Yeah, it's not great. But warnings are technically not errors. So you don't HAVE to follow them - the software doesn't always know.

By the way, most crossing warnings can be fixed - these are more like "upgrades". The crossing tagging scheme was standardized not too long ago and most crossings are using the older imprecise style. You shouldn't bulk update them, but if you are updating the area, then feel free to upgrade them.

Just a side note - other editors like JOSM or many validation tools (you can toggle some on in the editor data layers) will show a LOT more warnings, errors, hints, etc. There are so many no one will ever be able to fix it all, so it's just something we have to live with. This isn't even mentioning that mappers don't actually agree on how many things should be drawn or tagged, even for what seems like basic significant features.

Sure thing!

Warnings will happen, but they are just warnings - if the tagging and geometry are correct, then they can be ignored. The iD editor is not very good with complex situations with levels and building parts and often complains about stuff and offers incorrect fixes. Technically, the points do not connect to the building, because they are on different layers (and obviously do not connect in real life), but this is when the editor starts complaining - it does not understand that a building part on a different layer implies that the building itself in that location does not overlap anything. Building parts in particular are complex, because they "override" the building shape, but almost no tools out there (except 3D renderers) really understand this.

I have no recollection of this ;)

I think this was supposed to be a building from the terplāns. I changed it to a building, although tree cover prevents me from confirming. And it's not on cadaster, but the terplan included a bunch "unofficial" buildings like that, so it either existed or still exists.

Sveiki,

Vienu kapsētu vairākos gabalos zīmēt nevajadzētu, jo tad te datos sanāk ir 3 atsevišķas kapsētas (ar vienādiem nosaukumiem). Tā vietā, konkrēti kapsētām, katru "apgabalu" var norādīt ar `cemetery=sector`.

landuse=cemetery#How_to_map

Principā ceļi, kas iet caur kapsētu, ir kapsētas teritorijā.

Hi!

Just a note that you should not change any objects solely to render on the default map. OSM is used by many maps and data consumers and what is rendered or parsed is different. For example, tagging this as a separate building means that the data now contains a separate building here (even if it looks like one on the default map).

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

I adjusted here to how building "air corridors" like this are usually tagged. Depending on which building it is part of - that building would include this shape and then the part itself duplicating the contour can specify how it's different.

Notably for levels/floors OSM maps this a little confusingly, but this is a 2 level building that starts at the second level - `building:levels=2` and
`building:min_level=1`.

building:min_level=*

Sveiki!

Informācijai, vispārīgi sakot pamatgadījumos, ja ir ar zilo zīmi apzīmēta dzīvojamā zona, tad galvenos ceļus ir jāatzīmē kā dzīvojamās ielas neatkarīgi vai tur gar sāniem stāvvietas vai maģistrāle. Noteikumi iekšpagalmos (un stāvvietās) gandrīz sakrīt, bet tomēr faktiskā klasifikācija un OSM pēc funkcijas izmantošanai pārsvarā ir jāsakrīt ar legālo nozīmi.

Šeit izskatās, ka iebraukšana ir caur privātiem vārtiem/barjeru, un tad visticamāk var atstāt arī kā service, jo piekļuve faktiski ir īpašumam. OSM izpratnē tas iespējams nav vairs ceļš bet piebrauktuve. Tas praktiski var būt iemesls, kādēļ šādās vietās varētu nelikt dzīvojamās ielas.

Protams, jāskatās daudzos gadījumos uz vietas. Ar daudzstāvu māju pagalmiem ir ļoti sarežģīti.

Šeit es personīgi atstātu šo plato posmu way/1282841562 kā dzīvojamo ielu kamēr šis posms iet gar vairākām mājām un vēl nav pārvērties par stāvvietu. Parasti, ja no tā ceļa atdalās vēl sīki ceļi un iebrauktuves, tad droši vien tas vēl ir OSM izpratnē pēc funkcijas savienojošais ceļš ar regulāru satiksmi uz dažādām vietām.

Paldies

Sveiki!

Paldies par izmaiņām. Nedaudz pielaboju.

Šeit pēc kadastra ir divas ēkas (un divas adreses), tāpēc atvienoju kā iepriekš. Tā kā skola tagad viena, tad galvenā informācija ir uz way/772990646 laukuma, bet ēkām tikai apzīmējums, ka skolas ēka.

Vēl piebildīšu, ka `building=gymansium` nozīmē lielu ēku sportam un fizkultūrai, bet ne viss "ģimnāzija". Drošvien šo var tā pazīmēt way/170010789 bet ne ēkas, kur ir pamattelpas.

Paldies

Skaidrs, paldies par precizējumu.

Jā, pagaidu būvniecības lietas nav jēgas zīmēt (izņemot teritoriju).

Vispārīgi, tiešam nevaru neko labāku par `man_made=water_well` atrast. Ja būtu apsegta/ar vāku, tad varētu vēl `man_made=manhole`. Bet tādas atvērtas, kur vēl var gruntsūdeni ņemt, laikam OSM nav precīza tega. Līdz šim neesmu gluži nekur sastapies ar tādu (vismaz nesabrukušu), tāpēc nav bijusi "problēma" iezīmēt.

