Hi!

Was there a reason to delete address node node/9887775286/history ? These are from official VZD data, so they are technically correct and the bot will just readd it later anyway.

Thanks.

For info, I mentioned this at changeset/127982997 to no response. Most of the changes in this #countryTag batch were incorrect.

Jā, te bišku putra. Salaboju, cik nu tur var. Krustojums gan ir tik plats, ka pēc viduslīnijām tomēr atstāju 2 T krustojumus, jo jebkā savādāk sanāk pārāk asi leņķi atļautiem pagriezieniem un salīdzinot ar ortofoto.

Starp citu, Waze gan izmantot nedrīkst tā pat kā citas kartes - Google (kam Waze pieder), Jāņa sēta, utt, - tās visas ir ar autortiesībām aizsargātas un ar nesavienojamu licenci.

Bet par Waze runājot - viņiem karte ir mazāk precīza un orientēta mašīnām, tāpēc tādi lieli krustojumi nemaz problēmas nerada - te sastopas 4 ceļi un viss. Ja paskatās viņu karti un salīdzina ar ortofoto, tad Edvarda Treimaņa-Zvārguļa iela ir īstenībā iezīmēta šķībi. Tai pat laikā OSM te gan ietves, pārejas, gan piebrauktuve mājai, visi dzelzceļa ceļi, gan teritorijas un koku līnija un pat tās pašas ceļa zīmes. Tāpēc bieži arī ir, ka viens krustojums ir sadalīts vairākās "daļās".

Sveiki!

Pamanīju, ka esi pievienojis pāris give way ceļa zīmes ceļam. Bet zīmes ir pieliktas vietās, kur savienojas divas līnijas. Līdz ar to, nav skaidrs, uz kuru ceļas šīs zīmes attiecās. Piemēram, vai zīme ir Dzelzceļa ielai vai arī Edvarda Treimaņa-Zvārguļa ielai?

Vairāk info highway=give_way#Direction .

Vai varētu lūdzu apskatīt un pielabot/nobīdīt zīmes un atbilstošajiem ceļiem? Dod ziņu, ja vajag skaidrojumu vai palīdzību.

Paldies!

Hello again,

I see you changed the ways between Ceļinieku and Gaujienas from cycleways to just a foot paths. But they do have the 417 traffic sign "kopīgs gājēju un velosipēdu ceļš" at both ends, so they were correctly tagged as highway=cycleway. Even though they are terrible in real-life and signs are not properly repeated along them, they are legally cycleways.

I changed them back to cycleways.

For info on tagging such paths see and highway=cycleway bicycle=designated

Sveiki!

Redzu, ka esi atzīmējis divus ceļus ar nestandarta nosaukumu un kodu 1-3 un 1-4. Tā kā šai izmaiņai nav norādīts avots, jautājums no kurienes šiem ceļiem ir šis nosaukums un kods? Vai tas no pašvaldības vai no ceļa zīmēm? Lūgums nosaukt avotu, lai varētu pārbaudīt situāciju. Vai tādi ceļi kā 1-1 un 1-2 arī eksistē?

Hi again,

Since you didn't reply and it's been a couple weeks, I have reverted/removed these 0 level values.

Thanks for clarifying.

Yes, it looks like Valmiera has introduced a bunch of living zones https://www.valmierasnovads.lv/content/uploads/2021/07/satiksmes_komisija_dzivojama_zona21_kopejais.pdf

For reference, in Latvia, living streets `highway=living_street` are those in living zone - "Dzīvojamā zona" osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#Mazāki_ceļi , which is always marked with the blue children playing 533 traffic sign https://likumi.lv/wwwraksti/2015/121/BILDES/N_279/IMAGE196.JPG . So all streets within the zone should be tagged living streets and no streets outside such a zone should be tagged living streets.

Looking at the map, there are still a bunch of location where residential roads mix with living streets. There is no Mapillary footage and I haven't been there, so I cannot change anything. I also wouldn't want to use the official zone map because it could be incorrect.

Anyway, as long as you are aware of what the roads should be, that's fine and feel free to change them as needed.

Thanks for getting back! And thanks for changing the features.

