Sveiki!

Gribēju piebilst, ka bīdīt adrešu punktus nav jēgas, jo adrešu bots @latvia-bot tos tik un tā aizbīdīs atpakaļ nākamajā reizē.

Paldies

Yeah, I noticed you moved it, but I didn't want to bother you by leaving a comment for something so small. :)

Sveiki!

Par ielu/ceļu nosaukumiem.

Es šeit pārliku atpakaļ pareizos ielas nosaukumus; izlaboju, kuros posmos tie ir; un pieliku iztrūkstošos ceļu maršrutu relācijās.

Piemēram, šim posmam lielākoties ielas nosaukums ir "Graudu iela" pēc oficiāliem kadastra datiem. Šis ir nosaukums, ko izmanto adresācijai (piemēram node/9882998485 ). Šis posms, kā tas ir daudzās vietās, var sakrist ar vienu vai vairākiem P ceļa maršrutiem, bet maršruta nosaukums nav primārais ielas nosaukums. Maršruta nosaukumu liek relācijā, piemēram relation/319672 .

Tā pat ar "Kuldīgas apvedceļš" un "Ventspils — Kuldīga — Saldus" ( relation/192721 ) Es abus izlaboju un saliku iztrūkstošos gabalus.

Ja ir interese labot kadastra ielu nosaukumu līnijas, iesaku apskatīties LVM GEO servisa slāņus osm.wiki/Lv:Source . Personīgi, es lietoju iD Custom slāni
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} Tas ir līdzīgs iD iebūvētajai kadastra kartei, bet papildus vēl ir ielu nosaukumi un adrešu numuri/punkti. Tā var arī ērti paskatīties, cik tālu tādas ielas kā Graudu iela ir nozīmētas kā ielas ar nosaukumu kadastra un adresācijas datos.

Paldies

Hello again,

As mention before in changeset/136198056, please do not change the default speed limit. This is not the correct tagging for the "summer speed". Please read the previously linked wiki pages about conditionals and how to use them. These roads are already correctly tagged.

I notice similar changes here:
changeset/119997804
changeset/119997484
changeset/119668998
changeset/119668563
changeset/119580051
changing 50 to 90/70 in "white" city section, according to Mapillary with no other speed limit signs.

Even this more minor change changeset/120001626 is incorrect.

So most of the recent edits in Latvia appear to be incorrect. At this point, one must question what the changes are based on and how do so many end up incorrect?

I haven't checked any edits outside Latvia. It may be worth reviewing them all.

Hello!

I noticed your changes to the highway speed limits setting them to summer limits. Unfortunately, I had to revert your edits, because they are not using the correct tagging. These roads are already correctly tagged for higher summer speed limits via max speed conditionals: `maxspeed=90` + `maxspeed:conditional=110 @ (May 1-Oct 1)`. OSM data should not be changed every spring/autumn to alter the speed limits - these are specified via additional data.

Please check out the Wiki for max speed conditional maxspeed:conditional=* and general info about conditionals at osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions

Thanks

Hi!

Thanks for adding details to the crossing!

I noticed you specified that there is tactile paving on this crossing. `tactile_paving=yes` on a line should only be used if there is a continuous tactile paving along it. That is - the usually yellow bumpy strip across the road. A person using the paving would be able to follow it for the whole length when crossing. But there are almost no places in Latvia with such crossing tactile paving. This crossing too doesn't have such a strip even though there is tactile paving on both kerbs.

(I should mention that the rule is a bit different for the point of the crossing, that is, node/3313981781, where `tactile_paving=yes` can be specified when there is tactile paving just at the kerbs. Someone can still use this tactile paving to find the edges of the crossing, even if there isn't any across.)

I fixed this example.

Thanks

P.S. Let me know if I should use Latvian to communicate.

Sveiki!

Vai šie laukumi laikam domāti
`area:highway=service` (nevis `services`)? way/1173200238 way/1173200239

Piebildīšu, ka arī ceļiem, ap kuriem tie ir, kā way/840961606 tad jābūt `highway=service`, jo `area:highway` apraksta precīzu tā ceļa ģeometriju, bet gluži nevar būt pats par sevi. Vai arī tad laukumam jābūt `area:highway=track`. Nav jau protams liela problēma, bet sanāk piemēram konfliktējoši `tracktype=grade3` (bez seguma), kas iet pa `surface=paved` laukumu.

Neesmu te personīgi bijis, tāpēc nemācēšu precīzi izlabot. No ortofoto arī grūti pateikt.

Paldies

Sveiki!

Jau iepriekš minēts, lūdzu uzmanīgāk rediģēt karti.

Piebraucamie ceļi pie īpašumiem nav `highway=unclassified`, bet `highway=service` + `service=driveway`. Šis jau ir labots daudz reižu Jūsu iepriekšējās izmaiņās. service=driveway

Un šī pilnīgi noteikti nav
`building=house` māja:
way/1173263081 Visticamāk šeit ir `place=isolated_dwelling` place=isolated_dwelling

Hello again,

Building additions like way/1173048317 or way/1173048172 or way/1173047928 etc. are all misaligned. As I mentioned before, Bing is not a good source in Latvia for aerial tracing with no reference points in the middle of nowhere.

Speaking in general, I guess it's better than nothing. But it really feels like the time could be spent more efficiently than using low-resolution offset imagery to add singular buildings.

Thanks

Hi!

Just wanted to let you know that for node/10898739944 `amenity=parking_space` means a one single parking space. If you want to indicate that more than once vehicle can park there, then it should be `amenity=parking`. Parking spaces are used if you want to draw individual "boxes" for vehicles inside a parking lot.

