The boardwalk way still has smoothness=bad and surface=dirt left from before. These are probably not correct anymore.

Sveiki!

Piebraucamos ceļus mājām vajadzētu atzīmēt kā highway=service + service=driveway. track var likt, ja ceļš tālāk dodas laukā vai mežā.

service=driveway

osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#Piebraukšanas_ceļi_lauku_sētām

Atkārtoti jautāju par šo ceļa gabalu un lūdzu paskaidrot izmaiņu un kāpēc šis ceļš ir nodzēšams. Vai tas vairs neeksistē dabā? Vai tur ir barjeras vai šķēršļi? Vai ir citas ierobežojumu zīmes? Vai ēkas ir nojauktas/pamestas?

Izmaiņu komentāri līdz šim "ceļš nav caurbraucams", "ceļš" un "nevar braukt!" ir viens otram pretrunā. Ja šeit ir ceļš, tad tas nav dzēšams, bet atzīmējams ar aktuāliem datiem un atbilstošu klasifikāciju un lietojamību.

osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#Piebraukšanas_ceļi_lauku_sētām

service=driveway

access=*

Sveiki!

Šeit node/11022785625/history noteikti nebūs fords https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=610751607498125&focus=photo

Pie reizes piebildīšu, ka surface=gravel Latvijā ir ļoti maz vietās. Faktiski, lielākā daļa ceļu ir surface=compacted. surface=compacted

Īsti gravel ceļi ir nepārtraukts akmeņu slānis, kas izskatās šādi: https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/hellphoto?pKey=795381835143910&focus=photo

Sveiki!

Vai varētu precizēt no kurienes (kāda vota) ceļam way/1000043790 is nosaukums "4x4"?

Kā iepriekš minēts, lūdzu bez paskaidrojuma nedzēst ceļus. OSM is kopienas projekts un neskaidras izmaiņas ir apspriežamas. Tā kā tu nesniedz paskaidrojumu izmaiņām un neatbildi uz komentāriem, tad šādas izmaiņas atliekt tikai atcelt. "ceļš" nav atbilstošs izmaiņu apraksts.

Sveiki!

Vai varētu precizēt, kāds tieši šeit ir izkārtojums servisa ceļiem - kas tie par tuneli un tiltu ap way/1125467902/history ? Pašlaik izskatās pēc ļoti dīvaina izkārtojuma.

Paldies.

Hi!

You set both a maxspeed=30 and highway=living_street on the road way/1051491220/history and nearby. Could you please clarify if this is indeed a living zone street and the maxspeed is wrong or if this is not a living street, so should be changed to residential?

Thanks

Sveiki!

Tu savā laikā pievienoji šai way/393458903/history un blakus ielai maxspeed=50 . Bet tā ir atzīmēta kā highway=living_street dzīvojamās zonas iela. Vai varētu precizēt vai šeit ir dzīvojamā zona un tādēļ nepareizs ātrums vai arī nepareiza ielas klasifikācija?

Paldies

Hi!

You set a maxspeed=50 on the road way/250947451/history , but you also tagged it as highway=living_street before. Could you clarify if this is indeed a living zone street and the maxspeed is wrong or if this is not a living street, so should be changed to residential?

Thanks

Hi!

Just wanted to let you know that a lot of these roads had been previously tagged with maxspeed, so those living streets are still with `maxpeed=50`.

It is also not `building:levels=2`, but `building:levels=1` + `roof:levels=1` according to Mapillary.

building:levels=*?uselang=en-GB

Hello!

If you remove sidewalks as separate ways, then you should add the removed values to the road ways - sidewalk=*. Otherwise, with this edit you removed sidewalk information completely.

Ideally, you should keep the separate sidewalks though, because it's impossible to map many important pedestrian and accessibility features otherwise - like kerbs or tactile paving.

Thanks.

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.