Hi!

Thanks for updating the map!

I made a bunch of changes to the edited areas to follow various OSM guidelines and principles on tagging. It's mostly a bunch of small fixes, so just letting you know. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks!

Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, I assumed you are using the cadaster info for roads. I was just wondering if the roads already "existed" as tracks. I think I'll change them to proposed roads instead because there is nothing on the aerial.

Sveiki!

Pamanīju, ka pārzīmējot ēkas un nodzēšos vecās kontūras pazuda pāris adreses un tegi, kas bija uz vecajām kontūrām:

way/441478902/history
way/543239227/history

Adrešu bots adreses velāk atjaunos, bet lūgums pievērst uzmanību, jo tur varēja būt arī citi tegi, piemēram šeit bija building=garage un name=SIA "Ligumss".

Paldies.

Hi!

I saw you added some tracks and their names. I wanted to clarify - are these tracks actually here - like the start of construction or new meadow/property access? From aerial, it still all looks like just grass, but the aerial could be old.

Thanks.

Pārliku uz vehicle=destination tagad, kad labāk saprotu access nozīmi un lietošanu un saistību ar zīmēm. Toreiz ne līdz galam sapratu. Better late than never :)

Hi!

I saw a couple issues in the changeset and I wanted to let you know.

`highway=road` should not be used for any road that you can classify otherwise. For example, way/1124144946/history is a driveway - it leads to a dwelling/farmyard/houses, which can be seen on the aerial.

You should also probably not connect landuse (like `landuse=farmland` or `landuse=farmyard`) to roads. Road lines represent the middle line of the road, but land use represents the actual area edges. In other words, farmland ends before the road. This also makes it easier for other editors to edit later.

Thanks!

Hello,

Just to let you know, the lake you added was already mapped as way/123171980 before, so I deleted the duplicate. Not sure if this is a bug with the editor you used and you didn't see the already-drawn lake.

Sveiki!

Pamanīju, ka esi pievienojis `bicycle=designated` vairākām ietvēm/celiņiem (piemēram, way/1051590254/history vai way/689019882/history).

Vai tie visi tiešām ir ar ceļa zīmi apzīmēti veloceliņi (kopēji/dalīti)?

Paldies.

Sveiki!

Ar šo izmaiņu way/230683048/history bija nomainīts no `highway=secondary` uz `highway=path`. Tā kā tas ir LVC ceļš, tas neizskatās pareizi, tāpēc es nomainīju atpakaļ. Es pieņemu, ka tā bija vienkārši kļūda?

Paldies.

Thanks for detailed reply. Yeah, I'm aware this is a common topic. And, yes, both methods are valid. I'm not saying that you should use one or the other. I'm only asking to not convert between them at scale, i.e. not remove separate sidewalks if someone has already drawn them.

The data is not poor quality either way. Routers just don't properly handle pedestrian routing. I agree separate sidewalk routing has issues. But integrated sidewalks have equally many problems. They treat sidewalks as if you can always access the road and cross anywhere. Both suck for routing.

If we are talking about examples, here's an example with sidewalk=both that sends you across 4 lanes of traffic because it thinks you can "jump" from one side of the road to the other:

osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=56.93715%2C24.22460%3B56.93692%2C24.22554

I'm not saying this is or isn't better with either sidewalk method. Integrated sidewalks sometimes produce these impossible routes. And separate sidewalks usually take the long way around. I'm just saying that both suck at routing.

I don't want to repeat everything that has been said on the topic in many places. But, in these examples, my argument for separately-mapped sidewalks is the potential additional information that I mentioned - for wheelchairs or strollers or mobility- or vision-impaired users or just anyone wanting to avoid kerbs and arbitrary crossings or prefer verges and non-adjacent sidewalks. Or just using the map visually for navigation outside motor vehicle. There are a couple active StreetComplete users in the area adding a lot of kerbs, crossings, tactile and other mobility information. This wouldn't be possible for them with integrated sidewalks.

Again, I'm not saying that you should switch to separate sidewalk mapping or add such details. But if someone has already added separate sidewalks, it is easier in the future to add more details. So at least you should not remove them.

Hey!

I don't think you should have merged the piste ways with the track. They have different trajectories, different layout, different lighting in winter, designated direction, different access and difficulty values. For example, lit values are incorrect now (lit=yes for the whole track is not true). And now there are tags that are confusing for both. You also didn't add some parts to the the right sections. I think you are using some sort of official map, but these were surveyed.

Hi,

Could you please not remove individually-mapped sidewalks? They provide information for pedestrians and especially accessibility routing. "Merging" them into the road `sidewalk` tag loses this information and removes the ability to map crossings, add kerbs, wheelchair access, tactile paving, etc. Editors have taken the time to draw these, so I don't see a good reason to delete them.

Thanks.

I was looking at this website - https://birdievillage.com/en/ . Do you know if the information here is not accurate or old?

Saliena at their website https://www.saliena.eu/land-plots/ is here, but looks like a larger area including the Birdie Village area.

Saliena is currently mapped as this area way/233206082 .

Hi!

It looks like you deleted the residential area "Birdie Village" in this changeset - way/952377769/history . Was this intentional? It seems like the area is still there and is still known as such. Could you please clarify what you wanted to do. If it was a mistake, let me know and I can restore the area.

Thanks!

Similar to your previous changesets, you changed a cycleway to a sidewalk - way/997641122/history .

Also, in this and previous changesets, you have changed some service roads to living streets (for example, way/252349891/history or way/593795534/history). Have you surveyed these locations or confirmed these are living zones? If these don't have the living zone sign, then they should stay as service roads, even if they are courtyard/apartment inner roads per osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#Mazāki_ceļi

Can you please reply to these messages and take a look at your edits? I don't want to revert your entire edits because there are a lot of good changes. But you are not replying and discussing your changes or fixing any of the problems mentioned.

Thanks.

Hello again,

You deleted these foot paths and service road:
way/678073522/history#map=19/57.31535/25.36589
way/58077061/history#map=18/57.30986/25.36374
way/427976003/history#map=18/57.31350/25.36930
But they are all visible on the aerial. Can you please explain why you removed them?

You also changed some cycleways into sidewalks along way/1118753245/history or way/976240018/history or way/589580610/history#map=17/57.31638/25.33212 . Are these really no longer cycleways? I have also previously asked you about changing cycleways to sidewalks and you did not reply.

Thanks

It's important because there remain almost 40 other edits from the same
batch that had incorrect changes. And even after a month and multiple messages, you still have not fixed them.

Hi!

I noticed your redrew some building. But one of them had an address - way/352094579/history. When replacing buildings (instead of adjusting existing ones), please be careful to preserve/copy valid existing tags like addresses.

Thanks!

Sveiki!

Par `place=island`, piemēram way/1116609522/history. Ja tās ir maziņas saliņas, tad tās gandrīz vienmēr būs `place=islet`.

Šajā vietā izskatās pēc putras ar salām, bet te viss (varbūt izņemot Lāču salu) izskatās pēc islet. Latviski gan tas viss is "salas", tāpēc nesakrīt ar OSM izpratni, kur līdz kādam kvadrātkilometram par "īstu" salu neskaitās.

Paldies!

Sveiki!

Pamanīju, ka ar šo izmaiņu izdzēsti daži adrešu punkti, piem. node/9876377880/history . Lūgums tādus nedzēst - adreses Latvijā ir no oficiāliem kadastra datiem un gandrīz vienmēr pareizas pat, ja īpašums ir meža vidū. Pie tam, importa bots tās tik un tā vēlāk atjaunotu.

Paldies!