Skaidrs, vēl nesen tie sīkumi nebija. Tad `bicycle=designated` laikam būs pareizi, ja ne vispār nomainīt uz velo trasi. Un tad laikam būtu jābūt `foot=no`, ja gājējiem uzlikts nestaigāt?

Sveiki,

Vai šeit ir uzstādītas jaunas zīmes par velo lietošanu?

Paldies

Hello,

Please do not fix errors in bulk like this unless you are certain what you are fixing is correct. These are not errors, but warnings and a warning does not mean it is incorrect.

For example: way/1289726798 are not recycling centers, the current template is wrong (and will be fixed soon).

This driveway did not directly connect to the footway, so simply extending it was not correct way/1289726798

Is this really a culvert, like way/1305925928 - this geometry seems wrong to span like this under the road

Is this really a ford, like node/12095063971 - this seems highly unlikely to be a ford on a major road

Is this really a bridge, like way/1305925930 - this seems very unlikely to be a miniscule bridge like that and is likely a culvert

Please double check all your edits here and please don't just click "fix" in the editor - warnings are not errors and the fixes can still wrong.

Hi again,

Just wanted to let you know that these "boxes" like node/12095119946 are not substations, but rather street cabinets for power utilities.

I fixed these.

Hello,

Wanted to clarify, is this gate not here anymore? node/8476992762

Thanks

Hello,

You are again making the same sort of incorrect landuse changes as before without addressing the previous concerns about your edits. Here, changing grass areas to agricultural meadows and grass to wood.

I have reverted your edits.

Hello,

Please do not change road designations like this to way/38173861. This is not a track in OSM sense. This is also a living street, because it is in a signed living zone.

Hi!

Just wanted to let you know that barriers like these way/1305335666 are not guard rails (`barrier=guard_rail`), but railings (`barrier=fence` + `fence_type=railing`). These don't protect vehicles or pedestrians from crashes, they are only intended to stop pedestrians from entering the road.

Thanks

Can you please take a look at your change and fix it as necessary?

Skaidrs, paldies par precizējumu, tad viss kārtībā!

Nomainīju parkingu uz privātu.

Vai ap šo punktu node/12086599752 ir kaut kāda sēta vai arī tur savienojas ar ietvi?

Vai šī pagalma iela pie Aibes arī ir ar dzīvojamās zonas zīmi? node/12087755172

Uzreiz minēšu, ka Google Maps nedrīkst izmantot kartēšanai - ne satelītbildes, ne Street View. Tie ir ar autortiesībām aizsargāti dati bez atļaujas tos šādi lietot. Ja šie ceļi bija zīmēti no Google, tad izmaiņas ir atceļamas, jo citādi OSM rodas legālas problēmas. Mēs varam zīmēt tikai no brīviem avotiem - LVM ortofoto, VZD dati, pašu veidotas bildes, izpēte uz vietas, Mapillary, utml.

Šajā vietā personīgi neesmu iebraucis pagalmos, bet tikai garām braucot bija dz. z. zīmes https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=193754220045710&focus=photo

Sveiki,

Paldies par labojumiem.

Ja es pareizi zinu, tad šeit apkārtnē ir dzīvojamā zona pagalmu ielās. Es dažus ceļus nomainīju un dzīvojamo ielu klasifikāciju, bet neesmu pārliecināts, kur tieši zona sākas/beidzas. Dažas zīmes es pievienoju gar Draudzības ielu.

Paldies

Hello,

It seems this edit is replacing tagging that specifies repairs are for tyres with a generic `repair` tag, i.e. `tyres:repair=yes` (previously `repair=tyres`) to `repair=yes`. This has lost information about tyre repair and made it imply that the shops offer general repairs.

Can you please double check and fix.

See also changeset/154450326 which seems to have changed the same nodes recently.

Hi!

The buildings here do indeed look misaligned. They were mapped many years ago when only Bing was available. And Bing was and is misaligned, in many places many meters like here. LVM imagery is aligned/correct. You can also double-check against the cadaster layer.

I mass-moved most features here so it's at least not this misaligned. (Bot will fix address points later.)

Do you intend to also close the note or is further surveying needed?

Should we specify payment as card only per note?

Hello,

Can I ask how exactly you are determining that features are duplicates?

For example, for this camera POI node/9442716021/history , the location here indeed has two cameras on either side of the shop doors: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2787369721427048&focus=photo

Please review your edit(s) and restore any features that you deleted that are not in fact duplicates.

Thanks

Hello,

As mentioned to you previously, do not change the speed limit to 110. It is already correctly tagged in `maxspeed:conditional`. You are creating incorrect data that will only be usable in summer and wrong in winter. We don't change the values like that back and forth twice a year, but specify this in the conditional values.

And please note that you absolutely cannot use Google Maps for anything, it's a copyrighted map/data.

I have reverted your edits.

Jā, ja aizliegumi ir ar zīmēm, tad tos būtu jānorāda ar kustības virzienu ierobežojumu relācijām, kurus tu jau norādīji. Jo šie aizliegumi attiecas uz "parastajiem" ceļu satiksmes transportlīdzekļiem, bet fiziski šis savienojums eksistē un piemēram operatīvie vai daži sabiedriskie transportlīdzekļi to var lietot. Arī gājējiem tas neliedz šķērsot pa jebkuru ceļu, ja nav citu ierobežojumu.

Hi!

Thanks for the edit.

I restored this node and changed it to use the `was:` life-cycle prefix, which means that this feature used to be here. Because it's visible on the aerial, this will avoid other mappers accidentally adding this tree again until the aerial is updated, which could take years.

Thanks

Skaidrs, paldies par precizējumu. Nomainīju uz `private`. Šādus parasti atzīmē kā privātus.