Thanks

Sveiki!

Vai way/1172714516 covered=yes vietā nebūs tunnel=building_passage? Mapillary šajā vietā tuvu nav, bet izskatās (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2942206882693810&focus=photo) pēc tipiska Padomju ēku caurejamā tuneļa. Tikai trepes/pakāpienus gan neesmu personīgi redzējis, tāpēc neesmu pārliecināts.

Thanks for clarifying!

I've never used translation to do any etymology work, but as you say, it doesn't look accurate enough, at least in Latvian. In fact, it seems to be more wrong than correct, probably because the translator isn't being literal and specific enough. Translating is probably not a good idea for etymology (at least, for now). Plus, it requires some local knowledge.

If you are proficient in Russian (I wasn't sure), then that's fine - I'm not going to look through all of those edits. I'll leave those example to you; they are just the first ones I clicked. I guess if something like Строители refers to some sort of movement and not a generic term, then I couldn't say more without knowing local history. Same with Балтийский бульвар I guess, although it's very difficult to see how the actual name refers to anything but Балтийское море even if the naming decision is based on geographical location along Gulf of Finland.

I think you may be overthinking a little bit about the original meaning too. Etymology is often quite literal - it's the origin of the phrase/word and not necessarily the inspiration or something. If there's no other history, then something like - проспект Строителей -> строитель -> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q811122 rather than the branch of civil engineering - which very well may be the inspiration, but is not actually the root of the name.

It's probably a good idea to also add the base field `name:etymology` so it's clear what you are referring to. Wikidata often has synonyms and imprecision, if it has labels in the given language translated at all. I think if you added it to an example like name=Балтийский бульвар and it would be name:etymology=Финский залив... then it is kind of immediately obvious that it's not the source of the name. As before, it still may be inspired by geographic proximity, but the actual name wasn't based on it.

Anyway, this is a complex topic that I've only examined briefly. I came up with the same issues as above, so I haven't been adding a lot of these values, mostly just very unambiguous persons' or places' names.

Anyhow, thanks for fixing the edits!

Hello!

I notice you have added a bunch of etymologies to road names in several languages. What is your source for the road name etymology and knowledge of these languages?

For example for this changeset, "Jaunavu iela" -> Virgin Mary is wrong; "Tirgoņu iela" -> marketplace is wrong; "Krāmu iela" -> Q3591625 (a marketplace table?) is wrong. Something like "Mazā Jauniela" is based on "Jauniela" and not whatever "Jauniela" is based on - that would be false etymology.

It seems you are not adding these from the correct knowledge of the language since you are not adding the actual `name:etymology` word/phrase.

I quickly looked at some other of your edits in Russian language before. For example, "проспект Строителей" -> "civil engineering" is wrong or "Балтийский бульвар" -> "Gulf of Finland" is completely wrong. I did not check further. But it doesn't look like you are adding these correctly.

Please review your edits, fix or remove incorrect values and please don't add incorrect data to OSM unless you are certain of your additions.

Thanks

Hello!

Could you please clarify
why you changed this section to a tunnel? way/1099914486 Since you didn't provide a source or comment for your changeset, can you please specify what this change was based on?

Thanks

I see what you mean. But I think you are confusing the Reinvaldu to Lubānas section with the Lubānas to roundabout section. It does indeed go almost all the way to R/L intersection in a sort of triangle shape but not all the way to roundabout - https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=759671655623268 , https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=138940455814821 . Here it is from the other side: https://imgur.com/xQnF2uj . You can compare the billboard location with aerial to where the area/plot "ends". On the photo it is curved towards Lubānas (at first almost towards the cafe East, but then curves more South). In any case, I was there yesterday :) The shape may still be somewhat wrong if it doesn't follow the actual plot, but it's definitely not as far E/NE.

Hey! I shrunk the way/1164141365 construction area. You mapped it across the entire location, but it's currently only a portion of it. It looks like it matches the cadaster plot, so that's what I retraced it to.

Sveiki!

Paldies par labojumiem! Iela jau bija izlabota, bet pieturas nepamanījām.

Gribēju pieminēt, ka mainot nosaukumu iespējams ir jānomaina arī citi dati. Šajā piemērā redzu, ka pēc nosaukuma maiņas arī vēlāk izlabota nosaukuma izcelsme - `name:etymology`. Bet pareizi gan ir "Brāļi Kaudzītes" nevis "Brāļi Kaudzīši". Un vēl palicis ir `name:etymology:wikidata` - tas pašlaik norāda uz veco Wikidata lapaspusi https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q246497 nevis jauno https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16353318

Šeit piemērs iela ar pareiziem tegiem nosaukumiem (un vēl vecajiem): way/158670956

Es abas pieturas izlaboju.

Paldies

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I also surveyed there yesterday and was not using the aerial (which doesn't have any of the new buildings). This particular building was one of three buildings you added along the East side of the road, but there are only 2 buildings along that road segment to the East. Possibly you meant the one across the road on the West side - way/1165956562.

In any case, I'll upload my Mapillary images in case anyone wants to compare. But there's already richlv's Mapillary from April 1 - https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=530570839255921. I guess everyone is rushing to survey the new area :)

Hi!

I added newer buildings around the Dailas area. But I deleted this one you added way/1163716136 because I wasn't sure which building was meant by that. There aren't any on that side of the road nearby. The building had a note about being approximate, so I assume it was supposed to be one of the other ones in the area.