Thanks for clarifying! Are the blocks on the North or South side? I assume by path "on the right" you meant East?

Hi,

Thanks for the change!

Could you clarify how exactly the road is blocked? It's possible this is something that we can map as a barrier or otherwise. You mention "not possible to drive", but is this also blocked for pedestrians and bicycles?

Hey, there's still access=no on way/412667366 - is it still closed/blocked? Also, I assume you haven't moved it west yet? Also what did you mean by construction=footpath on it? Without a main tag like highway=construction, this doesn't really mean anything.

Uzlādi nepamanīju (bet osm nav tegs pielikts) - to atsevišķi es piekrītu, jā, jo tas atšķiras. (Kaut gan teorētiski arī vajadzētu tomēr būt kā auto parkingam charging/disabled skaits ar tegu.)

Es tādus noteikti nezīmētu atsevišķi. amenity=bicycle_parking infobox bildē pat 3x lielāks attālums starp stendiem. Es kaut kur citus minēju, ka velo stāvvietām nav OSM ekvivalents kā amenity=parking_space, kas faktiski sanāk, ja liek vairākus punktus.

Čau, vai velo stendiem tomēr nebūtu labāk vienu punktu vai laukumu nevis 3 punktus? Kartē un navigācijā diezgan stulbi sanāk meklējot parkošanos trīs atsevišķas vietas rāda.

Just a couple notes.

This left proposed=footway on way/1346637395 . If the main highway value changed, then the life-cycle qualifier needs to also be removed.

The new ways like way/769759154 are not retagged as cycleways, so they cannot really have bicycle=designated nor remain footway=sidewalk. If it was rebuilt to cycleway, then the highway=* value needs to be changed with appropriate other tags.

Crossing was added here node/12456005933. But not on the other road here node/12456005928 . There is also still the old crossing node/267495548 .

What is your comment supposed to mean? I did not say anything about AI here.

LIDAR is in many locations more than a decade old and cannot be reliably used by itself. And the track going that far is neither visible on LIDAR nor latest aerial. If the track is here, then provide some verifiable source like a GPS track or photos.

You added a ford in the middle of nowhere where you most certainly have not surveyed in person.

Sveiki,

Lūdzu nepievieno public_transport=platform uz highway=platform ceļiem no redaktora labojuma, ja pati pietura ir kartēta kā atsevišķs punkts. Jo tad sanāk divas pieturas vienā vietā. Un visādi StreetComplete divas reizes jautā labot abus elementus.

iD šo rāda kā kļūdu, jo uzskata, ka domāta pietura, bet tas nav pareizi Latvijā, kur pieturas pārsvarā ir ar atsevišķiem punktiem, bet klāt bieži iezīmētas arī platformas navigācijai kā ceļi.

Paldies

Hello,

Please do not connect waterways to railway bridges - these are features that do not intersect and are on different layers.

I corrected the three placed on Latvia border.

Thanks

Ar mācību iestādēm ar tiem avotiem katrai pašvaldībai ir savā mājaslapā savā nodaļā kaut kādā veidā. Parasti tie ir aktuāli, vismaz es neesmu sastapies ar galīgi vecu informāciju. Daudzām skolām ir savas mājas lapas. Ar privātām faktiski tikai pa savām lapām, ja vispār ir. Bet nekas tāds, ko uzlikt kartes slānī vai pa punktiem, cik zinu, nav. Ar tādu iestāžu kartēšanu ir ļoti grūti, jo katra gandrīz pa vienai.

I have no idea how these changes are made because every other edit you make just says "edit, add places". And you clearly badly used AI for buildings before. If these are drawn manually, then that just means that you are making mistakes yourself. You did not even address the actual problem about fords. I already left you a detailed explanation before. It is your responsibility to not leave incorrect data and explain and source your changes correctly. Over years, you have mapped hundreds of features that did not appear correct even when checking against LIDAR and aerial. And I didn't even mention most of these minor issues. But no one is obligated to review and fix after your edits when you make major errors like breaking navigation. You have ignored every comment for months and years and not just about this issue.

Viss kārtībā. Šajā gadījumā kanāla ūdensceļš way/1016739831 bija pievienots šiem diviem punktiem node/13732148583 un node/13732148584 starp tilta ceļiem, kurus tu sadalīji uz pusēm izmaiņā. Visticamāk, tu nedaudz pabīdīji tos viduspunktus un tie "pielipa" redaktorā pie kanāla. (Redaktors kļūdu šajā gadījumā nerāda, jo var būt arī pareizi gadījumi (piemēram dambis).)

I don't know if this was a StreetComplete bug, but you added an empty value for board_type here.

You are again adding incorrect fords and have not responded to previous messages. I am not going to be fixing your edits anymore as you are clearly ignoring the issue but continuing to mass-add features from AI detections and not fixing them afterwards. I have reverted the edits.

Unfortunately OSM doesn't really have established tags for individual bicycle parking features (not like amenity=parking and amenity=parking_space), so these shouldn't currently be separately mapped. Otherwise data consumers cannot distinguish "individual" elements, so they would show 9 bicycle locations (in search, in navigation, etc.).

Sveiki,

Kā iepriekš minēts, ja elements jau ir iezīmēts kā punkts, bet tu zīmē laukumu, tad šis laukums ar punktu ir jāapvieno. Šeit piestātne jau bija iezīmēta ar node/3646335704 . Citādi tagad šeit ir divas piestātnes.

Es izlaboju.

Sveiki,

Lūdzu nesavieno ūdensteci ar braucamo ceļu - tie atrodas dažādos līmeņos un noteikti "nesatiekas". Tas rada navigācijas un ģeometrijas kļūdas.

Es šeit izlaboju.

Stop adding fords unless you are certain they are actually fords. There are now several dozen changesets you have made doing this and ignoring comments not to do this.

How do you know this is a ford node/13939264791? And what is this culvert then way/1148710523 ? And how did you trace the track - it looks completely elsewhere on LIDAR. What source are you using for all of this? Did you really survey there being a well here?