Yeah, not everything has a tag. And the default openstreetmap.org editor iD does not have all of them. Sometimes things need custom values or even new values.

I think `barrier=retaining_wall` matches the primary purpose here. These do look like how retaining walls usually look. There is a lower area and a higher area and the wall is there to stop the soil (or any structures on it) from collapsing. So it's probably just a thick and decorative (retaining) wall here.

If these have additional features, then those can be mapped as additions, for example Soviet-style reliefs artwork_type=relief . iD will not have such very specific things. Places like this usually are harder to map and you have to search the wiki and other similar examples (assuming they are correct). If all else fails, you can always use a generic `man_made` tag man_made=* or leave an OSM note (osm.wiki/Notes) of `fixme` tag (fixme=*) for someone else to correct.

But yeah - I think these should not be buildings. In general, you should be able to enter a building. Of course, the world has 1000 exceptions, but in general if you saw a building on the map, you would expect to see a human-sized structure with some sort of inside area. There are some exceptions like `building=ruins` building=ruins which is why I asked you about this area - I haven't been here, so it could have been all sorts of things.

Also, I should mention that we should never use Google or other unfree maps to verify anything. See
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Can_I_copy_from_google_or_other_similar_sources? Mapillary is of course okay and made for using for this.

P. S. Your locale is set to `en-US` so I used English, but I can reply in Latvian/Russian.

Es pielaboju ar changeset/128779524. Te vecais P28 palika pa way/672636141/history līdz way/199260488/history

Yes, this is not highway=pedestrian` by itself, it's `highway=pedestrian`; `area=yes` (highway=pedestrian#Squares_and_plazas)

`area:highway`=* is the physical shape of a (single) way.

`highway=pedestrian`; `area=yes` is an area where pedestrians can freely move.

So, yes, this is a meeting point of multiple `area:highway=footway`, but this location is more specifically `highway=pedestrian`; `area=yes`.

On wiki, it's marked "?" for areas because whether it is accepted use depends on the value - for `pedestrian` it is a valid combination, but, for example, for `trunk` it would not be.

I agree it isn't great that it's routable (https://imgur.com/cn9lQii), but that's a software problem with routers and it's not even technically wrong - pedestrians can move anywhere within this area.

Anyway, I don't mind if you think this is wider highway way area and not a pedestrian area, but it should probably not be removed altogether.

Hello again,

As I mentioned before changeset/128474705, Bing is not aligned in Latvia. You are moving features to incorrect locations.

Hi!

What was wrong with way/984478396/history pedestrian area?

Hi!

Just wanted to let you know that Bing imagery is not aligned in Latvia. Please be careful aligning to it. I've fixed/realigned some of the buildings here.

Unfortunately, iD does not detect the local imagery layer near the edges of the country, which is normally listed as "Orthophoto (2016–2018), 1:5000, Latvia" in iD and is aligned correctly. If you move the view in iD inland, it should detect it, you can then switch to it, and then move back to this location with it enabled.

You have connected the grass area to road/paths again with way/1110378439 . As mentioned before (changeset/128455280), please avoid doing this.

Is there a new a bridge here?

Hi!

Please try not to connect areas to roads like way/1104667630 - the road line represents the middle of the road and but grass does not go the middle of the road.

You shouldn't add mud areas unless they are permanent (like a swamp). way/1110109943 does not seem like that. See
natural=mud

Also, you have not replied or fixed the issues with the former railway at changeset/127631652

These roads are probably not residential, but driveways.
service=driveway

Roads that only lead to one isolated dwelling or a farmyard are not part of the public road network and only access one property, so they are classified driveways. Residential roads usually have multiple residences/properties along them.

Hi!

Are you sure all of these buildings are houses? A "house" means a place where people live. building=house

For example, this way/1109970762/history is not likely to be a house because it's tiny and probably a shed. While this way/540701137/history is probably a barn or warehouse and probably not where people live.

Hi!

If roads like way/1109771761/history lead to isolated dwellings or farmyards, then they should most likely be tagged as driveways rather than tracks.

See highway=track example when a track is not the right classification: "A minor road providing primary access to one or several permanent residences (driveway)"