Sveiki!

Šo nedaudz izlaboju ar changeset/137331269, jo citādi bija pazudusi kreisā pagrieziena iespēja no Ādu uz Ganību.

Hi!

It looks like you mistagged the way/228697531 . It's currently without any primary tags.

What kind of road is there now? Is it not a living street anymore? Is the West section expanded into a street? Are the cycleway signs removed?

Šeit Mapillary skati:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=959088812081139&focus=photo

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=216182447416232&focus=photo

Thanks for clarifying!

I understand now where the tagging comes from, so I can adjust from there with more confidence.

Of course, I cannot guess what the local meant when directing you, but I can briefly explain the local traffic laws and tagging.

An official legal cycleway is any way that has a blue round cycleway sign. There is an overview here: osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#Veloce%C4%BCi_un_veloinfrastrukt%C5%ABra Unless there's a sign, it's not legally a cycleway. Latvia doesn't have a great deal of cycling infrastructure and Jurmala has relatively more than other places. But still the vast majority of roads here do not.

In theory, a cycleway sign designates the section as cycleway until the next intersection. In practice, the signs sometimes don't repeat - which is technically/legally invalid, and one must be careful tagging this, because our infrastructure is such as it is. If there is an "end of cycleway" sign later, then likely the whole segment is intended as cycleway. There are places in Latvia like this where one has to cycle the whole length of a sidewalk to realize it's all meant to be under this cycleway sign. Or indeed only the first segment(s) were meant as such. So I could have crossed these sidewalks and never known it was actually a shared cycleway, because the signs were far away. I have no way to know unless I bike the whole length.

In addition, bicycles in Latvia are allowed on sidewalks (and any footway, really). There is a principle in the traffic law that cyclists should use the cycling infrastructure or the road itself. But there's a very broad exception where they can essentially use the sidewalks. Practically, people bike on sidewalks. And when you ask someone where you can bike - they are likely to mention sidewalks and not roads. Few people are well-versed in the legal distinction, but most people understand that everyone practically cycles "everywhere".

From your comments, I think most of these are not cycleways, but just sidewalks. It's possible there are some segments that are marked as cycleways. There is only limited and dated Mapillary available here to check (for now, but I'm slowly working on covering this location). I am only somewhat familiar with this area, so I was hesitant to simply untag these ways. But I think I will manually untag the sidewalks that I do not believe to be likely to be cycleways.

Hello!

I see you retagged a lot sidewalks into cycleways in this changeset. I only passed a few here, but the vast majority of them did not have any cycleway signage and definitely no segregation. Some short segments may indeed be cycleways, but not the entire ways.

I know it's been a few years since you edited this, so you probably don't remember the details. But I just wanted to clarify how you tagged them. Because your comment says you drove through here, but you wouldn't have encountered cycleways at least in some locations where you tagged them. Was it approximate or based on signs on one end?

I'm not sure how to fix this short-term other than to revert all cycleways back to sidewalks and then survey one at a time. But there certainly isn't such extensive cycleway infrastructure here.

Thanks

Čau!

No kurienes tu zīmēji Piņķu Rimi ceļus un zāles laukumus kā way/1164362428 ? Maxarā to vēl nav, cik skatos. No kaut kāda terplāna? Gribētos zināt, cik tie precīzi, pirms es kaut ko bīdu.

Uzraksti tādi paši kā Latam - uz loga svītra. Pie durvīm bija visādi papīri. Un suņu barības reklāma un miskaste. Viss sakopts. Pa logu var redzēt plauktus. Nav labi redzamu darba laiku. Bet izskatās pēc atvērta.

Šodien apskatījos, otrs veikals joprojām tur ir. Nekādu nosaukumu un lielu uzrakstu tur nav, tikai "pārtikas un rūpniecības preces" uzraksti uz logiem. Durvis/ieeja atsevišķas. Tā kā pa vidu ir pasts, nedomāju, ka iekšpusē tas ir savienots ar Latu. Mapillary ielādēsies pēc dažām dienām.

Hi!

I noticed you changed some living streets to residential roads, like way/148486255

I think most are correct, but at least this one appears to be a living street as recent as 2023 Mapillary: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=163281556713280&focus=photo

I cannot see any other living zone signs for other roads, so perhaps the living zone layout is weird or ambiguous.

Thanks

Thank you!

Thanks for clarification and suggestion. I rarely edit routes normally, but this stop was missing. I'll check out if I can sort these quickly in JOSM in the future.

I guess the stop is in the wrong order for all the routes I added it to node/10934353566 ...

Thanks!

iD editor sucks ar relations. Just for my future reference, what exactly was the fix? I assume you changed the order of route relation members to have stops in the right order?

Привет!

Не могли бы вы уточнить, как именно закрыта эта дорога? Знак, физический барьер, забор или что-то еще?

Если это просто знак, то дорогу не надо удалять, а нужно пометить как частную (`access=private`).

Спасибо

Hi!

Ways that lead to properties should be driveways by function rather than some other classification (`highway=service` +
`service=driveway`), even if they are minor dirt roads and look like typical tracks. Here, these are all obviously private property access roads.

Thanks

Sveiki!

Kādēļ ielām noņemti nosaukumi krievu valodā? Vai kāds no tiem bija nepareizs?

One example. Someone added `landuse=reservoir` as a waste water basin in 2012, then `water=wastewater` was introduced around 2013. Now this edit changes it to `water=reservoir`. So, yes, the tag is now worse as it implies the original reservoir designation indeed meant a reservoir and not something else.

Anyway, this kind of discussion is exactly why such edits need to be discussed.

Where is the 1 out of 15000 number coming from anyway? Someone mentioned a mistake and someone mentioned 15K and we jumped to the 1 in 15K conclusion?

So I clicked 20 random ways. 2 were natural ponds. 2 were river areas. 2 were gone/dry ground. 2 were swimming pools. 1 was industrial emergency water pool. 1 was waste water plant basin. So that's (unexpectedly) 50% wrong in this arbitrary tiny sample. Sure, it's not technically a wrong change based on swapping deprecated tags. But at the same time, who knows when the feature was added - possibly before a tagging scheme for such features existed.

Personally, I think this should really be a MapComplete task instead and each case manually reviewed.

Sveiki!

Paldies par izmaiņām!

Gribēju pieminēt, ka ielas, kas ir dzīvojamā zonā (tas ir, ja tās ir aiz zilās 533. dzīvojamās zonas zīmes) var droši nomainīt uz `highway=living_street`. Šeit es jau nomainīju.

Vairāk info osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#Pamata_ceļi un highway=living_street

Paldies

Hi again!

This building was misaligned as well on Bing, so I've moved and aligned it.

Thanks

Sveiki!

Kā jau iepriekš vairākas reizes minēts, lūdzu piebrauktuves pie mājām atzīmēt kā "Driveway" - `highway=service` +
`service=driveway` nevis `highway=unclassified`, kas ir vispārīgs publisks ceļš.

Paldies