Hello again,

Please check the comment I left on a previous changeset. Before continuing with many more changes, please do check your previous edits.

This changeset has another example where a new relation relation/15672280 does not include part of the road
way/129959284

Or when you create a relation like relation/15666998 and there is an obvious section in the middle named differently way/24257928 then you should be checking the cadaster data for the street layout and naming rather than creating a relation for incorrect data.

As mentioned, there have been multiple previous mistakes too. Just one example of a relation
relation/15672275 that didn't include segments like way/153204065 or way/4962589/

Sveiki!

Zīmējot pilnu kontūru parastām ietvēm un celiņiem kā piemēram way/1201188517 , šie "laukumi" nebūs
`highway=pedestrian` + `area=yes` bet gan `area:highway=footway`. Gadījumos, ja tie ir plati un kustība ir visos virzienos (nevis galvenokārt sakrīt ar pašu ceļu) būs `highway=footway` + `area=yes`. Līdzīgi ir visiem `highway` variantiem. Bet tāda lieta kā `highway=pedestrian` + `area=yes` ir speciāli veidoti laukumi, kur parasti ir visādi soliņi utt. - tādi nekad nebūs tur, kur parastas ietves. Vēl pieminēšu, ka te ne visur ir `footway` - piemēram way/889204955 posms ir `cycleway` un tāpēc arī kontūra būs `area:highway=cycleway`. Un vēl kontūras principā nevar pastāvēt pašas par sevi bez iezīmēta ceļa pa vidu, kā piemēram way/1201188518/ - šeit jābūt `highway=footway` līnijai maršrutēšanai un savienojumiem.

area:highway=*#Differentiation_area:highway_vs._area=yes_on_a_highway

Hello,

Can you please provide more descriptive changeset comments in the future when making so many changes to road relations? osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Also, please edit more carefully. There have been multiple imprecise or incorrect relations you have created over time.

For example, this one relation/16227717 has literally one tiny segment in it.

Another example, where this segment was included way/25867387 yet this one way/706072588 wasn't. This leads to a question of how are you selecting the segments for inclusion? It seems you may be creating these relations by searching the road name rather than actually looking at the map or cadaster data.

In relation/16227714 you seems to have "missed" several segments of the road.

There is also an open question of having road routes that get "split" in an intersection like relation/15686391 . For road routing purposes, these obviously are part of the same route even if the intersection segment in between is a different road.

Thanks

I almost always put `surface=compacted` on these. Here, there are only rare loose rocks. Personally, if one can bike there without rattling and sliding on rocks, then it's most likely not gravel.

To elaborate, there are very few roads that have actual gravel on them, because cars very quickly compact, break and disperse the rocks. Such gravel roads last no more than a season before becoming like this example. In general, I wouldn't put `gravel` until most of the road is actually covered in rocks and they move as you step/bike/drive on them. Basically - rocks are touching each other and forming a layer.

Of course, this becomes difficult because many roads do indeed start with a gravel layer, but soon turn into what you see here. This is why a lot of mappers do put gravel everywhere if they see any rocks. As I mentioned - not completely incorrect, but also not that useful for data consumers.

To give you a more complex example, https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=177516025291859 This road was repaired by adding a layer of rocks in potholes and the traffic here isn't high enough to turn it into uniform road. Is this gravel? Who knows :) I would probably agree that `gravel` here is okay despite only being in patches and I think most mappers would indeed use `gravel` here. But this will eventually turn into `compacted` unless regularly maintained.

I think I have only seen "full" gravel that lasted more than a summer may be a few times around Saulkrasti and it was someone just placing rocks in front of their property to avoid dust or water buildup or for temporary access like construction vehicles. For example, https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=577720461150720 At the intersection, you can already see that rocks are getting crushed and turning into a more uniform mass.

Hi!

Just wanted to let you know that `surface=gravel` in OSM sense usually means "dense larger rocks". Roads like that in Latvia are actually very rare. Typical unpaved rural and remote roads (so-called "grunts" ceļi/"grantenes") are almost always `surface=compacted` - surface=compacted . It's not completely incorrect to tag it this way, but it does make surface values poorly usable for cases where it matters, like bicycles/wheelchairs/etc.

