Hello,

Who is the operator of this bot? Where can we see community discussion/approval of this automated bot and the list of (approved) tasks that it performs as per osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct ?

Thanks

Sveiki!

Šī drošvien būs stāvvieta (`amenity=parking`) nevis viena transportlīdzekļa apstāšanās vieta (`amenity=parking_space`).

Es to jau izlaboju.

Hello,

When placing barriers, like a gate, please be careful not to place it on an incorrect location. You placed it on the node that is a crossing between the cycleway and the service road, thus blocking all routing along the cycleway.

I have fixed this.

Thanks

Sveiki!

Zīmējot laukumus kā way/1042055081 jāņem vērā, ka pie tiem pievienotus ceļus nevajadzētu atstāt tikai līdz robežai, jo tad maršrutēšana vairs pareizi nestrādās. Pašiem ceļiem ir jābūt arī savstarpēji savienotiem, lai tie pareizi maršrutētu no viena uz otri, jo laukums apzīmē fiziskas dimensijas, bet ne loģiskos savienojumus.

Vēl pievērsīšu uzmanību, ka šis drošvien nav `place=square`, bet drīzāk neliels laukumiņš gājēju atpūtai highway=pedestrian ?

Es šeit no ortofoto pielaboju, cerams, ka pareizi.

Paldies

Skaidrs, paldies par precizējumu. Es izlaboju/pārmainīju.

Sveiki!

Vai šajā vietā tiešām ir tilts nevis caurteka? way/1252560895

Lūdzu nelikt nepiemērotu ceļu klasifikāciju. Šādi sīki vietējie ceļi nekādīgi nav `highway=secondary`.

Jau iepriekš vairākreiz lūgts izmantot izsmeļošu izmaiņas komentāru nekā "ceļš", kas neko nepaskaidro.

Izmaiņas pagaidām atcēlu.

osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#Ce%C4%BCi_un_ielas

Sveiki!

Ja te uz visām ielām ir ātrums 20, vai te nav dzīvojamā zona? Vai arī vienkārši 20 zona?

Nē, tie palika kā kopija no ceļa, kuru sadalīju. Nepamanīju/nenodzēsu tegus.

Sveiki,

Par `highway=motorway_junction` nosaukumiem - `name` un `ref` ir paredzēti paša krustojuma/sadalījuma nosaukumam/numuram, bet nevis uz plāksnes norādītajiem virzieniem. Virzienus norāda ar `destination` uz tālākajiem/atejošajiem ceļiem. Attālumu arī noteikti `name` neliek, bet var uz atejošā ceļa kā `destination:distance`. Cik zinu, Latvijā nevienā šādā "krustojumā" nav nedz numura nedz nosaukuma uz plāksnes.

highway=motorway_junction#Name_and_number

Pie mums tādi gandrīz nav kartēti, bet `destination` piemēram way/7930427

Yeah, there is a pretty vast difference between German and post-Soviet infrastructure and culture. If we didn't map these places as crossings, we would be missing half the crossings in the country. I imagine if you didn't map them in Germany, no one would even notice.

And, to be fair, this wasn't mapped as a crossing - previously, it had no tags and now it's an even "stronger" `crossing=no`. And the way itself is a `path` and not a `footway`. Routers should really be accounting for these and giving them a low priority. While `crossing=no` is not a prominent tag, it's certainly not a new tag. May be some day we'll get consensus and a standard scheme for such locations. Unfortunately, there are very few mappers in countries like Latvia while countries like Germany have the most mappers and lead many discussions, so consequently a lot of it is biased towards what you would find in countries like Germany. And if there aren't any local examples, then it would be difficult to get actionable opinions for such examples due to how much background info is required (as this changeset indeed shows).

I'm still fixing many crossings like this that are tagged as full `railway=crossing`, which mappers commonly add. That's how ingrained in everyone's mind it is that crossing railways anywhere is basically the norm. I suppose it's a culture shock for many people. But it's not illegal and what little legal "guidance" is given is not enforced or treated seriously.

For this place, a road bike profile would have given you the small path along the highway https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1665375620555465&focus=photo . But this location really has no good alternatives. I cycle here myself often and short of going along roads, there really aren't any good options. Unfortunately, that's the case for a lot of infrastructure in Latvia. Routers generally have a hard time because footways and paths end abruptly, don't lead anywhere, lead through terrible locations, etc. And we don't have that many mappers to maintain it all either... but I digress.

