Nosaukumus arī neliek katrai ēkai atsevišķi, jo tie nav ēku nosaukumi, bet
īpašuma (t.s. viensētas) nosaukumi.

Šajā izmaiņā arī izdzēsts dīķis, cits iezīmēts kā ezers, izdzēsti vairāki piebraucamie ceļi, izdzēsti adrešu punkti, upe nomainīta uz kanālu, pievienotas addr:street vērtības ar mājas nosaukumu, pievienotas konfliktējošas access vērtības, kas nesakrīt ar iebrauktuvju vērtībām, un vēl citas sīkas problēmas.

Thanks!

This location is fairly detailed, so including sidewalks as separate ways is generally preferred. At least, you shouldn't remove sidewalks once they are drawn. This one is admittedly a useless one, but it still exists, is not like the surrounding grass, has a kerb and the service road crosses it (technically, pedestrians have right of way). So it's still information, even if it's not exactly high priority.

The railing along the road is mostly gone. Only the angled part that is currently mapped remains.

Oh, I restored in 1223789629. It's still there as of 20 Dec. It's basically a deadend sidewalk. I haven't left a comment because my Mapillary is stuck processing and I cannot link to it.

Jā, bet šis ir sezonāli. Ar `surface=mud` apzīmē ceļus, kas ir šādā stāvoklī visu gadu, vai vismaz lielāko daļu gada. Pašlaik tā izskatās puse izbraukāto meža ceļu pie ziemas atkušņiem/sasalumiem. To nevar izmantot "galvenā" seguma noteikšanā. Vasarā šis gabals ir "normāls": https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1306604086742357&focus=photo

surface=mud

Sveiki!

`railway=crossing` apzīmē vietas paredzētas dzelzceļu līniju šķērsošanai. Latvijā dzelzceļu drīkst šķērsot tikai tam speciāli paredzētās vietās. Tādēļ neoficiālās vietās kā šeit būtu jāliek `crossing=no`.

Pirmās trīs kartes izmanto Jāņa Sētu. Noklusējuma karte ir atkarīga no browsera un uzstādījumiem, bet es pieņemu, ka varbūt atveras pirmā (pelēkās ielas), kur fona karte ir vairāku avotu salīmēta. Tā kā tur iekļauts no JS, tad to arī izmantot nevar.

Vēlreiz piebildīšu, ka tā karte var būt novecojusi - nav zināms, cik bieži viņi to fona slāni atjauno un datus labo. VZD ielu līnijas ir ļoti šķības, tāpēc to kādam tik un tā jāzīmē. Tāpēc visas tās kartes ir ar zināmu novecojumu un pareizība nav garantēta. Nav arī zināms, no kurienes oriģinālie dati - VZD, pašu pētīts, pašvaldību terplāni... Tie var būt ar gadu desmitu kļūdām un izmaiņām.

Sveiki,

Ja runa par trešo karti LVM GEO pārlūkā, tad tā ir no Jāņa Sētas. Tā var būt novecojusi un Jāņa Sēta tik un tā izmanto VZD datus. Bet jebkurā gadījumā Jāņa Sētas karti nedrīkst izmantot OSM rediģēšanā - tā ir autortiesību paturēta karte un jebkādas pievienotās izmaiņas no tās ir dzēšamas.

VZD dati ir oficiāli/aktuāli. Vienīgais var neatbilst dzīvē esošajam - bet tas ir jāapseko. Es tāpēc sliektos uz Pīlādžu ielu, jo teritorija 32820100211 ir ar adresi Pīlādžu iela 40A un iebraukšana ir no šīs sānielas. (Tāda situācija Latvijā ir bieži, ka sānielas nosaukums sakrīt ar galveno ielu.)

Faktiski ielu nosaukumiem ir 3 avoti Latvijā - VZD, pašvaldību dokumenti un apsekošana uz vietas (personīgi, Mapillary, u.c.). Ja tu domā, ka te tiešām ir cits ielas nosaukums, bet VZD dati nav pareizi/atjaunoti, tad to gan vajadzēs vai nu apsekot vai arī noskaidrot kaut kādos pašvaldību papīros.

Hi!

Could you please clarify what makes way/389409524 a service road? Does it lead to some new location that isn't mapped yet? It looks like it's in the middle of a forest.

