Hi!

Thanks for your edits! I fixed a few issues and just letting you know about these.

Names should not be used as descriptions - either the feature needs a more specific tag or if it really needs an "explanation", then a `description` tag can be used. But the `name` should never be something like "bāzes stacija" or "pirts", because those are not the actual names of the features. Similarly, there are tags for things like `operator=LMT` or reference number, e.g. `ref=155` that data consumers can use. If the name of the area or point is something like "LMT bāzes stacija "Zaiceva"", then it would be just "Zaiceva" (and may be official_name for the long name assuming it's from an official source).

You also shouldn't create unspecified/unknown `site` relations for objects that are already within a common area, such as farmyard or industrial. Firstly, this is redundant to the area - everything is already in it. Secondly, data consumers don't really know or process these, because the actual type of the site or what should be included is not defined in OSM. It's better to just draw an area around if it's still not there. This also means other mappers have to maintain fewer features and there aren't data redundancies. And finally, one could make sites for pretty much anything they can think of (playgrounds, schools, supermarkets, etc.) - and while this is not forbidden, it also doesn't really improve the map unless there is a larger community support and standards for such sites. At the very least, if adding a lot of such features, then it should be discussed with at least the local community.

Let me know if you have any questions. I tried to summarize a lot of stuff in a very short message.

Thanks

Hello,

Please do not delete roads that exist in real life, regardless if the owner allows or doesn't allow to use them. For legal access of roads, there are `access` tags. So, for example, `access=private` for a road that is restricted by land owners. Here the road was previously tagged with `motor_vehicle=private`, which means vehicles cannot pass here, but for example pedestrians and bicycles can. Has this changed? Your comment only mentions "drive".

access=*

Thanks

Hello,

Just wanted to check if I understand this correctly. What was your intention with this edit/correction?
I understand that name:etymology is for the word or term that the name is directly from, not for a lengthy description. I don't know if name:etymology:description is correct or used for that, but it's most likely not correct in the main name:etymology tag. name:etymology here would be "upe" (lv) / "river" (en).

Thanks

Hi!

Wanted to ask you about the access=permit here. On OSM "permit" means that anyone can normally gain a permit here, not just people who live (or work) here. Are these gates really permit-based and not just private for residents? Note that this is not the same as typical road signs "ar atļaujām", because those do not imply general public.

access=permit

Thanks

Yes, I think it's fair to delete the node.

I am however also interested in the other 2 hotel nodes added previously. One is on top of some rural residentials and one is in a multistorey building, but nothing in Mapillary or quick search suggests an obvious hotel. These could be Airbnb-style locations, but we don't really map those and the editor would have to confirm.

Hello,

Can you please clarify where exactly is this guest house is located? The node you placed is almost on top of an intersection in a park area. Is it in the building nearby? Does it have a name?

Thanks

Sveiki!

Paldies par šo punktu pievienošanu; vienmēr ir grūti apsekot punktus ēkās.

Gribēju pieminēt, ka nevajadzētu neko novietot vai pārvietot, pamatojoties uz to, kā tas parādās kartē. Ir daudz dažādu karšu, kuras izmanto OSM, un katrā no tām lietas var tikt zīmētas atšķirīgi. OSM ir pirmkārt datubāze, tāpēc visiem elementiem jābūt pareiziem - tostarp pēc iespējas pareizā vietā.
osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Paldies

Hello,

I undid this edit, because you deleted the wrong element. You remove the "Valsts meža dienests" government office node. This office and this building are still here (as far as I know). The old building that was demolished and where a new one is now under construction is next to it.

Let me know if I misunderstood your intention.

Thanks

Sveiki!

Vai šie tiešām ir brasli node/11387611475 un node/11387611454? Ortofoto izskatās pēc tipiskām caurtekām grāvjiem.

Hi!

Just to let you know, I removed `landuse=military` from node/6278058121 . This location is not a military land use location.

Hi!

You shouldn't add bicycle=no to road segments where bicycle traffic is not forbidden with a sign or somehow else. Access tags are primarily for legal restrictions and bicycles are vehicles that follow traffic laws. As far as I know, it's perfectly legal for bikes to travel along A2 and through this intersection even if it's not safe or desired.

Sveiki!

Adrešu punktus kā node/9890030716 nevajadzētu dzēst. Tie ir importēti no Valsts zemes dienesta kadastra datu bāzes un gandrīz vienmēr atbilst patiesībai. Arī, ja tie ir meža vidū - šeit ir kaut kāda adresējama kadastrālā vienība. Tos regulāri atjauno automātisks process, tāpēc izmaiņas tik un tā vēlāk tiks atceltas.

Paldies

Fixed :)

Sveiki,

Kadastrā šis ceļa gabals joprojām ir "Stārķa ceļš" gar ēku. Vai Kuldīgas pašvaldību dokumentos ir citi dati par to?

Hi!

Thanks for your addition.

But the school has already been drawn here as an area: relation/14209436

A new point would duplicate the school element, so I have removed it for now and fixed the name. The existing area also had most of the information (except opening hours, which we usually don't include for schools because they vary a lot as you can see at https://www.ozolniekuvsk.lv/kontakti/ ).

Let me know if you have any questions.

Hi!

Wanted to ask you - is this cafe (pizza place?) inside the building? Is the Eldorado casino/gambling hall no longer in the building?

Thanks

Sveiki!

Paldies par izmaiņām.

Gribēju pieminēt, ka OSM lielākā daļa lauku vērtību ir iepriekš definētas, angļu valodā un lielākoties standartizētas pasaulē. Piemēram "u_veida" un "trijstūra_veida" vērtības datos nederēs, jo šīs nekas nemācēs apstrādāt. Šeit jāliek vērtība "stands", kas ir statīvi, kur pieslien riteni. Tā kā pasaulē ir simtiem variantu šiem, tad sīkāk šīs vērtības nedalās.

Par vērtībām var izlasīt šeit: bicycle_parking=*

Es pievienotos statīvus jau pārlaboju.

Paldies

Hi!

Thanks for the map correction.

I wanted to clarify whether this connection is completely impassable or if it's just not a road connection, but bike or people can still walk through on a dirt track or path? This connection is part of cadaster road line, so it's unlikely that it is blocked off completely.

Thanks

Kāds cits kartētājs norādījis, ka pārbrauktuve joprojām ir vaļā līdz mēneša beigām. changeset/144015095

Tā kā, ja tiešām ir izmantots Waze/Google nevis personīgi pārbaudīts (vai no piemēram ziņām) - tad to nevajadzēja vispār mainīt/dzēst pagaidām.

The bike route that you moved was only the name on the foot/cycleways "Centrs - Mežaparks". This isn't a route relation. The relations I'm talking about are:

E9 - City Centre - Vecāķi relation/10016280

Piejūras ceļš relation/11803322

Svētā Jēkaba ceļš relation/12304214

EuroVelo 13 relation/2769637#map=8/56.987/22.741&layers=N

I rerouted them over the bridge. This is more complicated to do, which is why I mentioned this for the future reference.

P. S. This is not part of the issue, but I also created and properly set up the Centrs - Mežaparks route/relation relation/16695367 . That's how local cycling routes are normally supposed to be done.