"Real" gravel roads look like this: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=795381835143910&focus=photo

Thanks

By the way, there is some recent Mapillary here from May https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1935502296801471&focus=photo . It doesn't let you see much beyond the immediate fences along the road, but I can confirm there's a new fence. Of course, per richlv, one is wire mesh and the other is wooden boards, so types would get quickly mixed if someone ever maps those. Wire mesh one is also offset deeper into the territory. And I don't know if the fence between the two properties is wooden or wire mesh - the wood one was built first after all.

Sveiki!

Ar šo izmaiņu ir izdzēsti vairāki adrešu punkti, piemēram node/2073584381 . Ja šie dati nav mainījušies kadastrā, tad adreses nevajadzētu dzēst. Arī nākamajā reizē, kad adrešu bots mainīs adreses, šie punkti tiks atjaunoti.

Sveiki!

Piebraucamos ceļus īpašumiem vajadzētu norādīt kā `highway=service` + `service=driveway` nevis `highway=track`, kas ir tikai piekļuvei laukiem/mežiem/zemēm.

service=driveway

osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#Piebraukšanas_ceļi_lauku_sētām

Ja ceļš no sākuma ir kopīgs uz vairākiem īpašumiem, tad var arī norādīt `highway=unclassified` tam posmam, piemēram way/1197003410 - šeit tas arī sakrīt ar kadastra līnijām.

Paldies

Hello!

Thanks for adding the crossing.

Just wanted to let you know that you connected it to the sidewalk that is above on the bridge. This created incorrect routing showing that you could get onto the bridge here.

I have fixed the issue and disconnected the ways.

Thanks.

Sveiki!

Ceļiem un takām nevajadzētu norādīt visus iespējamos tegus bicycle=yes,
foot=yes, horse=yes, motor_vehicle=yes utt. Šie tegi ir domāti galvenokārt norādīt, vai ar konkrētu transporlīdzekli/veidu ir atļauts pārvietoties, nevis vai tas ir iespējams. Citiem vārdiem - vai tas ir legāli. Ja nav ceļa zīmes, tad šīs vērtības jau tā pat is saprotamas ar =yes vērtību pēc noklusējuma. Un piemēram vietās kā way/629273053 nemaz nav atļauts publiski braukt ar transportlīdzekļiem. Piemēram, šajā vietā iebraukšanai ir vārti un "ķieģelis" https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=849256453280094&focus=photo.

Paldies

Hi!

Like mentioned before, please use `highway=service` + `service=driveway` instead of `highway=unclassified` for roads that go to individual properties. These are not minor public roads, but (likely private) access roads. Only the parts of a road that are used publicly or access multiple properties should be tagged with a higher classification.

Thanks

Reverted in changeset/139444467.

Reverted in changeset/139444467.

Reverted in changeset/139444467.

Reverted in changeset/139444467.

I just deleted the width=0, but I guess the question stands.

Hi!

When reviewing MapBuilder edits in Latvia, please be aware that Bing aerial here is low quality and offset.

See also changeset/136124455

Thanks

Hmm, tagad skaidrs kādam mērķis un ar kādu domu. Man likās tu varbūt gribēji atzīmēt, ka te trepes nobrukušas vai kaut kas tāds.

Ilgi domāju, neko neizdomāju. Bet teorētiski `smoothness` ir domāts transportam ar riteņiem - mašīna, motocikls, velo, skrejriteņi, ratiņkrēsls, utt. Tāpēc protams vajadzētu lietot standarta un atbilstošas vērtības, ne tikai no velo viedokļa. Lietot to vietās, kur kustība ar ritošiem transportlīdzekļiem nav paredzēta man šķiet bezjēdzīgi. Pasaulē īpaši daudz nav lietots kopā ar trepēm, bet ir lietots it kā atzīmējot gājējiem smoothness - cik tas pareizi, nezinu - wiki neko tādu neapraksta.

Nekad neatceros, kuram kādā valodā... haha

Skaidrs, paldies par precizējumu. Jā, tas tad pēdējo divu nedēļu laikā.

Tur TET maršruts iet vēl, drošvien būs jāmaina uz blakus ceļu kaut kad.

Hi (again),

I see you changed way/1190498907 back to a road. I surveyed this a couple weeks ago and due to the new construction there was no longer this second long way left and it no longer matched aerial. It looked more like ESRI aerial now. https://imgur.com/mDuab1g

Also, I wouldn't have put way/1193423365 as a path - it was easily passable by a wide vehicle before especially at the entrance, unless of course something changed very recently. https://imgur.com/qkQfISZ

My Mapillary hasn't processed yet, but I uploaded two photos for now to compare.