Yeah, there is a pretty vast difference between German and post-Soviet infrastructure and culture. If we didn't map these places as crossings, we would be missing half the crossings in the country. I imagine if you didn't map them in Germany, no one would even notice.

And, to be fair, this wasn't mapped as a crossing - previously, it had no tags and now it's an even "stronger" `crossing=no`. And the way itself is a `path` and not a `footway`. Routers should really be accounting for these and giving them a low priority. While `crossing=no` is not a prominent tag, it's certainly not a new tag. May be some day we'll get consensus and a standard scheme for such locations. Unfortunately, there are very few mappers in countries like Latvia while countries like Germany have the most mappers and lead many discussions, so consequently a lot of it is biased towards what you would find in countries like Germany. And if there aren't any local examples, then it would be difficult to get actionable opinions for such examples due to how much background info is required (as this changeset indeed shows).

I'm still fixing many crossings like this that are tagged as full `railway=crossing`, which mappers commonly add. That's how ingrained in everyone's mind it is that crossing railways anywhere is basically the norm. I suppose it's a culture shock for many people. But it's not illegal and what little legal "guidance" is given is not enforced or treated seriously.

For this place, a road bike profile would have given you the small path along the highway https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1665375620555465&focus=photo . But this location really has no good alternatives. I cycle here myself often and short of going along roads, there really aren't any good options. Unfortunately, that's the case for a lot of infrastructure in Latvia. Routers generally have a hard time because footways and paths end abruptly, don't lead anywhere, lead through terrible locations, etc. And we don't have that many mappers to maintain it all either... but I digress.

Very briefly - it is de facto allowed to cross here in Latvia.

To elaborate, the law talks (somewhat ambiguously) about crossing railways at designated crossings and goes into detail about what a "crossing" is and what "dangerous rail sections" are. But it's all very legalese and ambiguous and hardly enforced. So this path here is definitely not a dedicated crossing in a legal sense. But no one is going get fined or stopped for using it. In fact, it's common practice and the only reasonable location to cross in this area. In other words, it's a de-facto crossing access=*#Mismatch_between_law_and_de_facto_status . These used to be untagged or tagged with `railway=crossing`. But we now choose to tag these as `crossing=no` rather than `railway=crossing` to follow its legal status. This already restricts routing. But we don't add `access=no`, because this significantly hinders pedestrian and cyclist routing in Latvia (this wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem in, say, Germany, where railway crossings/bridges/tunnels are common).

In contrast, here is an example of an informal crossing, but where there *is* an actual sign stating "railway crossing not allowed"
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=298472319457894&focus=photo . So here `access=no` is appropriate even though this crossing is commonly used.

On the ground, this is a well-used path: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=255754737334209&focus=photo and https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=6393645144089678&focus=photo .

`access=no` implies that you are not able or allowed to pass through here. That is not true - this is still a crossing, just an informal one with no infrastructure. Tagging no access would stop valid routing (that understands `crossing=no`). As I mentioned, there are hundreds of these around the country. The difference is that this is not a `railway=crossing`, but a `crossing=no` (without the main tag), because there is no infrastructure and this is not legally defined as a crossing and so its use is "your own fault".

I'll bring this up with local community (again), see if we can establish more consensus or agree on additional access tagging.

Sveiki,

Paldies par pieturu izmaiņu pievienošanu.

Pievēršu uzmanību, ka `ref` tegs nav domāts maršruta numuriem, bet pašas pieturvietas numuram/identifikatoram. Latvijā faktiski pieturām numuru nekur nav un Rīgas Satiksmei ir tikai kaut kādi iekšējie identifikatori, kas nav norādīti pieturvietu plāksnītēs/informācijā.

Lai pievienotu pieturu maršrutiem, tie ir jāveido ar maršrutu relācijām route=bus , piemēram relation/11312649 . Tas gan ir sarežģīts process.

Ja nav iespējas tādus zīmēt, tad var atstāt šajā vietā piezīmi, ka trūkst/šķībi maršruti, lai kāds to izlabotu osm.wiki/Notes .

Es šajā vietā jau salaboju 13., 20. un 63. maršrutus.

