Labi, paldies. Cik zinu, vai elements ir punkts vai laukums pieturas relāciju neietekmē.

Sveiki,

Kādēļ tu dzēs autobusu staciju iezīmētus laukumus un aizvieto tos ar vienu punktu ? Es pāris izlaboju/atjaunoju (Jelgava way/191622569, Limbaži way/1102031976), bet izskatās, ka tu šādi esi nodzēsis arī citas stacijas. Ja kādas lielākas stacijas ir jau precīzi iezīmētas kā teritorijas, tās noteikti nebūtu jādzēš pret neprecīzu punktu. Tavu izmaiņu apraksts ir, ka tu labo un veido maršrutus, bet nav skaidrs kāds tam būtu sakars ar staciju laukumu noņemšanu un kas ar tiem ir nepareizi.

Sveiki,

Lūdzu nepievieno `service=driveway` uz ceļiem, kuri nav `highway=service` un kuri nav gala piebrauktuves īpašumos.

Izmaiņu komentāros nav skaidrs kādēļ tiek pieliktas šādas vērtības. "Meža ceļš nav paredzēts 52 t" vai "Nav ceļš" vai "Meža ceļš" nav acīmredzamas saistības ar piebrauktuvēm.

Ja ceļam ir svara ierobežojumi, tos norāda ar `maxweight`.

Čau,

Ja tu zīmē parkingu kā laukumus, tad pievērs uzmanību, vai nav jau iezīmēts kā punkts - tad tie jāapvieno (redaktorā C), citādi tur būs 2 parkingi.

node/11685175155 node/11123127166 node/11154375001

Es jau izlaboju

That is most certainly an error, reverted.

Also name=Dzelzavas iela and noname=yes together. And it's not even correct according to cadaster, there is no street name in this section.

As before, please do not add incorrect access values. These are not restricted as `bicycle=permissive`. You have broken navigation here for routers because permissive ways are only supposed to be used when there are no alternatives and now these ways don't navigate normally at all for routers that actually understand local laws. `permissive` means this is something like private property, but an exception is given for people to use it, which could be revoked at any time. As mentioned, you cannot make a proposal by just adding unapproved values that mean something else - you actually have to discuss it with the community, arrive at consensus, document it, contact router developers, plan and execute editing, etc. Just adding access values to random footways does not resolve anything - you are not going to improve the situation this way, only break other routers and make the data subjective and unmaintainable.

Sveiki,

Kā iepriekš minēts, pievienojot pieturu nekas nemainās maršrutos. Tos vai nu vajag izlabot vai arī atstāt piezīmi vai norādi kaut kur, ka tie jāizlabo.

osm.wiki/Notes

review_requested=*

Čau,

Tu šos pakomātus saliki kā `indoor=yes`, bet tie ir ielas pusē pie sienas, nevis telpās.

Es šeit izlaboju.

I'm not sure if you mean adding `bicycle=unknown`? Then no - `unknown` access means someone should survey/check the location because you were not able to determine the value yourself, but you think it's likely not the default. `unknown` is basically asking to fix it and put the correct value. You would remove `unknown` if you determine it's the default access.

Default value means you do not put *any* value and it's implied to be the default value for the region/country. Then routers can use the way according to their rules/weights. Same like you don't put "motor_vehicle=yes" on every single road. Default values for Latvia would be something like this (unfinished) osm.wiki/User:HellMap/sandbox2 for the osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions . Although routers don't even follow this exactly.

`bicycle=use_sidepath` is basically `bicycle=no`, because there is a cycleway along the road, which should be used by road law. So in Latvia either dedicated cycleway or shared segregated cycleway. But this applies *only* to roads where there is such a separate cycleway. (Currently, nowhere is tagged like that because no one has done it.) Every other road is the default implied `bicycle=yes` that shouldn't be tagged. And the `bicycle` value is never anything other than default or `no` for footways/paths and sidewalks. Either it's explicitly forbidden with signs, allowed by default for generic paths/footways, or disallowed except for special use cases for sidewalks by default. Unless these values are non-default or unclear, they should not be added, because then you have to add them to every single way in Latvia, not just these random ones. And that requires a community discussion, documenting local deviation for worldwide use, informing all routers about special tagging in Latvia, mass-updates to all the data, manual verification and fixing...

Yes, navigation sucks in Latvia. Mainly because there is no cycling infrastructure, so the routers default to roads. Pretty much no routers take roads being dangerous into account, because they don't consider lanes and traffic and such. In any case, you should not be changing any values to non-standard variants, because every time each mapper comes up with their own idea how to "fix" it. By fixing it for one router, you will just break it for another. And any future features will not work. There are a lot of discussions about this already and I've also commented on this in a lot of places. There are tons of examples in Riga and elsewhere where no router works regardless of tags. This is something the routers have to fix and implement, because OSM data is correct.

You didn't specify access for the gate - but since you surveyed it - is it closed/open/accessible?

That is not what an alley means. As I said - Latvia has almost no alleys, only in some very specific places. This road is absolutely not an alley.

Alley has a specific meaning on OSM. Latvia has almost no allies anywhere, don't use this tag. A road like this is not an alley. And this is not a service road if it's a public property access road, it's at least a residential road. You can't have a tertiary road connect to a village through some minor service road - this completely breaks routing.

You cannot have tracks if they access multiple properties or connect major roads. This section way/1547201428 and around is wrong.

Čau, ja tu zīmē no Bing'a Rīgā (un arī citur), ņem vērā, ka tam ir nobīde pāris metri. Pirms rediģēšanas vajag pabīdīt slāni, citādi pēc tam viss atkal jābīda būs.

Yes, that was obviously just a mistake.

This change was completely wrong. This is certainly not a service road. Currently, it's not even a track, but completely overgrown path through an unmaintained cutline.

Skaidrs, paldies par precizējumu. Vēlams nākotnē norādīt to izmaiņas komentārā vai avotos, piemēram "nosaukums no informācijas stenda" lai vēlāk šādas izmaiņas, kas nav atrodamas citos avotos, būtu saprotamākas.

Sveiki,

Kā iepriekš jautāts changeset/170500193 - vai varētu precizēt no kurienes / no kāda avota ir šis nosaukums angliski?

Sveiki,

Gribēju pieminēt, ka ēkām un citiem lieliem objektiem, kas ir redzami ortofoto (un paliks tur redzami vēl daudzus gadus), bet nekas jauns pa virsu nav izveidots, būtu vislabāk atzīmēt tos ar `demolished:building=*` vai citu atbilstošu "dzīves" tegu: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix . Iemesls ir, jo kāds cits to vēlāk atkal pa jaunu iezīmēs ieraugot ēku ortofoto. Jo 99%+ gadījumu, kad ēka ir ortofoto bet ne datos, tā vienkārši nav vēl iezīmēta.