A kas tas tāds ir/bija te? 2017 Mapillary tikai stāvvieta.

Sveiki!

Vai nav palicis atmiņā, kas tas par punktu - node/11289892444 . Piezīmē norādīts "drainage", bet tad tas diez vai ir "well", kur var ņemt (parasti dzeramu) ūdeni.

Hi!

I am assuming the "parking lot" has "tikai ar atļaujām" sign? In the OSM sense, this is not `access=permit`, but just `access=private`. Permit implies that anyone from the public could get a permit. But in a location like this, it is highly unlikely they would issue permits to everyone, even if they don't study or live here.

Sveiki,

Lūdzu nemaini celiņus uz veloceliņiem, ja tur nav uzliktas atbilstošas ceļa zīmes, kas maina šo ceļu nozīmi.

Piemēram, zem tilta nav veloceļš. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1256945641625197&focus=photo

Vai piemēram, iebraucot gājēju tunelī, nav veloceļš (ir velomaršruts, bet zīme attiecas uz braukšanu taisni). https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=412083145114145&focus=photo

Šajā posmā salaboju.

Paldies

Hi!

Just letting you know that this road was correctly specified as an unclassified road. It leads to a couple properties and connects different roads, so its purpose is not a track (which is mainly for land access like fields and forests without anything like residences or farmyards).

Thanks

Sveiki,

Vai varētu precizēt, kas tieši domāts ar celiņu klasifikāciju attiecībā uz veloceļiem? Pievienotie tegi ir nedaudz neskaidri. Latvijā ir vai nu parasti celiņi un ietves vai arī veloceļi - kopīgi vai sadalīti. Bet (gandrīz) nav citu "pa vidu" variantu. Tāpēc piemēram kombinācija `highway=footway` + `bicycle=designated` (piemēram way/1112260626 ) nav gluži korekta.

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

Paldies

Hi!

Thanks for your changes!

Just to let you know, it is not necessary to specify access values in places where they are default/implied and the ways don't have any legal exceptions. On vast majority of `highway=footway`, there don't need to be extra values. While access value hierarchy is a complex topic, in summary, it is not technically correct to say `access=no` here, because there are other modes of transportation that are not `foot` and `bicycle`.

Thanks

Hi!

Thanks for you edits.

Just wanted to let you know that technically none of the roads you tagged as `foot=no` have a legal restriction for pedestrians. Latvian Traffic Law allows pedestrians on pretty much any road. It may not be wise to walk on viaduct trunk roads like here, but it's not illegal.

For the sake of routing, we can probably leave `foot=no` on these trunk roads, although no sane router should route pedestrians here anyway.

About this residential road though way/160947898. It is not correct to specify `foot=no` here. While it's okay to put that on roads where no pedestrians are ever expected, here you can see many cars parked, so people obviously can and do walk here as it is perfectly legal.

I am not sure what you mean by "pedestrian walkway", but if you mean a sidewalk, then not having a sidewalk does not forbid foot travel. In fact, it's literally the opposite - if there's a sidewalk, then pedestrians must use it. If there is no sidewalk, pedestrians may walk on the shoulder.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks

Sveiki,

Vai pārdēvētajai Pāvila Rozīša ielai tiešām bija domāts `incline=up` gandrīz visā garumā? Tas ir, iela ir ar slīpumu/pāri uzkalnam?

Pieminēšu, ka mainot nosaukumus jāpārbauda, vai nav citas vērtības, kas arī balstās uz šo nosaukumu. Piemēram, šeit palicis `name:etymology=Leons Paegle` + `
name:etymology:wikidata=Q13554453` + `name:etymology:wikipedia=lv:Leons Paegle`. Šie posmi arī bija palikuši nenomainīti piemēram way/1108376327 kā arī viss šis savienojums way/37370774 .

Vēl pieminēšu, ka lielām pilsētas ielām, kur ir adresācija un vecais nosaukums ir daudz izmantots, vajadzētu atstāt veco nosaukumu kā `old_name`, nevis pilnībā nodzēst.

Es šeit izlaboju (izņemot `incline`).

Paldies

The map takes a few minutes to update, so you won't see it at once. By now, you can force your browser to refresh the cached map images with Ctrl + F5 or your browser's equivalent.

If you click the link node/11070676996 you can see it's at the new (approximate) location.

Hello,

I moved the point to the new location for you. Note that just changing the address won't actually move the point itself.

Cheers

Tu nosaukumu izlaboji, bet te palika vēl 2 punkti ar "nosaukumiem" [1], [2], adrese kafejnīcai bija salūzusi [3] kā arī "stāvvieta" ar šķībiem tegiem [4]. Es to visu arī izlaboju, bet te gan varēja revertu vispirms uztaisīt un tikai pareizo pielikt.

[1] node/11837420846/history

[2] node/11837420845/history

[3] node/762685919/history

[4] node/11837420847/history