Ja tiek izmantoti trešie avoti, tad lūdzu tos norādīt, lai var šādas izmaiņas pārbaudīt. Pretējā gadījumā, atbilstoši kādiem būvvaldes un kadastra datiem ir atvienoti un izdzēsti ceļi, izdzēsti punkti un laukumi, izdzēstas adreses un piebraucami ceļi un visas pārējām problēmas, ko minēju?

osm.wiki/Verifiability

Lūdzu vispirms iepazīties ar kartēšanas principiem un tikai pēc tam sākt veikt šādas izmaiņas, un katru izmaiņu atbilstoši pamatot.

Sveiki!

Vai šeit tiešām bija domāts kartēt šo ēkas stūra punktu node/11763852315 kā avārijas ūdens padeves punktu?

Paldies

Šajā izmaiņā ir daudz kļūdu. Piemēram, savienoti laukumi un ceļi, kas nav jāsavieno; pārvietoti laukumi no oficiālajām kadastra līnijām; nodzēstas pareizas teritorijas; nodzēsti ēku punkti; izdzēsti ceļi; atvienoti ceļi; laukumi iezīmēti pāri upēm, ceļiem un teritorijām; un citas problēmas.

Šeit ir pārāk daudz kā labojama, tāpēc es šo izmaiņu atceļu pilnībā un izlaboju daļu.

Hey, I'll reply to your message here (on the changeset).

> Here is two driveways to building: first from ‘Horizontal’ highway, and second from ‘down’ highway.
> In this case, do we need to mark these driveway as a driveway, or make it a highway as well?

This is a slightly weird case. I changed the roads to how I would map them in this scenario. I am basing this on cadaster, aerial and generally just how dwellings are accessed in Latvia.

So the cadaster has a "red line road" that goes to the property from the North side. Assuming all the surrounding area is state forests. So this is then the "official" way to access it, so I am marking that as a driveway and private. The south road looks like access road to forests, so I am marking it as a track up to their property line. In this case, it looks like the owners also use it (which I guess they can if it's public), so the only thing to add is the private connection between the driveway and the track.

I don't know if this is correct and I personally don't usually map this precisely, but this is how I would map it.

Hello,

If you are going to be making what seem like automated edits across many countries, please provide a clear link to the description and discussion about what you are doing.

osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Thanks

Cool!

Here's a custom background imagery you can use that will show aerial photography and cadaster layer plus street names of top of it, if that helps. It's much easier to adjust streets and properties like that (default iD cadaster layer doesn't have street name.) Although one has to be careful because it's rarely accurate and a lot of "streets" aren't actually streets, but more like reserved future lines than may easily change.

https://lvmgeoserver.lvm.lv/geoserver/ows?FORMAT=image/jpeg&VERSION=1.3.0&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=public:Orto_LKS,publicwfs:Kadastra_karte,publicwfs:arisstreet,publicwfs:arisroad,publicwfs:arisbuilding&STYLES=&CRS={https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}

osm.wiki/Lv:Source#iD_sl%C4%81%C5%86u_pievieno%C5%A1ana

Vēl šī truba way/625542376 nevarēs būt `location=overground`, jo tas nozīmētu, ka tā ir pa virsu ielām. Tu laikam domāji kaut kādu konkrētu posmu nomainīt?

Sveiki,

Ar šo "ēku" laikam domāts kaut kas cits bija? way/1265185336 Ortofoto gan tur dažādas lietas, tāpēc nezinu uz ko īsti izlabot.

Yes, I did, I should have mentioned. I changed these to tracks, just wanted to make sure this wasn't a recently-built road or something.

Yeah, it's probably a footway if you are tracing it from aerial and not based on a recent survey. There are very few pedestrian streets in Latvia and almost none of them in minor locations like this, so it stands out.

Hi again,

A way like way/1264824011 is very likely not a driveway unless the aerial is out of date. Driveways are roads that access individual properties, often private and not part of a public road network. Random roads like this in forests and fields are almost always tracks unless they actually lead to some place.

Hi!

Is this way way/1264830293 really a pedestrian street? It looks much more narrow unless the aerial is out of date.