Very briefly - it is de facto allowed to cross here in Latvia.

To elaborate, the law talks (somewhat ambiguously) about crossing railways at designated crossings and goes into detail about what a "crossing" is and what "dangerous rail sections" are. But it's all very legalese and ambiguous and hardly enforced. So this path here is definitely not a dedicated crossing in a legal sense. But no one is going get fined or stopped for using it. In fact, it's common practice and the only reasonable location to cross in this area. In other words, it's a de-facto crossing access=*#Mismatch_between_law_and_de_facto_status . These used to be untagged or tagged with `railway=crossing`. But we now choose to tag these as `crossing=no` rather than `railway=crossing` to follow its legal status. This already restricts routing. But we don't add `access=no`, because this significantly hinders pedestrian and cyclist routing in Latvia (this wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem in, say, Germany, where railway crossings/bridges/tunnels are common).

In contrast, here is an example of an informal crossing, but where there *is* an actual sign stating "railway crossing not allowed"
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=298472319457894&focus=photo . So here `access=no` is appropriate even though this crossing is commonly used.

On the ground, this is a well-used path: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=255754737334209&focus=photo and https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=6393645144089678&focus=photo .

`access=no` implies that you are not able or allowed to pass through here. That is not true - this is still a crossing, just an informal one with no infrastructure. Tagging no access would stop valid routing (that understands `crossing=no`). As I mentioned, there are hundreds of these around the country. The difference is that this is not a `railway=crossing`, but a `crossing=no` (without the main tag), because there is no infrastructure and this is not legally defined as a crossing and so its use is "your own fault".

I'll bring this up with local community (again), see if we can establish more consensus or agree on additional access tagging.

Sveiki,

Paldies par pieturu izmaiņu pievienošanu.

Pievēršu uzmanību, ka `ref` tegs nav domāts maršruta numuriem, bet pašas pieturvietas numuram/identifikatoram. Latvijā faktiski pieturām numuru nekur nav un Rīgas Satiksmei ir tikai kaut kādi iekšējie identifikatori, kas nav norādīti pieturvietu plāksnītēs/informācijā.

Lai pievienotu pieturu maršrutiem, tie ir jāveido ar maršrutu relācijām route=bus , piemēram relation/11312649 . Tas gan ir sarežģīts process.

Ja nav iespējas tādus zīmēt, tad var atstāt šajā vietā piezīmi, ka trūkst/šķībi maršruti, lai kāds to izlabotu osm.wiki/Notes .

Es šajā vietā jau salaboju 13., 20. un 63. maršrutus.

Hello,

Please do not remove or split paths that cross a railway if they are actually used and exist. This breaks routing. An illegal crossing should be tagged with `crossing=no` to prevent routing that does not allow rail crossings outside designated locations. But nothing here physically blocks access to the crossing. There are hundreds of examples like this across Latvia.

Thanks

I've restored and fixed the fence. I saw your edit before, but I assumed the fence was indeed removed.

Izlaboju node/2540381967 . Iespējams softa kļūda?

Hi!

In general, yes. There is a big mess of these in Latvia, so most are not yet fixed. I was only looking through recent edits when I changed these because these were the two I saw. I didn't check around to see if there are more around here. I think they can safely be changed too.

Kind of like "Veikals Aibe" would just be "Aibe". The difference here is that "Pirmskolas izglītības iestāde Xxx" is the official name, so that can be placed in the `official_name` tag, so the full name doesn't get lost. For "Privātā ...", there is also `operator:type=private` as opposed to (I think) `operator:type=government`.

Cheers

Do you mean examples of `area:highway` tag?

Hmm, are you referring to parking=street_side#Relation_to_area:highway=* ? I can't find any other examples for this.

Normally, parking doesn't need any other area-based tag. `area:highway` describes the physical contour/layout of the road, but this normally excludes parking, sidewalks, traffic islands, etc. - just the road surface itself.

I see there are some rare uses of `area:highway=parking_space`. But I don't think there is any need to add that here if the area of parking matches the area of surface exactly. That would be more useful for parking lots which include other elements, like grass medians and footways to indicate the exact parking area surface.