Hi,

Thanks for your edits.

I fixed some minor issues.

One note I wanted to mentioned: it's not really desired or strictly correct to specify horse (or other) legal access values on random paths unless they differ from country defaults or have additional signage or rules. In Latvia, there are almost no locations with special horse-related restrictions. This is true for foot and bicycle too - few locations are signed as "no pedestrians" or "bicycles only" or similar. Unless a path or footway has special restrictions or it's not obvious that the access is public, there shouldn't be additional values. Especially since "unknown" implies that there may actually be restrictions, just not yet surveyed.

Hey!

Thanks for fixing these.

Don't forget that Bing in Latvia is misaligned by 1-2 meters. Something like -1.1, -0.9 in editor. You would generally compare it with LVM, which should be precise.

By the way, noexit=yes is basically for telling other mappers (and verification tools) that "it's not obvious, but this doesn't connect to anything". For obvious terminating connections (like at a fence) or for places where road turns into a footway or something, there shouldn't be a noexit. It's literally the opposite there - an exit ;)

If you want to leave a note about something that needs to be changed on the map, there is a notes feature you can use osm.wiki/Notes#Adding_notes . But please don't add non-existent and duplicate points to the map.

Can you please clarify what "old play structures" means here? Do they not exist anymore? Many are still visible on aerial and street view. The only source you specified is the aerial. Given that you have not replied to earlier comments and your edits have not been correct in many cases, I will revert this edit until you can clarify about these individually and we can update from there.

The gym was already mapped here as F1 Ziepniekkalns with Mevi Gym being the local name, so you added a duplicate gym here. Please check that nearby features are not already describing the feature you intend to add.

What was intended by this edit? You deleted two dentist nodes and added a new one without any tags. I have reverted the edit for now.

As mentioned before, please stop adding duplicate features to the map.

This node appears to be a duplicate since you did not add any tags to differentiate it from the already-mapped POIs. I have reverted the edit for now pending clarification. Please add proper tags like at least a name.

Hello,

What was intended by this edit? You deleted the kindergarten node and added a new one without any tags. I have reverted the edit for now.

Sveiki,

Šajā izmaiņā gandrīz pilnībā nodzēsti visi punkti plānotajam saules parkam way/1385054952 . Es atjaunoju. Dzēšot citus elementus lūdzu uzmanīgāk pievērst uzmanību, vai tie paši punkti nav arī citam elementam.

Arī nosaukums šeit bija pareizs kā redzams https://www.jelgava.lv/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/sumanu_cels_koki_2.jpg

Čau, vai ar horn=no tu domāji honking=no vai tas kaut kas cits?

These look just like previous edits in the area by @AK_2 , so possibly the same person. In any case, we are not going to spend the time again fixing and reverting duplicate points, while OSM data remains incorrect while we wait for a reply, so I have reverted these changes.

That topo map isn't the same as VZD data. I'm not entirely sure how they assemble and edit it and how often (I've never looked into it). I don't think kartes.lgia.lv actually has any map with street lines, because the lines are often messy. You would need to parse https://data.gov.lv/dati/dataset/varis-atvertie-dati or use one of the internal layers from LGIA/LVM WMS service such as [1].

Many roads are represented by just one line, so when in reality there are several parallel roads, it's often down to mapper judgement. For example, the northwest end of that street is actually Stacijas iela, which turns around the corner.

[1] https://lvmgeoserver.lvm.lv/geoserver/ows?FORMAT=image/jpeg&VERSION=1.3.0&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=public:Orto_LKS,publicwfs:Kadastra_karte,publicwfs:arisstreet,publicwfs:arisroad,publicwfs:arisbuilding&STYLES=&CRS={https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}

Those don't have an official name either. Only the main highway has a street name in the VZD street line data.

VZD and VARIS are the same "source", broadly speaking. VZD is the state agency that maintains the VAR(IS) address database.

For the purposes of SC, these should normally be tagged noname=yes. But, as you say, street signs on the ground are ambiguous, so how could one know. Ideally, we will map all street names from the database directly first, so SC doesn't really need to offer this quest (like they don't offer some other address-related ones anymore in Latvia).

From experience, in Latvia may be 1% of street lines have offshoots into side roads. Normally, these are either not named or named differently. There are many crazy streets layouts, but most often street lines are just continuous lines without branching. So if you see the name on the main road, offshoots more than likely don't actually have the same name, at least in the official data.

By the way, you can specify `source:name=sign` to show that a street is named based on the signage. This usually happens for non-official and local names. That is, someone looking at this on-the-ground would conclude that this is the name. Unfortunately, it seems that in this location the Council installed the sign without properly defining street lines for VZD/VARIS. So the road doesn't have an official street name even though the sign points to it. I don't think we have a clear consensus in Latvia what to do about such cases.

Hi!

Thanks for your edit. I fixed the road connection and classification here.

I wanted to ask what the "Via Klapia" name is exactly? Does it appear somewhere, like on a sign or local map? If this is a just private driveway, then we wouldn't map the name unless it was publicly well-known for some reason. Normally only official names are set for roads.

Thanks

Ups, saspaidīju kaut ko un nepamanīju.

No worries and it's always good to have more mappers. A lot of data is out of date and even incorrect, so it's always helpful to fix and update it.

P. S. We can switch to Latvian in the future if you prefer.

Hello,

Thanks for you map changes! A few notes.

It's not necessary to specify source on each road/feature. It is enough to specify the sources for the changeset when uploading. In fact, having sources on elements makes it harder to maintain the data long-term, since there would be way too many and they will go out of date quickly.

When drawing roads to individual properties, these should be driveways highway=service + service+driveway not tracks. Tracks are land access roads in forests and meadows and such. While driveways are "final" approach roads that lead to properties. There is some variation and it's often necessary to check the cadaster layer to see what properties roads pass through.

Some of the roads you drew did not connect to the other roads, like way/1465690426 , which means they would not work for navigation. Make sure to snap road connection in the editor (there usually is a warning before upload).

I have fixed the above issues.

I should note that a lot of the data on the map, especially in rural areas is old and might not be correctly tagged, so be aware if using it as examples.

Cheers

Hello,

You are again changing compacted to unpaved, which is incorrect. Please see the comments at changeset/177016291.

You are also mass-changing road classification and it's still not clear what criteria you are using.