Cerams, ka izlaboju ar changeset/176998075 . Man visi dati ar dienu kavēšanos no dump`iem, tāpēc nevarēšu uzreiz pārbaudīt un salīdzināt visu.

I am not sure how JOSM managed to do this, but I think JOSM got confused by version synchronization and failed to sync with revert + changes data merge and "uploaded" all elements even though none of them are actually modified. I'm also not sure why OSM server allowed an empty change like this...

Hmm, interesanti, kāpēc tā sanāca. Es it kā pārbaudīju sarakstu. Te pat nosaukums pilnīgi cits un it kā nekādīgi nesaistīti. Paskatīšos visu vēlreiz. Paldies, ka pamanīji.

I haven't reviewed all edits, but I also think some of the road classification is incorrect, because these changes modify individual segments but break the overall hierarchy of the network. Like the road in this changeset - the east side of it now mismatches. I don't personally know all these roads, but for example way/45184870 seems wrong and similarly splits road hierarchy while equating it to nearby roads that are definitely of lesser significance.

Hello,

Please don't change compacted surface to unpaved. "Unpaved" is a generic term - it can be anything from mud to gravel. Compacted is a more accurate value than unpaved, if this road is compacted (which most unpaved rural roads in Latvia are). By removing this value, you are making the data less precise. If your navigator doesn't understand this value, then contact the developers and ask them to fix it. If anything, compacted is a better surface than what you can assume from plain unpaved.

surface=*#Unpaved

Hello,

As mentioned before, please do not retag areas into farmyards unless that's what they actually are. You are not just adding, but mass-converting residential areas to farmyards. Farmyards on OSM have a specific meaning and not what you are mapping. Please read what landuse=farmyard says. You are creating incorrect map data making it look like Latvia is covered with farmyards when in reality most of these locations do not engage in any farming or livestock keeping.

To return to the original query, to really simplify it:

Rīgas Nami calls it "Benjamiņas laukums". They manage the area, so they can call it and its features whatever they want. Per OSM Verifiability principle, it is shown that a feature's name comes from a reputable source. No other source gives it a different name. Tag `name` is used for such names. Therefore, `name=Benjamiņas laukums`.

I linked you several relevant pages. If you don't think the name should be here, you should demonstrate how it conflicts with OSM and not some other map or plan.

The one relevant thing to OSM you mentioned, which could be a concern, is that it "misleads users that it is infact official name/adress of this square". But OSM makes no such claim. This was the very first question I asked you that you never replied to. Who are these users? Who from Riga Council is confused?

Wrong relation, fixed in changeset/176577938

Ups, jā. Izlaboju.

Vienīgais Polijā viņi pārsimts (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hW5). Iespējams tur tirgo sporta preces un apģērbus, bet Latvijā tikai apģērbus pārsvarā. Tad iespējams jādala NSI ieraksts Latvijai nodalīts. Bet NSI drošvien pateiks, ka 4 ieraksti ir pa maz priekš atsevišķa ieraksta... Es nezinu, kā NSI risina šitādus gadījumus.

Izskatās, ka redaktorā tulkojums latviski lietots ar "bruģis" = `sett` un ar "bruģakmens" = `paving_stones`. Tas gan nav pareizs tulkojums vai vismaz ļoti mulsinošs. (Tīri precīzi "bruģis" ir ceļa seguma veids, bet "bruģakmeņi" ir paši akmeņi, kas var būt betons, plakans, apaļš.) Šeit izskatās, ka tulkojums ir vienkārši nepareizs un otrādi ielikts.

Skatoties latviešu tulkojumus, ļoti daudz diemžēl izskatās nepareizi (iespējams mašīntulkoti), tāpēc laikam pirmreizēji būtu vērts apskatīt kādu vērtību reāli tas tulkojums ieliek. Personīgi, man redaktors angļu valodā, tāpēc neesmu sastapies ar šo līdz šim un nebiju aizdomājies par šo.

Es pamēģināšu redaktorā tulkojumu izlabot un iesniegt labojumu. Pagaidām gan būs kā ir.