Čau,

Gribēju pieminēt, ka piebrauktuves pie mājām un individuālām teritorijām kā way/1268165210 visticamāk būs driveway arī, ja ļoti garas un zemes ceļi/grantenes, bet ceļi kā way/1268593062 , pa kuriem piekļuve ir vairākām vietām/teritorijām un tālāk sadalās sīkāk parasti ir lielākas nozīmes vai vismaz service. Konkrēti `highway=track` būs pārsvarā tikai vietās, kur tas ved tikai uz mežiem/laukiem/ezeriem, bet ne viensētām un tml.

Es te piemēram nomainīju.

Hello,

Can you please clarify what happened to the path at way/1081129240 ? There are currently two other paths/stairs still connecting to the old path - are they also gone? And the North section does not connect anymore - is there no way to pass through? The Svētā Jēkaba hiking route is now also not following any paths here. On aerial, there appear to be paths at osm.org/#map=19/57.25662/25.06721 . Are they also gone?

Thanks

Sveiki,

Vai uz šīs takas ir aizliegums (vai fiziski neiespējams piekļūt ar) velosipēdiem? Redzu, ka ir norādīts `mtb:scale:imba`, bet iepriekš jau bija pievienots aizliegums `bicycle=no`. Varbūt varētu precizēt atļauto piekļuvi, piemēram no informācijas plāksnes vai ceļa zīmēm?

Paldies

Atbildi nesaņēmām, tāpēc šos punktus nodzēsu.

Urgh, I just realized someone put incorrect `bicycle=dismount` on way/91301229 and nearby , which causes most routers to go around. And this has been here for years... I will fix this.

But, yes, broadly speaking, this is a difficult issue with routers. It is technically OsmAnd's fault - they should just route on the footways and `bicycle=yes` shouldn't change anything. Otherwise we'd have to add bicycle=yes to tens of thousands of footways across just Latvia.

The vast majority of footways in Latvia don't have any cycling infrastructure or signs. Like almost all these footways here along the bridge - they are the main ways that cyclists use across it, but none of them have any cycleway signage, so legally they are just footways.

I don't really have a solution for this. If we know that routers are having serious problems here, we can add `bicycle=yes` and a `note` that it is needed for routing. But it is really the routers that need to fix their cycling profiles. OsmAnd's profile really should not prefer a primary road over even a long detour over footways.

Hello,

Just wanted to let you know that we don't generally specify access values unless they are different from default or ambiguous. All (non-sidewalk) footways and other paths and roads in Latvia imply bicycle=yes by default unless there is some restriction. This is like they imply foot=yes or kick_scooter=yes or stroller=yes, etc. which we wouldn't all add here one at a time.

Thanks

Ja tiek izmantoti trešie avoti, tad lūdzu tos norādīt, lai var šādas izmaiņas pārbaudīt. Pretējā gadījumā, atbilstoši kādiem būvvaldes un kadastra datiem ir atvienoti un izdzēsti ceļi, izdzēsti punkti un laukumi, izdzēstas adreses un piebraucami ceļi un visas pārējām problēmas, ko minēju?

osm.wiki/Verifiability

Lūdzu vispirms iepazīties ar kartēšanas principiem un tikai pēc tam sākt veikt šādas izmaiņas, un katru izmaiņu atbilstoši pamatot.

Sveiki!

Vai šeit tiešām bija domāts kartēt šo ēkas stūra punktu node/11763852315 kā avārijas ūdens padeves punktu?

Paldies

Šajā izmaiņā ir daudz kļūdu. Piemēram, savienoti laukumi un ceļi, kas nav jāsavieno; pārvietoti laukumi no oficiālajām kadastra līnijām; nodzēstas pareizas teritorijas; nodzēsti ēku punkti; izdzēsti ceļi; atvienoti ceļi; laukumi iezīmēti pāri upēm, ceļiem un teritorijām; un citas problēmas.

Šeit ir pārāk daudz kā labojama, tāpēc es šo izmaiņu atceļu pilnībā un izlaboju daļu.

Hey, I'll reply to your message here (on the changeset).

> Here is two driveways to building: first from ‘Horizontal’ highway, and second from ‘down’ highway.
> In this case, do we need to mark these driveway as a driveway, or make it a highway as well?

This is a slightly weird case. I changed the roads to how I would map them in this scenario. I am basing this on cadaster, aerial and generally just how dwellings are accessed in Latvia.

So the cadaster has a "red line road" that goes to the property from the North side. Assuming all the surrounding area is state forests. So this is then the "official" way to access it, so I am marking that as a driveway and private. The south road looks like access road to forests, so I am marking it as a track up to their property line. In this case, it looks like the owners also use it (which I guess they can if it's public), so the only thing to add is the private connection between the driveway and the track.

I don't know if this is correct and I personally don't usually map this precisely, but this is how I would map it.

Hello,

If you are going to be making what seem like automated edits across many countries, please provide a clear link to the description and discussion about what you are doing.

osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Thanks

Cool!

Here's a custom background imagery you can use that will show aerial photography and cadaster layer plus street names of top of it, if that helps. It's much easier to adjust streets and properties like that (default iD cadaster layer doesn't have street name.) Although one has to be careful because it's rarely accurate and a lot of "streets" aren't actually streets, but more like reserved future lines than may easily change.

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

Vēl šī truba way/625542376 nevarēs būt `location=overground`, jo tas nozīmētu, ka tā ir pa virsu ielām. Tu laikam domāji kaut kādu konkrētu posmu nomainīt?

Sveiki,

Ar šo "ēku" laikam domāts kaut kas cits bija? way/1265185336 Ortofoto gan tur dažādas lietas, tāpēc nezinu uz ko īsti izlabot.

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?