin, korrekt erfasste Gewannbezeichnungen (place=locality + name=*, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:place%3Dlocality) in ein eigenes Taggingschema (old_name + weitere Tags) zu ändern, nur damit die Namen nicht mehr gerendert werden. Damit sorgst du aber auch dafür, dass Auswerter, die place=locality + name=* nutzen, nun ins Leere laufen, weil sie nicht davon ausgehen (müssen), dass sich der Name in old_name "versteckt".

Wie gesagt: Wenn du meinst, dass Gewannnamen eine bestimmte Kennzeichnung benötigen, dann überlege dir ein passendes Tag. Sinnvoll wäre place=locality + locality=<passende Übersetzung für Gewann>. Damit wäre die Hierarchie gewahrt (Haupttag + Subtag) und ein Auswerter/Renderer kann entscheiden, ob er place=locality mit locality=<Gewann> ignoriert.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/locality#values liefert übrigens schon ein paar Tags, evtl. ist ein passender dabei. Im Ideallfall stellst du das dann auch nochmal im Forum zur Diskussion, z.B. hier: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=71409.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
bxl-forever (2022-04-13 12:27:11+00:00): Hello,

In my comment on your other changesets, what was expected was a discussion, not mechanically changing every bicycle=no tag into bicycle=use_sidepath.  Now, we have many more issues to solve because of unmatched ways.

I will investigate and try to fix as much as I can.  Just one question because I assume you surveyed this area.  I am not aware of any legal restriction against cycling along this road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31111802
Are there any legal signs here?  Didn’t spot any.

Thanks in advance.
KurtEnKristel (2022-04-14 14:03:48+00:00): Hi,
Sorry for the changes I did and causing these issues. But since on those roads there were no bicylce tags, i added no as there are cyclepaths around it. And if you look here https://www.google.nl/maps/@50.8643028,4.3542167,3a,67.5y,35.98h,88.84t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sRcyATOVDzPMDBJ0KYVhCfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40?hl=nl&authuser=0 there is a bicycle not allowed sign.  Since these roads are on the same route as that one I suppose it's also not allowed. I've been there a lot of times with the bike and and wouldn't recommend cycling on the road, if you want to live long.
bxl-forever (2022-04-15 13:38:36+00:00): OK, I get your point.

Yes, this roadsign appears to be a C11 (with funny colours, the red circle is gone) and we should consider this as sufficient.  I found the same sign on recent Mapillary pictures, so that should be okay.  I am still concerned about the southbound direction because I don’t see any sign there, and we are keen to map according to the law and not to our personal taste for danger. ;-)

Don’t worry, I’ll put it to my survey list and I’ll try to see in detail, or ask a friend to have a look.

Happy mapping.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-06-06 12:35:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 122022118 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint t the DWG, reverting some name removals and other dubious changes in Iraq.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6046 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-06-06 12:33:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 122022118 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint t the DWG, reverting some name removals and other dubious changes in Iraq.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6046 .
ElliottPlack (2022-04-15 04:14:41+00:00): Hi there, Elliott here with the OSMF Data Working Group. It is great that you are adding this transit data to the map. Thank you. However, there are some issues with the stop names that should be corrected. OSM policy is to not use street name abbreviations in any case. Predirectionals, postdirectionals, prefixes, and suffixes should all be expanded to their full format, for instance “Rankin Road & K Street …” in this case. Please address. If you are copying this data from other maps or GTFS, than I assume you have the necessary license/permission to do so, but do convert those names. If the platforms have a ref number, that matches with GTFS, you can add them if you’d like.
user_11609320 (2022-04-15 11:16:18+00:00): oh, I was looking how it showed up in the live map. So instead of Rd, like it shows up on the live map, it should be the Road right? 

TCAT is also in the process of being rebranded to TCRTA, but that data isn't ready from the government documents I was reading. The stops and routes are the same right now. Should I wait to rebrand to TCRTA, until they phase out the TCAT brand?

The bus stop names and routes are publicly available data. At least that is what I was told, when I emailed them. There was no stop number that I was able find.

I will try to change all within the next two weeks. It is quite a bit of stops to do manually.
user_11609320 (2022-04-15 11:28:58+00:00): There is openly available GTFS data for all the routes of Tulare county, But I don't feel comfortable doing any import. all of it is has abbreviation for the stops. Is it okay if I fix all the bus stop names manually and then add the stop Id? Oh the GTFS data on Tulare's council of government's website shows stop code and stop Id. Not sure which one to use?
ElliottPlack (2022-04-15 12:21:06+00:00): The ref code could be either, but in my experience the stop ID is "internal" to GTFS. if there is a number posted on the signs, it may not be the same. I'd spot check a few signs on mapillary or via survey and if they have a number posted, use that one. If the signs are unnumbered, you can also simply skip adding that internal number. It may not be as useful to the passenger to have a number displayed that has no meaning except to the agency.
ElliottPlack (2022-04-15 12:29:10+00:00): As far as converting goes, you could do it all en masse after the fact using some scripting if you feel up to it.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
user_11609320 (2022-04-13 05:40:45+00:00): I didn't upgrade the tags for TCAT route 20 since it is still branded separately from TCRTA. planning documents say it will be phased in by next year for TCAT
mavl (2022-05-20 15:56:30+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
PT-53 (2022-04-14 06:08:10+00:00): Hallo Alexey,
Straßen im Bau werden mit der Merkmal-Kombination 
highway=construction + 
construction=* (z.B. residential) 
gekennzeichnet. 

Du hast an diesen Straßen
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1041383538/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1041383537/history
highway=construction 
in highway=residential abgeändert, das Merkmal 
construction=residential 
aber nicht gelöscht. Damit ist die Straße für Navis immer noch gesperrt: 

Löscht Du das - jetzt unnötige und falsche - Merkmal construction=* noch? 
Fragende Grüße

PS:
Für Fragen / Anmerkungen / Rückmeldungen bitte diesen Änderungssatz aufrufen und in das leere Feld unterhalb Diskussion als neuen Kommentar eintragen.
PT-53 (2022-05-01 08:10:06+00:00): Hallo Alexey, 
Bitte schaue meine Hinweise im Änderungssatz nochmal an.

Danke und Grüße

PS:
Für Fragen / Anmerkungen / Rückmeldungen bitte diesen Änderungssatz aufrufen und in das leere Feld unterhalb Diskussion als neuen Kommentar eintragen.
PT-53 (2022-05-15 06:10:31+00:00): Hallo Alexey, 
es wäre schön, wenn Du noch reagieren würdest.
Grüße
PT-53 (2022-05-28 05:44:09+00:00): Hallo Alexey, 
nachdem Du bisher leider nicht reagiert hast, habe ich heute das Merkmal
- construction=residentail
gelöscht.
Grüße
user_5359 (2022-04-16 07:13:26+00:00): Hallo! Sieh Dir bitte mal  http://www.osm.org/way/391049897 an. Was ist die Bedeutung vom Tag communication:time = yes?
abakus_uploader (2022-04-13 22:31:46+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
rab (2022-04-17 08:01:40+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2211664