Similarly, way/454502769

I asked the community at https://osmlatvija.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/358602-general/topic/Salaspils.20.C5.ABdensteka although we don't have that many mappers in Latvia, so it might not get many answers.

Hi!

Did you mean to tag way/1203896584 as a river? Did you intend it to be a ditch or trench? It's not connected to anything, so it's not likely more than a ditch. But I am not sure if this is a trench instead. From LIDAR, it could be either.

OSM Wiki describes the general approach. Because there is so much variation in the world, it's only an approximate guideline. The goal is to describe the functional purpose of the element. "Jumping across" is a good indication that something might be a river, but that doesn't mean so - it can be a canal, a drain or large ditch or indeed a stream. We have to look at how it compares to other rivers across Latvia. And this example is different than typical due to HES. Here it fails two of the main criteria - it's not a significant flowing body of water and it doesn't actually flow into anything. It doesn't flow into Daugava, it ends at the canal and it doesn't even feed the canal much. Most of the stream is wide exactly because it doesn't flow - the water just accumulates because it has nowhere to go. And it has nowhere to go because nowadays these are all just large melioration ditches that follow some of the original waterways. This is why there are ponds and small lakes here - it's where the water ends up. And we only tagged this as a stream because it's larger here when fed by ditches and not being able to flow anywhere. But that's a long way from a river for what is just a big ditch. It was tagged as a ditch for a decade before another local mapper began changing these.

You can find many examples of several meter wide ditches, like way/1029646110 , but these aren't rivers unless they actually form the primary ways for a tributary network and serve as the outflow for it.

Bluķupe should not be a river either. It was changed recently and it is a similar mistake. No one just noticed it. That one is even smaller than this one.

As I mentioned, historic local classification is not the same as the current real-world status, so that wouldn't matter. And more importantly other maps don't necessarily match OSM meanings for such things. Soviet maps used to call pretty much any named long natural waterway a river.

Similarly, original flow of the waterway before HES or area development wouldn't really matter. As I mentioned, it is semi-artificial - some of it matches the original layout, but much of it has been "straightened" around areas. And historical streambeds and riverbeds do not determine the current status.

Anyway, those are my thought on this because I have looked at this location before and surveyed the area around. I do not believe it comes anywhere close to a river classification because it is a large ditch that is probably ok to call a stream due to its appearance.

Hi!

Thanks for your changes!

However, I had to correct the waterway back to a stream. This is not a river in OSM tagging sense, regardless of its historical name or width or historical local designation. Many semi-artificial streams, even based on historical streambeds and riverbeds are only streams nowadays. This one simply semi-artificially router the water around developed areas. To add, a river cannot terminate in a waterway that is lesser than itself. And this stream ends up in a canal running parallel to the dam. If it had the characteristics of a river, it would end up in Daugava or overflow otherwise.

Thanks

Hello,

Has this path really been recently removed? It was still there mid-November after most of the works were finished. It snowed soon after, so it seems unlikely something else was done here.

Thanks

Sveiki!

Vai varētu precizēt, kāds tieši it darbnīcas nosaukums? Kas ar "/" simbolu domāts - alternatīvs nosaukums? Vai "Latgalītes" arī ir nosaukumā un vai tas ir tiešām ar pēdiņām? Un kas tieši bija domāts ar operator=Jančuks - vai tas ir uzņēmuma nosaukums?

Paldies

Hello,

As mentioned before in changeset/144715281, we'd like to know more about where exactly this guest house is located and some info about it as the node you created is in the middle of the street. I have removed the node for now pending clarification.

Thanks

Hi!

Just wanted to let you know that in Latvia there is general consensus to tag ways with blue cycleway traffic signs as cycleways, rather than footways. So these sidewalks should ideally be converted to `highway=cycleway` + `foot=designated` + (+ `bicycle=designated`) `segregated=no` (or the JOSM variant, although most stuff in Latvia uses iD variant). There are certain legal traffic law distinctions between sidewalks and shared cycleways, so it's best to be exact.

osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#Veloce%C4%BCi_un_veloinfrastrukt%C5%ABra

I can't say for other countries without looking into it, but on OSM in general European blue cycleway signs are tagged as cycle infrastructure.

Thanks

One of the other two was already deleted at changeset/141846834 . I deleted the other one.

Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time on leaving yet another comment that won't be replied to.

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