Ā, skaidrs, paldies par precizējumu. Es sajaucu, kurš pagrieziens te bija domāts. Pats arī biju nofilmējis to, bet kaut kā nepiefiksēju.

Sveiki,

Gribēju precizēt, te kaut kāda jauna zīme uzlikta? Pavisam nesens Mapillary vēl nebija https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1205633460753549&focus=photo

When mapping living zones, also make sure that all connected roads that are in the zone's extents are also converted, such as probably [1].

[1] way/940719060

Can you please clarify what the source is for the road names like "Cērpas - Ozolgatves" and "Ziemeļi - Strīķeri" and "Dienvidu ceļš" and others?

Your changeset only specifies aerial imagery and notes as sources, and I don't see any notes here about the road names.

With a quick search, I cannot find these names online. I also don't see them in the official territory plan.

Also, like previously asked, please don't delete existing roads like [1] and redraw them [2], but adjust the existing road.

[1] way/1127597788/history

[2] way/1318961798

Please be careful making major road changes like this.

You didn't specify `oneway` on the segments, you didn't update the `lanes` count, you haven't added the route relations to the new segment, and you didn't specify turn restrictions for new/illegal turns. You also didn't draw the actual traffic island, which the note [1] was about.

I have reverted this edit for now, because it breaks routing.

[1] note/4279595

Parasti, ja nav nekādu zīmju, tad nav jāliek arī nekādi tegi (`bicycle`, `foot`, utt.), jo tiem visiem būs noklusētā vērtība. Uz ietvēm gājējiem ir priekšroka pret velosipēdiem, tādēļ svarīgākais ir norādīt, ka tās ir ietves ceļu infrastruktūrā un pēc CSN izpratnes (`footway=sidewalk`), bet citas vērtības tikai, ja tās atšķiras.

Šajā gadījumā tad ne `foot` ne `bicycle` nav nepieciešams nekur šeit norādīt.

Just to let you know that Kalmju iela was already aligned correctly. The current aerial is out of date, so please don't use it to align it. I have retraced and realigned it.

Can you please clarify why this road segment [1] is private if there are no signs here, at least at the time of my survey. Is there a sign further down the road? This appears to be a municipal road, which continues until the Bisenieki property. It in fact has a sign that says it's only a deadend in 700 meters from the intersection. [2]

[1] way/1263700337

[2] https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=356201300855087&focus=photo

Kas tieši ir domāts ar šiem numuriem ēkām node/12193743823 ? Ar mājas nosaukuma tegu tos visticamāk nav pareizi atzīmēt, iespējams tie ir `ref`.

Izmaiņu atcēlu un ceļus izlaboju, jo līdzīgi kā iepriekš nepaskaidrojot izdzēsti ceļi tā vietā, lai precizētu to piekļuvi un nozīmi.

Izmaiņu atcēlu, jo līdzīgi kā iepriekš izdzēsts ceļš, pārzīmēts neprecīzi un nav paskaidrots, kādēļ nomainīta klasifikācija.

I have reverted your edits since you are not replying to earlier comments about your similar changes.

Vai varētu precizēt, kas tieši šeit ir par ceļa zīmēm uz ietvēm? `foot=designated` nozīmē, ka šeit būtu "gājēju ceļš" zilā zīme. Tas nozīmētu, ka `bicycle=yes` te nevar būt, jo velosipēdiem nav pēc CSN atļauts.

Vairāk info: osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#G%C4%81j%C4%93ju_ce%C4%BCi

Sveiki,

Gribēju pieminēt, ka fiziski neatdalītas ceļa joslas netiek zīmētas kā atsevišķi ceļi, kā šajā gadījumā autobusu apstāšanās joslas. Vai šeit tagad pēc rekonstrukcijas ir pārbūvēts kā atdalīts (piemēram, barjeras, saliņa, v.c.)?

Kā arī šie noteikti nebūs `public_transport=platform`, kas ir pašas pieturas (kur gājēji gaida/pārvietojas) kā platformas apzīmējums. Tie būtu servisa ceļi, ja tie tiešām ir atdalīti no galvenās ceļa brauktuves. Un arī apstāšanās vieta tad ir jāpārliek uz šo ceļu.

Sveiki,

Vai šeit tiešām ir brasls node/12198527118 ?

Please do not delete and redraw buildings (or other tagged elements), but change the existing building as mentioned before in [1]. Firstly, this loses contribution history of the original element. And secondly, you didn't actually copy the original tags [2] to the new building, thus deleting the address. (In this case, an address bot would eventually restore the address data, so it isn't a permanent problem.)

[1] changeset/156956846

[2] way/182426427/history

This changeset contains no changes to any elements, I think you uploaded it by accident or didn't upload your changes.

Are you sure this sidewalk extends further? Was there some new construction here? It stopped shortly after the intersection only a month ago.

Hello,

You marked this parking lot [1] as public access, but there is a gate here and a parking sign with "only residents". Do you remember if something was different when you surveyed this or if you meant to tag this for a different location/parking lot?

[1] way/1135265378

Just a note that you redrew some of the ways, but they lost all of their tags: e.g. way/1317400101/history versus way/1118388972/history . You should generally keep the existing ways and modify them rather than deleting and drawing again, because this preserves history/attribution and has less chance of errors.