Hello,

Please do not remove or split paths that cross a railway if they are actually used and exist. This breaks routing. An illegal crossing should be tagged with `crossing=no` to prevent routing that does not allow rail crossings outside designated locations. But nothing here physically blocks access to the crossing. There are hundreds of examples like this across Latvia.

Thanks

I've restored and fixed the fence. I saw your edit before, but I assumed the fence was indeed removed.

Izlaboju node/2540381967 . Iespējams softa kļūda?

Hi!

In general, yes. There is a big mess of these in Latvia, so most are not yet fixed. I was only looking through recent edits when I changed these because these were the two I saw. I didn't check around to see if there are more around here. I think they can safely be changed too.

Kind of like "Veikals Aibe" would just be "Aibe". The difference here is that "Pirmskolas izglītības iestāde Xxx" is the official name, so that can be placed in the `official_name` tag, so the full name doesn't get lost. For "Privātā ...", there is also `operator:type=private` as opposed to (I think) `operator:type=government`.

Cheers

Do you mean examples of `area:highway` tag?

Hmm, are you referring to parking=street_side#Relation_to_area:highway=* ? I can't find any other examples for this.

Normally, parking doesn't need any other area-based tag. `area:highway` describes the physical contour/layout of the road, but this normally excludes parking, sidewalks, traffic islands, etc. - just the road surface itself.

I see there are some rare uses of `area:highway=parking_space`. But I don't think there is any need to add that here if the area of parking matches the area of surface exactly. That would be more useful for parking lots which include other elements, like grass medians and footways to indicate the exact parking area surface.

Hello,

Could you please clarify what you meant with `area:highway`=* on the parking area?

Thanks

iD nav tik gudrs redaktors un par risinājumu bieži piedāvā ļoti vienkāršus risinājumus, jo tie der 95% gadījumu. Bet šeit ir viens no tiem piemēriem, kur ir iekartēts daudz un smalki, bet ne līdz galam un ar nepilnībām. iD tādas nianses nesaprot (un neviens rīks tādas nekad līdz galam nesapratīs).

`layer` variants var būt derīgs, bet tam tad ir jābūt pareizi pret citiem elementiem. Varbūt te arī var uzlikt tikai `layer=1`, ja tas visu pareizi atrisina. Bet galvenais šeit ir, ja tu to sauc par izlabošanu, tad tu esi reāli sapratis situāciju un to izlabojis ar pamatojumu. Bet tā kā šis labojums bija no lielas izmaiņas visādās vietās, man nešķiet, ka tu šeit pārbaudīji līdz galam:

Vai tu ņēmi vērā, ka šeit ir `building:part=roof`? Kāpēc tam nav `layer`? Vai nevajag arī `building:part=retail`, kur savienojas `entrance=shop`?

Vai tas, ka šeit `highway=pedestrian` un `highway=footway` ir vienā līmenī, bet footway is ar `covered=yes`, bet `pedestrian` tāda nav? Tātad tie nemaz teorētiski savā starpā nav maršrutējami.

Vai `highway=pedestrian` vispār būtu jāsavienojas ar `building:part=roof`, ja tie ir dažādos līmeņos?

Te ir jālabo daudz ilgāk par iD piedāvāto risināju un es pat pateikt uzreiz nevaru, kāds variants būtu precīzākais. Tāpēc arī tā "problēma" šeit ir - jo kādam tas ir uzmanīgi jākartē. Man personīgi nav bijis laika tam pagaidām. Šeit pat piezīme atstāta note/2017571 . Nospiest "tag as higher" es un citi jau varēja sen, bet tas nav pareizais risinājums šeit.

Kā jau minēts, tās nav automātiski problēmas. Tas, ka iD to rāda kā "warning" (un "warning" nav "error"), nenozīmē, ka tos nepieciešams labot. (Tur pat blakus iD ir arī "ignore" poga.) Ja tu atvērsi JOSM redaktoru, tur būtu vēl simtiem "problēmu", pie tam tās ne tikai nesakrīt ar iD, bet redaktori vispār piedāvā katrs savu "risinājumu". Un ir vēl daudz visādu rīku, kur var sameklēt bezgalīgas "problēmas", piemēram https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ , https://maproulette.org , https://nominatim.org/qa/ utt. Neviens no tiem nav simtprocentīgi labojams. Daudzi ir pašsaprotami, bet ir pietiekami piemēru, kur ir jāsaprot "problēmas" iemesls un vai konkrētā situācijā tā vispār ir problēma.

