Yes, I did, I should have mentioned. I changed these to tracks, just wanted to make sure this wasn't a recently-built road or something.

Yeah, it's probably a footway if you are tracing it from aerial and not based on a recent survey. There are very few pedestrian streets in Latvia and almost none of them in minor locations like this, so it stands out.

Hi again,

A way like way/1264824011 is very likely not a driveway unless the aerial is out of date. Driveways are roads that access individual properties, often private and not part of a public road network. Random roads like this in forests and fields are almost always tracks unless they actually lead to some place.

Hi!

Is this way way/1264830293 really a pedestrian street? It looks much more narrow unless the aerial is out of date.

Thanks

Zīmēm jau principā nav jābūt simetriskām. Te gan protams prasītos otrā pusē loģiski domājot tās zīmes jēgu - nebraukāt cauri. Dēļ šitādiem stulbiem gadījumiem bieži sanāk ielikt pēc zīmes kaut kādu ierobežojumu, bet faktiski tas bija tikai no vienas puses. Šeit es arī tā ieliku, kad te pa Upesciema ielu dzīvojamās zonas skatījos (pareizi gan vajadzēja `vehicle` nevis `access`).

Uz pašvaldību necerētu, īpaši šitādos rajonos. Te vēl tā zīme teorētiski Rīgā...

Tīri pareizi būtu `vehicle:direction=destination`. Pašdarbība jau drošvien ir, bet ko darīt... Tu piedāvā ņemt nost?

The map takes a little bit of time to update. Sometimes a few minutes, sometimes longer. You will probably also need a browser cache clear.

osm.wiki/Browser_cache

Clearcuts won't appear on the default map unless you combine it into a multipolygon with the forest, so that it's a "hole" in the forest. The reason is that there is no rendering on the default map for clearcuts, so these overlapping features just look like a forest. Other maps and programs may display it differently. A "hole" in the forest will simply not draw the forest there and leave it default white, so it becomes visible, so to speak.

Strictly speaking, you can't have both a forest and a clearcut at the same time. So these should normally be combined into multipolygons or drawn next to each other.

Multipolygons are a bit complicated. But you can select both areas (forest and clearcut) and press C to combine them. If the forest isn't a multipolygon yet, it will make one. If the forest is large and already has other parts outside the screen, you will have to download them first by selecting the forest relation and downloading its members. You can also manually add the cutline to the multipolygon relation without downloading other elements, but it's more annoying than just shift-selecting and C-ing them.

osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#iD

No worries, let me know if you have any questions. Your edits look good otherwise.

Hi!

Thanks for your additions!

Just to let you know, it's not really necessary to include a `source` tag on every element. This makes data more difficult to maintain because everyone later has to update this tag when they make any changes. It's also redundant, because we can see element modification history and your changeset tags (i.e. on changeset/148738302 ), such as `imagery_used` and whatever you specified as `source`. So it's usually enough to just specify that.

Most `source` tags that are included in OSM are for obscure or unclear sources, such as imported data or hard-to-understand elements. While you can technically add them for anything, they will become outdated really quickly. For example, new aerial imagery or someone else surveying or just your GPX track not being public. Most mappers won't even notice the tag. Experience shows that there aren't enough mappers (at least in Latvia) to keep these up to date and the vast majority of `source` values are out of date. It's much more useful to leave a descriptive changeset summary, such as how and why you are modifying something.

Thanks

Hello,

I have reverted this edit because it broke the parking lot shape, leaving a fence going across a random space and most of parking lot unmapped.

I am not sure what you were attempting to fix and how, but please be more careful. Let me know if I can assist.

Thanks

Hello,

Please do not delete buildings and redraw them (or not draw them at all), but correct the existing building location/shape and/or whatever pathways need correction depending on the actual situation.

In Latvia, please either use the local imagery or set the correct offset for the Bing aerial, because it has an incorrect offset in Latvia and is not suitable for correcting building footprints otherwise.

For example, in this edit, the building was already correctly positioned, but you moved it away. There was also a shop POI mapped, which you didn't move, but which is supposedly within the building, so the point ended up outside the building.

