Skaidrs.

Ja maršrutētājs rāda nepareizi, tad sūdzība jāraksta maršrutētājam par nepareizu maršruta izvēli. Šeit vest pa `primary`/`secondary` ielām ir galīgi šķībi.

Bet OSM datos gan nevar likt nepareizas vērtības. Drošība un ērtums ir tieši tās lietas, kas ir jāizšķir maršrutētājam, jo tās ir subjektīvas un nav dabā pārbaudāmas. Citiem vārdiem, katram ir savs viedoklis par to, kur droši vai nedroši braukt. Citam šāds `bicycle=no` tik pat labi var sabojāt maršrutu braucot pa ielām.
Jo jebkurā gadījumā, aizliegts šeit nekur nav.

osm.wiki/Verifiability#Objective_criteria

Tieši tas pats arī ar `bicycle=yes` - tas ar zīmēm nav norādīts un celiņus nepadara vairāk piemērotus. Un ietvju gadījumā tas pēc CSN nemaz nav pareizi. Bet tā kā `bicycle=yes` neapstādina maršrutēšanu, tad to vēl var likt.

Sveiki vēlreiz!

`access` tegi (`bicycle`, `foot` utt.) uz satiksmes ceļiem ir galvenokārt domāti legāliem ierobežojumiem, piemēram ceļa zīme, kas aizliedz braukt vai arī tas ir fiziski neiespējams.

Ņemot to vērā, gribēju noskaidrot, kāds avots vai princips izmantots atzīmējot `bicycle=no` uz ceļiem šajā apkārtnē? Piemēram, cik zinu nekas neaizliedz velosipēdus uz tādiem ceļiem kā way/303613530 vai way/4473052 .

access=*

Šeit laikam būs `name:etymology=Dzidriņa` (pilns vārds laikam nezināms?) un tad var
`name:etymology:description=` ielikt to aprakstu

Sveiki!

Šādi dalot krustojumu mazos gabaliņos jābūt uzmanīgam ar relācijām. Piemēram, relation/12744931 tagad ir posmi pa gandrīz visiem ceļiem abos krustojumos.

Hi!

Wanted to let you know that you shouldn't connect areas to ways, such as grass areas to roads. It's not correct, because the grass never reaches the center of the road. And it makes later editing more difficult.

Thanks

Hi!

Just to let you know, you are editing the live version of the OSM map. Your test points would appear on the map and all applications using it.

I have reverted this changeset.

If you want to carry out experiments on the map, see osm.wiki/Dev_Server_Account

Thanks

https://saulkrasti.lv/jaunumi/pasvaldiba-un-sabiedriba/latvijas-pasta-saulkrastu-nodala-sodien-sakusi-darbu-jaunas-telpas-alfreda-kalnina-iela-24a-saulkrastos/

Of course, the sign matters. This is not a service road where pedestrians and bicycles are allowed. This is a cycleway with an exception for service vehicles. We can't change the primary classification because there are some outlier cases. I don't see why this case is special compared to everywhere else.

I guess if we disagree, we can ask others to weigh in on Zulip.

Hi!

Can I ask how you determined that these forest areas (and similar areas in other changesets) are there? All aerials are currently out of date. And, for example, way/1213801659 is not there at all anymore. Have you surveyed these locations?

Please use a more descriptive changeset summary than "updates" osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks

Hello,

Can I ask how you determined that the fences you drew are here? For example, this fence way/1106880261 crosses a building or this fence way/1106880266 seems to go through the middle of property. It looks like these are just drawn on top of the cadaster plot borders.

Thanks

Hello,

What source did you use for all these different language street name versions? These look machine translated and not from an official or local source.

Your changeset comment "ÉT" is unhelpful in understanding what you are changing and why. Please see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks

Hi!

This way way/1214011076 has some weird overlapping forest geometry with double multipolygon membership.

You also deleted part of the mapped forest around here. Your source imagery says Bing, but Bing does show forest here, so it's not clear why.

Can you please check your edit?

Thanks

Sveiki!

Es celiņu salaboju.

Jā, es redzēju izmaiņu. Es neko labāku neesmu izdomājis. Tas ļoti specifisks gadījums, ja mērķis ir tieši laukumam iedot access tegu.

Personīgi, es neaizraujos ar access vairāk kā žogs/vārti ar pareizu access. Principā jau var likt visām teritorijām to, bet populārās kartes to pagaidām nezīmē. Maršrutētāji arī to ignorē ceļiem bez access, kas iet pa tādām teritorijām, tāpēc tik un tā jānorāda access uz pašiem ceļiem pagaidām. Varbūt kādreiz...

Hello!

Just wanted to let you know that external data sources have to comply with OSM data licensing to be used. As far as I know, Itella's locations and descriptions of parcel lockers is not open data and you cannot use it to update the map. This is true for almost everything you would find on the Internet. For example, you can double-check if you have yourself surveyed this location, but you cannot use their list of lockers without actually having surveyed or somehow confirmed it.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#2._CONTRIBUTING_DATA_TO_OpenStreetMap

In practice, no one will care about a few edits like this, so it's mostly fine. But if you add a lot of data like this, your edits will eventually get reverted and lost, because this is a legal issue for OSM.

Let me know if you have any questions about this - copyright and licensing gets complicated fast.

Thanks

For Latvia, these are indeed allotments. By common convention, these are usually mapped with tracks and sometimes service roads if they are commonly used. Rarely residential roads unless they pass through and really connect to other things. So that wasn't a correct change. There is literally a segment with smoothness=impassable + surface=sand + width=0.5. I have reverted the changes in Latvia.

Hi!

I think while the locations are still identifyable as a fuel stations, we can keep the nodes there.

But I did change them to disused:amenity=fuel so they don't appear on maps and navigation.

Čau!

Gribēju precizēt, vai tu esi pārliecināts, ka way/1015941583 ir tilts nevis culvert "upei"? Pēc Mapillary un ortofoto neizskatās pēc tilta.

Sveiki!

Gribēju pārliecināties, vai šeit tiešām ir jaunas speciāli izveidotas vietas priekš apgriešanās?

Hi!

When drawing areas under bridges, please do not connect them to the bridge area itself unless they are at the same height. These elements here are mostly on different layers, so you have to consider real-world vertical layout. The grass does not "end" because the aerial imagery has a bridge there. This is a difficult area to map because of this. I have attempted to retrace and fix these here.

Thanks