OpenStreetMap/SE/nvrid

Conversation of different keys to ref:SE:nvrid

Community Forum

Using "ref:SE:":

1. 2025-09-25 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/standardise-switch-from-ref-to-ref/136066 : Standardise - switch from “ref:se:” to “ref:SE:” - 5 thumbs up, no single thumbs down, no single oppose text

Prefixing NVRID with "ref:SE:":

1. 2025-10-09 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/standardise-switch-from-ref-raa-to-refraa/136483/17 (start)
2. 2025-10-16 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/standardise-switch-from-ref-raa-to-refraa/136483/20 result: 6 support adding “ref:SE:” 1 oppose

Converting lst:nvrid

1. 2025-10-19 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposal-to-convert-keys-lst-diarienr-lst-nvrid-to-refdiarienr-and-refnvrid/137365

Taginfo

1. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/ref:SE:nvrid
2. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/NVRID - maximum ~50
3. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/ref:NVRID - maximum ~ 1890
4. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/ref:nvrid - maximum ~ 25
5. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/lst:NVRID - maximum ~ 9
6. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/lst:nvrid - maximum ~ 145
7. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/lst:ref - a strict subset of the values are NVRIDs, some prefixed with NR, see overpass results below

Snapshot https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=nvrid:

1. 2025-10-24 (https://archive.ph/iuJPr) : 1 249 ref:SE:nvrid, 644 ref:NVRID, 105 lst:nvrid, 21 NVRID, 12 old_ref:SE:nvrid, 6 lst:NVRID (total without old: 1249 + 644 + 105 + 21 + 6 = 2025)
2. 2025-10-31 (https://archive.ph/hJjdY) : 2 042 ref:SE:nvrid, 12 old_ref:SE:nvrid 0 ref:NVRID

Overpass

1. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2eH9 - nwr(area.x)["lst:ref"~"^NR20[0-9]{5}$"];
   1. 2025-10-31 (https://archive.ph/1jk6h) : 175
2. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2eHg - nwr(area.x)["lst:ref"~"^20[0-9]{5}$"];
   1. 2025-10-31 (https://archive.ph/yXs3J) : 2294
3. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2eHn - nwr(area.x)["lst:ref"~"^20[0-9]{5}$"]["ref:SE:nvrid"~"^20[0-9]{5}$"]; //"^20[0-9]{5}$" value in two keys
   1. 2025-10-31 (https://archive.ph/Jkyet) : 68

Changesets

1. 2025-10-29 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173907545 - conversion from lst:ref
   1. underlying relation - first version after change is #5:
      1. 2017-10-03 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7625019/history/1 lst:diarienr=511-2968-15 lst:ref=2043766
      2. 2025-10-10 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7625019/history/4 lst:diarienr=511-2968-15 lst:ref=2043766
      3. 2017-10-29 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7625019/history/5 ref:SE:diarienr=511-2968-15 ref:SE:nvrid=2043766
   2. Discussion
      1. 2025-10-31 warning by "Taya Snijder, On behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group" - "Please stop mass editing these tags you have been editing or are planning to edit until a clear community consensus has been achieved. Ignoring this warning may lead to blocks being placed on your account."
      2. reply: @Taya Snijder: Please explain the basis for your "warning". In the forum the term "mass editing" wasn't used, now it is. What is "mass editing" and where is the policy that allows you to issue that "warning" here and threating an OSM contributor with a block?
      3. Taya Snijder (Data Working Group): Mass edits are equivalent to automated edits in this circumstance.

         And:

         https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group

         https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Ban_Policy

      4. reply: @Taya Snijder: Do you have any evidence that the edit (changing two tags in one relation) constitutes an "automated edit"? If so, please provide that evidence.
      5. Taya Snijder (Data Working Group): I am telling you that you are performing an automated edit and that the Swedish community does not agree with you performing these types of edits anymore. Whether you agree with those statements or not is irrelevant, but just for fun, have a brief look at your last 2000 or so changesets.
      6. reply: @Taya Snijder: Do you think that your reply answers the question, whether you have evidence? If so, can you link to that evidence that this edit here false under "automated edit"?
      7. s/false/falls
      8. reply: @Taya Snijder: What is the definition of "a clear community consensus" as used in the text of your warning?