https://saulkrasti.lv/jaunumi/pasvaldiba-un-sabiedriba/latvijas-pasta-saulkrastu-nodala-sodien-sakusi-darbu-jaunas-telpas-alfreda-kalnina-iela-24a-saulkrastos/

Of course, the sign matters. This is not a service road where pedestrians and bicycles are allowed. This is a cycleway with an exception for service vehicles. We can't change the primary classification because there are some outlier cases. I don't see why this case is special compared to everywhere else.

I guess if we disagree, we can ask others to weigh in on Zulip.

Hi!

Can I ask how you determined that these forest areas (and similar areas in other changesets) are there? All aerials are currently out of date. And, for example, way/1213801659 is not there at all anymore. Have you surveyed these locations?

Please use a more descriptive changeset summary than "updates" osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks

Hello,

Can I ask how you determined that the fences you drew are here? For example, this fence way/1106880261 crosses a building or this fence way/1106880266 seems to go through the middle of property. It looks like these are just drawn on top of the cadaster plot borders.

Thanks

Hello,

What source did you use for all these different language street name versions? These look machine translated and not from an official or local source.

Your changeset comment "ÉT" is unhelpful in understanding what you are changing and why. Please see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks

Hi!

This way way/1214011076 has some weird overlapping forest geometry with double multipolygon membership.

You also deleted part of the mapped forest around here. Your source imagery says Bing, but Bing does show forest here, so it's not clear why.

Can you please check your edit?

Thanks

Sveiki!

Es celiņu salaboju.

Jā, es redzēju izmaiņu. Es neko labāku neesmu izdomājis. Tas ļoti specifisks gadījums, ja mērķis ir tieši laukumam iedot access tegu.

Personīgi, es neaizraujos ar access vairāk kā žogs/vārti ar pareizu access. Principā jau var likt visām teritorijām to, bet populārās kartes to pagaidām nezīmē. Maršrutētāji arī to ignorē ceļiem bez access, kas iet pa tādām teritorijām, tāpēc tik un tā jānorāda access uz pašiem ceļiem pagaidām. Varbūt kādreiz...

Hello!

Just wanted to let you know that external data sources have to comply with OSM data licensing to be used. As far as I know, Itella's locations and descriptions of parcel lockers is not open data and you cannot use it to update the map. This is true for almost everything you would find on the Internet. For example, you can double-check if you have yourself surveyed this location, but you cannot use their list of lockers without actually having surveyed or somehow confirmed it.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#2._CONTRIBUTING_DATA_TO_OpenStreetMap

In practice, no one will care about a few edits like this, so it's mostly fine. But if you add a lot of data like this, your edits will eventually get reverted and lost, because this is a legal issue for OSM.

Let me know if you have any questions about this - copyright and licensing gets complicated fast.

Thanks

For Latvia, these are indeed allotments. By common convention, these are usually mapped with tracks and sometimes service roads if they are commonly used. Rarely residential roads unless they pass through and really connect to other things. So that wasn't a correct change. There is literally a segment with smoothness=impassable + surface=sand + width=0.5. I have reverted the changes in Latvia.

Hi!

I think while the locations are still identifyable as a fuel stations, we can keep the nodes there.

But I did change them to disused:amenity=fuel so they don't appear on maps and navigation.

Čau!

Gribēju precizēt, vai tu esi pārliecināts, ka way/1015941583 ir tilts nevis culvert "upei"? Pēc Mapillary un ortofoto neizskatās pēc tilta.

Sveiki!

Gribēju pārliecināties, vai šeit tiešām ir jaunas speciāli izveidotas vietas priekš apgriešanās?

Hi!

When drawing areas under bridges, please do not connect them to the bridge area itself unless they are at the same height. These elements here are mostly on different layers, so you have to consider real-world vertical layout. The grass does not "end" because the aerial imagery has a bridge there. This is a difficult area to map because of this. I have attempted to retrace and fix these here.

Thanks

https://saulkrasti.lv/jaunumi/pasvaldiba-un-sabiedriba/leona-paegles-ielu-pardeves-par-varavas-ielu/

Skaidrs. Neesmu citur redzējis speciāli uzliktus tegus tādām teritorijām. Parasti gan tie ir pašā teritorijā un ar to nav tādas problēmas. Nedomāju, ka OSM vispār ir kaut kāds tegs tam. Nu laikam jau var uzskatīt, ka tas ir DUS daļa. Es gan tad pieliktu note=* paskaidrojumu kāpēc šeit ir retail, jo agri vai vēlu kāds cits to pašu pamanīs un nesapratīs.

Sveiki!

Kas īsti bija domāts uzlikt way/1206865101 ? retail jau nu tas nebūs :)

Čau!

Gribēju pārliecināties par izmaiņu uz - way/384789214 - vai tur tagad ir noņemtas zīmes node/9904986879 un node/9904986878 -https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1177625996439493&focus=photo , https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=149661014420479&focus=photo

Hi!

Just wanted to let you know that access tags (bicycle, foot, etc.) are for legal usage restrictions, not for physical ability to do so.

For example, ways like way/940075949 have an explicit pedestrian way sign (415. blue sign), which makes it foot=designated and never bicycle=yes. In fact, biking here is illegal, regardless if people bike here in practice and whether it's enforced.

Ways like way/156960286 are not cycleways or designated for bicycles unless there is an actual cycleway sign.

Thanks

Jā, gan OSM default karte gan OsmAnd zīmē ne visai perfekti. Bet nu tā tas pagaidām ir. Zīmēšanas secība ir
karšu/rendereru pārziņā, jo šiem elementiem teorētiski nav "secības". Tā pat kā kaut kāds parks vai kapsēta mežā - kā tas vizuāli izskatīsies atkarīgs, kā to uztaisījuši. Cik zinu, OSM maina izskatu atkarībā no tā, ko uzskata par "lielāko elementu" via kaut kā tā. Salīdzināšanai piemēram - osm.org/#map=18/57.07268/24.45969 un osm.org/#map=18/57.07895/24.35497 Te ir tā, ka viens ir "iekšā otram". Bet, kas notiek, kad pārklājas visādi, es sīkāk nepateikšu. Bet jebkurā gadījumā - citādi precīzus kartes datus nevajadzētu mainīt, lai dabūtu labāku izskatu. Citādi tas būs osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer .

Es precīzi neesmu skatījies sīkāk, cik un kur tu esi nomainījis un cik tādu izmaiņu. Man liekas tev parasti ir vēl daudz citu izmaiņu. Un tu laikam šito mežu esi daudz reižu mainījis. Atcelt te laikam būs grūtāk nekā pa jaunu sazīmēt. Tur jau arī nebija īpaši precīzi līdz tam. Gan jau kaut kad kaut kā...