Konkrēti šeit - `noexit` is tegs, kas domāts, lai citiem kartētājiem norādītu neviennozīmīgās situācijās, ka ceļi nesavienojas un ka tā nav kartēšanas kļūda. Ja starp ceļiem ir iezīmēta barjera, tad tas ir standarta viennozīmīgs gadījums, kad `noexit` nav nepieciešams ( noexit=yes#Alternatives ). Varbūt ir argumenti arī likt šeit to `noexit=yes`. Bet tad tas ir jādara saprotot tega nozīmi un lietojumu un pamatojot šo izmaiņu, bet nevis automātiski.

Lūdzu beidz redaktorā spiest fix/upgrade pogu, ja tu neesi uzmanīgi paskatījies, ko tieši tu "labo". Tas, ka redaktors rāda paziņojumu nenozīmē, ka tā ir vienmēr kļūda.

Tas nav seamark way/763125934

Ar layer elementu pārklāšanos automātiski nelabo way/116239212 way/770603329 Kā iepriekš minēts, tādā veidā tu tikai noslēp reālo problēmu, nevis reāli kaut ko izlabo.

Šādās vietās noexit=no neliek node/11237573474

Šis bija marked crossing node/9003554752

building=roof nav automātiski jāliek layer=1, ja tas ne ar vienu citu elementu nekonfliktē

Hello,

Since your changesets do not specify a source, can you please clarify where these German language street names are from? Where could one verify these?

Thanks

Sorry, I don't think I understand you.

If this road is for buses only, then how can `motor_vehicle=yes` be correct? That includes all motorized vehicles - automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, buses, etc.

motor_vehicle=*

All these roads have (and always had) `bus=yes`. This allows public service buses.

bus=*#As_an_access_tag

To further clarify access tag hierarchy. `bus` is a type of `motor_vehicle` and `bus` value overrides `motor_vehicle` value. In other words, `motor_vehicle=no` or `motor_vehicle=yes` does nothing for buses when there is `bus=yes`. Therefore, if changing `motor_vehicle` matters for GraphHopper, then it sounds like there is a problem in your settings.

access=*#Transport_mode_restrictions

Obviously, I don't know what your settings are. I can only tell you what the correct tags are based on your description. And your description of these roads sounds like `access=no` + `bus=yes` - only buses allowed (which it had before).

Thanks for clarifying! A couple points.

You should not make any changes to OSM to "fix" some other router (or navigator, map, app, etc.). OSM contains the data and it should be correct and accurate. If another application is not using it correctly - it should be fixed there.

You say that GraphHopper cannot create a route. Well, it sounds like it shouldn't - this road is not accessible to anything that is not buses. Therefore, `motor_vehicle=yes` would not be correct.

Sveiki,

Mainot tegus bez apsekošanas lūdzu būt uzmanīgam. Varbūt liela daļa tiešām ir pareizi. Bet ne visi `tunnel=yes` piemēri ir `tunnel=building_passage`. Piemēram, šeit visi celiņi ir vienkārši `covered=yes` https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=655059980128647&focus=photo . Šeit nemaz vienas sienas nav un arī ir `covered=yes` https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1292316544904813&focus=photo . Šeit dekoratīva konstrukcija nepareizi kā ēka iezīmēta https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1256743364966508&focus=photo . Noteikti ir daudz tādi piemēri, kur nevar zināt, ko īsti autors bija domājis un kāpēc ir nepareizi. Nomainot šādi tegus rodas priekšstats, ka tie tagad ir iezīmēti pareizi, bet faktiski šādi kļūda tiek "noslēpta".

osm.wiki/What%27s_the_problem_with_mechanical_edits%3F

Hi!

Could you please clarify your intention with this edit? This road has never been tagged as open to public because it is a gated bus-only access with only private (employee) access for other vehicles. Have the restrictions changed now after reconstruction? Setting tag to `motor_vehicle=yes` doesn't mean it's open or closed - it means motorized vehicles can legally enter this road.

Thanks

Ups, es to gribēju nokomentēt changeset/146727651, bet ne to elementu izvēlējos 🙃