By the way, tagging roads in a living zone (533) as highway=living_street is described in osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines as local consensus

I guess that would work the same for routers or whatnot.

Personally, I have always used "only xxx" restrictions (osm.wiki/Relation:restriction#Mandatory_restriction) rather than "no xxx" restrictions when there's a specific sign/direction. It probably doesn't matter since this isn't following traffic signs but rather their logical results.

Anyway, thanks for taking a look.

Sveiki! Līdzīgi, kā iepriekšējā rediģējumā, ir diezgan daudz kļūdas. Minēšu galvenās:

Lietojot aerofoto, lūdzu būs uzmanīgiem ar nobīdi. Aerofoto nav garantēts sakrist. Vairāk info osm.wiki/Using_aerial_imagery

Šī nav ēka, bet "skapis" (man_made=street_cabinet). Un nosaukumā (name) nevajadzētu likt aprakstu (description). way/1082667652

Šīm stāvvietām (cik zinu) nekur nav norādītas zīmes par ierobežojumiem, tāpēc nevajadzētu likt access. way/1066167222; way/1066167214; way/1082667654

Lūdzu nedzēst potenciālo (highway=proposed) Āboliņu ielu. Šī iela ir kadastrā un blakus mājai ir adrese ar šo ielas nosaukumu. Šī ir otrā reize, kad tā tiek izdzēsta bez pamatojuma. way/739151324

Lūdzu nedzēst tādus punktus kā
tualetes (amenity=toilets). Cik zinu, tās joprojām tur ir. node/9792362155

Without the restriction, you are still allowed to do a u-turn though. Unless I'm missing something.

Hi! Was there a particular reason for deleting this turn restriction relation/14197217 ?

Hi! Just to let you know, I changed these service roads partially back to parking isles, since the "side" ones do indeed access the (double) parking rows.

changeset/125177061

Thanks for getting back so quickly! I adjusted the locations a bit further. Waterways and roads should not connect to each other unless they meet on the same level. In this case, the relevant section of the ditch would be a tunnel=culvert with a layer=-1 and the road would simply pass over it without connecting.

Hi! I see you added several fords between tracks/roads and ditches/streams. Are you sure these are actually fords? On aerial, they appear to be culverts.

node/9873705285
node/1704977714
node/9873705303

The roads North are living streets. Do you know if the living zone ends somewhere here or continues through?

Sveiki!

Redzu, ka tu esi pielabojis meža takas ar ierakstītu GPX. Tagad izskatās precīzāk. Bet iesaku savu ierakstu arī salīdzināt ar Strava Heatmap[1] karti, īpaši uz tādām no gaisa neredzamām takām kā way/23149782, kuras ir ļoti populāras un ir ļoti daudz Strava ieraksti no kuriem var diezgan precīzi izsecināt atrašanās vietu (ja nav sistemātiskas kļūdas dēļ reljefa). Takas jau sākotnēji nebija īpaši precīzas, bet labojot ar personīgo GPX var sanākt, ka izlabojot vienu daļu, izveidojas jaunas nobīdes.

Veiksmi!

[1] osm.wiki/Strava#Global_Heatmap_in_High_Resolution

You're right, I shouldn't have put access=no there. It's destination with a restriction (assuming it says delivery vehicles). There's a no entry (brick) on the East side, but no entry (circle) on West side. I didn't have Mapillary uploaded/processed yet so I got it wrong. I changed it.

I had also left a note note/3238697

Sveiki! Es nomainīju way/1071705792 no landuse=meadow uz natural=grassland. "Meadow" angliski protams ir "pļava", bet OSM tam nozīme ir lauksaimniecībai[1], piemēram ganības vai zāles audzēšana pļaušanai (bet nav vēl gluži labībai).

[1] landuse=meadow

I agree that this is a problem with temporary closure of existing roads. Either it will be wrong now or it will be wrong later. We could carefully tag opening dates and such. But unfortunately, I don't think any routers or renderers actually handle it. A few big ones I checked don't know about opening_date.[1][2][3] I doubt any of the others do. So as far as I know, it's better to tag the current values so the routers/renderers are wrong for a short time later than being wrong for a longer time now, even those that take a month or two to update.

Anyway, thanks for the reply. I see what you meant with the tags now.

[1] https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/search?q=opening_date
[2] https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/search?q=opening_date
[3] https://github.com/search?q=org%3Aosmandapp+opening_date

Oh, I see how you meant it, thanks for clarifying.

I don't think any routers use opening_date to choose arbitrary tags like that. I think only highways marked as construction use that value, but I am not sure routers use it even then.

Since tags almost always mean "at this time", I think it's better we don't tag for the future and leave a note instead and update later. access=yes on a construction road means that you can use it while it's under construction, like routers currently consider this road.[1] In fact, unless it's access=no, most routers only assume you cannot use.

If you want to tag future access, then you probably have to use something like planned:access= or proposed:access= [2] (and planned:surface=asphalt [3] I guess), but it's very rarely used. I guess you could also use an access:conditional= but I don't even know how the syntax would look like for future opening date. I'm also pretty sure routers will not recognize any of this, but at least they won't mistake it for current values.

[1] osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=56.8347%2C24.5808%3B56.8414%2C24.5593
[2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/proposed%3Aaccess
[3] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/planned%3Asurface

Hi! I see you changed way/954685435 to access=yes, but the road has the 302 "Braukt aizliegts" sign at the Southeast end, so it is definitely not full access. (There is also a 302 sign with "in 450m" to warn about this when turning from P5 highway Southeast.) This was the same 3 months ago. Was there a different sign at the Northwest end or was something different when you last surveyed?

It was? Hmmm. Thanks for letting me know about this.

This looks like a rather recent change on the wiki then as of osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines&diff=2187729&oldid=2147581. I specifically checked this point on wiki and in practice years ago. The main page for living street has always said a variant of "[..] or other implementations of shared space". This is what I saw already tagged too, at least in East Riga. And currently pretty much all courtyard roads I have checked are tagged as living streets in Riga regardless if they have the living zone sign. So I have continued doing this myself and this changeset is definitely not the only one where I tagged living streets for courtyards. I guess I have to check a lot of stuff now.

Personally, I don't really agree with tagging them as service roads because OSM is basically missing a road classification for countries with courtyard-specific countries, which is like all of Soviet bloc as far as I know. But I will follow the tagging convention. But my question is how do we tag all the courtyard rules to essentially match those of living streets? Stuff like pedestrian right of way, for example. How are routers supposed to tell them apart?

If they are in a living zone, then they should be tagged highway=living_street since they have special traffic rules.

Hi! Are these streets (e.g. Miglas) no longer in the living zone? Is every side street (e.g. Gulbju) still in the living zone, but now only starting at those streets?

Hi! Are you sure node/8996138562 is a dwelling?

Hi! What was your intention with adding a refuge/pedestrian island to the crossing? There is a "waiting location" for pedestrians, but that's not an island.