Or, for example, here changeset/148551237 you moved the building away from the driveway although the driveway actually passed through the building. You also deleted a nearby building.

Also, please do not delete address information from buildings. This got lost because you redraw a new way instead of using the exiting way with the previous data.

Here, changeset/148551105 and https://osmcha.org/changesets/148551011 , you completely deleted a building with no explanation.

In changeset/148551719 you deleted a valid viewtower instead of fixing the path layout that most likely passes under it.

I have reverted your edits here. I only fixed edits in Latvia, but I see you have made similar problematic edits elsewhere. So please slow down and carefully review and fix your edits before continuing to make MapRoulette corrections. You are editing live map data.

Thanks

Hello,

Please use the local accurate "Orthophoto (2016–2018), 1:5000, Latvia" imagery or set the correct Bing imagery offset, because Bing imagery is offset in Latvia.

Thanks

osm.wiki/Using_aerial_imagery

Skaidrs, paldies par paskaidrojumu.

Es nomainīju `name` uz `loc_name`, jo tas izklausās pēc vietēja nosaukuma (`name` parasti ir oficiāli vai vispārzināmi nosaukumi vai vismaz atrodami kaut kādos avotos). Kadastra/adrešu punkta te it kā (vairs) nav, tāpēc nosaukums drošvien vairs tikai vēsturisks.

Es pieliku arī drupas šeit, nezinu gan cik precīzs novietojums.

Zemes platības, kā mežus nevajadzētu savienot ar ceļiem, jo ceļa līnijas norāda ceļa viduslīniju, bet platības līnija norāda pilnu laukuma izvietojumu. Es šeit izlaboju.

Vēl gribēju pajautāt, no kāda avota ir šī meža gabala nosaukums - way/1258573844 "Mūrmāja"? Vai tas ir kaut kāds vietējais nosaukums?

Sveiki!

Paldies par papildinājumu.

Gribēju norādīt, ka grāvjus kā tuneļus vajag norādīt tikai tur, kur tie faktiski ir kā caurtekas (parasti zem ceļiem). Virszemes grāvjiem `tunnel`=* un `layer=-1` neliek.

Es šeit izlaboju.

Paldies

Hi!

I noticed you updated some of the street names. If you want to map these easier, you can use a cadaster street layer overlaid the aerial in the editor's custom imagery field such as
https://lvmgeoserver.lvm.lv/geoserver/ows?FORMAT=image/jpeg&VERSION=1.3.0&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=public:Orto_LKS,publicwfs:Kadastra_karte,publicwfs:arisstreet,publicwfs:arisroad,publicwfs:arisbuilding&STYLES=&CRS={https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}

osm.wiki/Lv:Source#iD_sl%C4%81%C5%86u_pievieno%C5%A1ana

Cheers

It's a very high IQ concrete. ;)

I have no idea how I got that. Like, there is nothing here that I would have used the word "logic" for, so I am not sure how I accidentally typed that.

Sveiki!

Vai šīs takas tiešām vairs neeksistē pāri dzelzceļam šeit: osm.org/#map=19/56.63940/23.66695 ? Tās ir diezgan skaidri redzamas uz ortofoto, kas ir diezgan jauns. Vai šeit ir kaut kas mainījies?

Paldies

Vai šie punkti tiešām ir fordi? node/11682618791 , node/11682618792 , node/11682618793 ?

Sveiki,

Lūgums zīmēt grāvjus atsevišķi no administratīvo robežu līnijām. Un uzmanīgāk pēc tam savienot tos ar citiem elementiem. Kā arī nelietot redaktora piedāvātos labojumus, ja tie neatbilst patiesībai (piemēram neeksistējoši fordi starp ceļiem un grāvjiem). Pieliekot grāvja tegus uz šīm līnijām ir izveidotas ļoti daudz papildus problēmu. Un šo oficiāli noteikto robežas līniju nevar pēc tam bīdīt, kā grāvja līniju. Es, cik varēju, šeit izlaboju.