Thanks

Zīmēm jau principā nav jābūt simetriskām. Te gan protams prasītos otrā pusē loģiski domājot tās zīmes jēgu - nebraukāt cauri. Dēļ šitādiem stulbiem gadījumiem bieži sanāk ielikt pēc zīmes kaut kādu ierobežojumu, bet faktiski tas bija tikai no vienas puses. Šeit es arī tā ieliku, kad te pa Upesciema ielu dzīvojamās zonas skatījos (pareizi gan vajadzēja `vehicle` nevis `access`).

Uz pašvaldību necerētu, īpaši šitādos rajonos. Te vēl tā zīme teorētiski Rīgā...

Tīri pareizi būtu `vehicle:direction=destination`. Pašdarbība jau drošvien ir, bet ko darīt... Tu piedāvā ņemt nost?

The map takes a little bit of time to update. Sometimes a few minutes, sometimes longer. You will probably also need a browser cache clear.

osm.wiki/Browser_cache

Clearcuts won't appear on the default map unless you combine it into a multipolygon with the forest, so that it's a "hole" in the forest. The reason is that there is no rendering on the default map for clearcuts, so these overlapping features just look like a forest. Other maps and programs may display it differently. A "hole" in the forest will simply not draw the forest there and leave it default white, so it becomes visible, so to speak.

Strictly speaking, you can't have both a forest and a clearcut at the same time. So these should normally be combined into multipolygons or drawn next to each other.

Multipolygons are a bit complicated. But you can select both areas (forest and clearcut) and press C to combine them. If the forest isn't a multipolygon yet, it will make one. If the forest is large and already has other parts outside the screen, you will have to download them first by selecting the forest relation and downloading its members. You can also manually add the cutline to the multipolygon relation without downloading other elements, but it's more annoying than just shift-selecting and C-ing them.

osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#iD

No worries, let me know if you have any questions. Your edits look good otherwise.

Hi!

Thanks for your additions!

Just to let you know, it's not really necessary to include a `source` tag on every element. This makes data more difficult to maintain because everyone later has to update this tag when they make any changes. It's also redundant, because we can see element modification history and your changeset tags (i.e. on changeset/148738302 ), such as `imagery_used` and whatever you specified as `source`. So it's usually enough to just specify that.

Most `source` tags that are included in OSM are for obscure or unclear sources, such as imported data or hard-to-understand elements. While you can technically add them for anything, they will become outdated really quickly. For example, new aerial imagery or someone else surveying or just your GPX track not being public. Most mappers won't even notice the tag. Experience shows that there aren't enough mappers (at least in Latvia) to keep these up to date and the vast majority of `source` values are out of date. It's much more useful to leave a descriptive changeset summary, such as how and why you are modifying something.

Thanks

Hello,

I have reverted this edit because it broke the parking lot shape, leaving a fence going across a random space and most of parking lot unmapped.

I am not sure what you were attempting to fix and how, but please be more careful. Let me know if I can assist.

Thanks

Hello,

Please do not delete buildings and redraw them (or not draw them at all), but correct the existing building location/shape and/or whatever pathways need correction depending on the actual situation.

In Latvia, please either use the local imagery or set the correct offset for the Bing aerial, because it has an incorrect offset in Latvia and is not suitable for correcting building footprints otherwise.

For example, in this edit, the building was already correctly positioned, but you moved it away. There was also a shop POI mapped, which you didn't move, but which is supposedly within the building, so the point ended up outside the building.

Or, for example, here changeset/148551237 you moved the building away from the driveway although the driveway actually passed through the building. You also deleted a nearby building.

Also, please do not delete address information from buildings. This got lost because you redraw a new way instead of using the exiting way with the previous data.

Here, changeset/148551105 and https://osmcha.org/changesets/148551011 , you completely deleted a building with no explanation.

In changeset/148551719 you deleted a valid viewtower instead of fixing the path layout that most likely passes under it.

I have reverted your edits here. I only fixed edits in Latvia, but I see you have made similar problematic edits elsewhere. So please slow down and carefully review and fix your edits before continuing to make MapRoulette corrections. You are editing live map data.

Thanks

Hello,

Please use the local accurate "Orthophoto (2016–2018), 1:5000, Latvia" imagery or set the correct Bing imagery offset, because Bing imagery is offset in Latvia.

Thanks

osm.wiki/Using_aerial_imagery