Te ap way/727872192/history varētu pielikt `xmas:feature=tree`. Es gan nezinu, vai tur egle katru gadu un vai tajā vietā.

Skaidrs, paldies par precizējumu.

Ja neesi Zulipā pamanījis, tad šeit tēmā apakšā par piekļuvi 8. ciklam https://osmlatvija.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/358602-general/topic/LVM.20jaunumi Tas gan ar personīgu reģistrāciju, tāpēc ir kā ir.

Gribēju vēl precizēt par kapu teritorijas un piekļuves izmaiņām.

Jaunciema kapi ir atvērta tipa kapsēta un, cik zinu, piekļuve nav ierobežota. `access=discouraged` OSM nozīmē,[1] ka šeit ir kaut kādas oficiālas norādes, ka apmeklēt nav ieteicams vai iespējams. Parasti, jo tas ir bīstami, grūti vai citādi.

Kapu teritorija pirms tam sakrita ar kadastra teritoriju un pie kapsētas izvietoto teritorijas shēmu. (Arī teritorija
vēl bez apbedījumiem ir sadalīta sektoros.) Vai šeit ir kaut kas mainījies?

[1] access=*#access-discouraged

[2] https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=4096037140435499&focus=photo&lat=57.0420974&lng=24.1898008&z=17&x=0.7458135068681988&y=0.5948626934109635&zoom=2.014714266472253

Sveiki,

Šis ceļš way/1375559704 jaunākajā LVM ortofoto vairs nav redzam. Vai tas tiešām ir pa jaunu izbraukāts? Pašlaik izmaiņai norādītais avots sanāk 7. kārtas ortofoto, kas ir jau sen novecojis, tāpēc gribēju pārliecināties.

The direct source is the cadastral street layer. Unfortunately, iD truncates the long URL, but it is available as WMS at 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={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox} Broadly speaking, it's the street layout defined by the municipality at some point and documented by VZD. By the time it gets into VZD database, it's basically been reviewed and approved by the municipality. But it still may or may not properly appear as land use in municipality planning docs (because it's all a pretty big mess). In this case, it does though. Here is the actual land registry entry https://www.kadastrs.lv/properties/2200103753 . There's no way to copy a direct URL to terplāns map, but you can zoom into this place at https://geolatvija.lv/geo/tapis and see the land use specified as road, i.e. "Transporta infrastruktūras teritorija". In this case, the terplāns is in an approved state. As for OSM, I normally tag these as `proposed` (without researching details for each and every of hundreds of example streets like this). This doesn't imply there is some official construction "proposal" here. It might take a month or 30 years before something is built or it might get rezoned completely. But it helps to have it traced from official lines (especially if land borders are well-defined like here) for the cases where roads do get built. Plus, there are street addresses here using the street name so that alone is usually enough to justify tracing a rough planned road outline. Any properties built here would be expected to have driveways facing the street they belong to. Anyway, I digress.

Can you also please clarify what this planter box is node/12728269722 ? I cannot see it in street view imagery. Is it really here or did you mean something else?

Thanks for clarifying. It sounds like there are issues concerning source licensing and conflict of interest, so I will remove the current points.

Hopefully, we can readd them from publicly available/published sources when and if possible.

Sveiki,

Lūdzu norādīt avotu, no kura šis vēja parka izvietojums ir iegūts, kā arī avotu, kas šīs jau norāda par uzceltām. Ne operatora, ne pašvaldības ne citās ziņās nav nekas teikts par pabeigtu būvniecību.

It seems that this solar park is still in the planning phase and nothing is built yet. The original author added these [1] without a clear source. I reverted these and set them with life-cycle prefix as planned for now pending clarifications.

[1] changeset/154870022

Access tags cannot exist without a primary defining tag. So this then needs to be tagged as a gate or entrance or whatever it is. Also, is this an entrance to the building? It should then connect to the actual building.

Es salaboju.

I do not remember exactly why I added it. There was nothing mapped here before and I was mostly fixing another user's edit, so I must have assumed it was one from aerial. Since I haven't surveyed this in a very long time, I was probably misremembering the area. So feel free to adjust anything and delete the area.

Aha, skaidrs. Vai uz ziemeļu virzienu pa Upes/Ieviņu arī zona turpinās, vai arī tikai pati Pils iela no šosejas līdz ūdenskritumam?

Vai šī sēta way/1326135984 tiešām šķērso ceļu way/1182637437 ? Navigācija nesavienotu sētu ignorēs.

Hello,

You removed `amenity=parking` from way/87538444 . But there are a bunch of parking-related tags still on it. Could you clarify what you meant with this?

Čau,

Priekš ceļiem `proposed` (`planned`/`construction`/utt.) liek kā pamata tega vērtību - `highway=proposed` (`highway=construction` utt.). Pats par sevi `proposed` nevar būt, bet tas var paskaidrot plānoto vērtību ceļam - piem. `highway=proposed` + `proposed=residential`. (Var arī likt `proposed:highway=residential`, bet ceļiem parasti liek pa taisno.)

Hello,

In this changeset you added several 50 max speed values to living zone streets, such as way/55895127 . Could you please clarify what the signage here is/was? Is this still a living zone?

Thanks

Sveiki,

Par šo ceļu way/893138434 - tas atzīmēts kā dzīvojamās zonas ceļš, bet maksimālais ātrums šajā izmaiņā ir pielikts kā 30. Vai varētu precizēt, kas par zīmēm šeit tieši ir?

I would also add that both disused:*=* and shop=vacant are perfectly valid tagging schemes. One is for a non-obvious location that was closed but might reasonably be expected to reopen as the same or different amenity; while the latter is for an obvious one, like vacant street-facing shops or empty room in a mall that may or may not be reopened. Of course, details vary, but in general shop=vacant are quite obvious as you walk down the street and see a closed venue.

Although not documented, a `showroom` https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/showroom tag could be used to indicate that there is a showroom, which is what I assume this edit tried to add?