Can you please clarify why this road segment [1] is private if there are no signs here, at least at the time of my survey. Is there a sign further down the road? This appears to be a municipal road, which continues until the Bisenieki property. It in fact has a sign that says it's only a deadend in 700 meters from the intersection. [2]

[1] way/1263700337

[2] https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=356201300855087&focus=photo

Kas tieši ir domāts ar šiem numuriem ēkām node/12193743823 ? Ar mājas nosaukuma tegu tos visticamāk nav pareizi atzīmēt, iespējams tie ir `ref`.

Izmaiņu atcēlu un ceļus izlaboju, jo līdzīgi kā iepriekš nepaskaidrojot izdzēsti ceļi tā vietā, lai precizētu to piekļuvi un nozīmi.

Izmaiņu atcēlu, jo līdzīgi kā iepriekš izdzēsts ceļš, pārzīmēts neprecīzi un nav paskaidrots, kādēļ nomainīta klasifikācija.

I have reverted your edits since you are not replying to earlier comments about your similar changes.

Vai varētu precizēt, kas tieši šeit ir par ceļa zīmēm uz ietvēm? `foot=designated` nozīmē, ka šeit būtu "gājēju ceļš" zilā zīme. Tas nozīmētu, ka `bicycle=yes` te nevar būt, jo velosipēdiem nav pēc CSN atļauts.

Vairāk info: osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#G%C4%81j%C4%93ju_ce%C4%BCi

Sveiki,

Gribēju pieminēt, ka fiziski neatdalītas ceļa joslas netiek zīmētas kā atsevišķi ceļi, kā šajā gadījumā autobusu apstāšanās joslas. Vai šeit tagad pēc rekonstrukcijas ir pārbūvēts kā atdalīts (piemēram, barjeras, saliņa, v.c.)?

Kā arī šie noteikti nebūs `public_transport=platform`, kas ir pašas pieturas (kur gājēji gaida/pārvietojas) kā platformas apzīmējums. Tie būtu servisa ceļi, ja tie tiešām ir atdalīti no galvenās ceļa brauktuves. Un arī apstāšanās vieta tad ir jāpārliek uz šo ceļu.

Sveiki,

Vai šeit tiešām ir brasls node/12198527118 ?

Please do not delete and redraw buildings (or other tagged elements), but change the existing building as mentioned before in [1]. Firstly, this loses contribution history of the original element. And secondly, you didn't actually copy the original tags [2] to the new building, thus deleting the address. (In this case, an address bot would eventually restore the address data, so it isn't a permanent problem.)

[1] changeset/156956846

[2] way/182426427/history

This changeset contains no changes to any elements, I think you uploaded it by accident or didn't upload your changes.

Are you sure this sidewalk extends further? Was there some new construction here? It stopped shortly after the intersection only a month ago.

Hello,

You marked this parking lot [1] as public access, but there is a gate here and a parking sign with "only residents". Do you remember if something was different when you surveyed this or if you meant to tag this for a different location/parking lot?

[1] way/1135265378

Just a note that you redrew some of the ways, but they lost all of their tags: e.g. way/1317400101/history versus way/1118388972/history . You should generally keep the existing ways and modify them rather than deleting and drawing again, because this preserves history/attribution and has less chance of errors.

Vēl pieminēšu par piezīmē minēto sporta zāli - kadastrā var redzēt aktuālo novietojumu. Skatoties ortofoto jābūt uzmanīgam - jumta kontūra nav pamatu kontūra, jo ortofoto gandrīz visur ar slīpumu.

Čau,

Es no 8. cikla un kadastra vēl pabīdīju un pazīmēju un palaboju. Bet es personīgi neesmu cauri izbraucis, tāpēc neesmu pārliecināts par sīkumiem un savienojumiem. Piemēram tās novērošanas kameras. Vai arī piemēram, vai pie ieejas arī mašīnas drīkst braukt? Ja tu varētu precizēt, būtu labi.

Yeah, like mentioned - lots of styles and preferences and everything has exceptions. The one problem with large mapped areas like that example is that you couldn't add something like `residential=single_family` or `access=private` since that would then be a mistake (roads aren't private and not all of that land is single-familly housing). In other words, you would need to split the areas further to refine tags. (Of course, that implies someone has the time to do such micromapping.)

Hi,

Just wanted to let you know that typically private residential areas like this when traced within "blocks" are only drawn to the (cadastral) property lines. Usually to the fence/hedge or something. Of course, there are 100s of exceptions in real-life, but the general principle is to ask - "do the people living here use this area?" So the landuse should end before any public/municipal infrastructure - roads, sidewalks, substations, municipal ditches, etc. You wouldn't expect anything private in these locations and they are publicly accessible.

I should mention that there is a lot of variation how mappers map landuse from approximate first pass (covering everything in residential landuse, roads and all) to detailed individual areas (sticking to exact property plots/use). It's a complicated topic and there are many approaches. So I'm just briefly mentioning the above as the most detailed typical approach for private residential locations like this.

Cheers

By the way, if you make a lot of geotagged photos, then these would be really useful if uploaded to Mapillary since other mappers could then see them, especially for minor roads and tracks like these.

Es jau arī gribēju ierobežojumus salikt, bet ... changeset/156369107 ...

This also doesn't only apply to this particular changeset, but all of them. There is no problem mapping route relations if they have some sort of identifiable remains. The problem is all the sections that don't exist on the ground that are mapped as real features, such as way/935480741 that just goes across fields, highways, properties, forests. These ways should not be mapped as railway=*. OSM only maps what is on the ground and these don't exist in any identifiable form in most of the places. An untagged way with relation would be fine.

And routes like this are not directly bikable, so I don't understand the argument here. A handicapped person could certainly never use any of these. Even the "best" example as mentioned below has sections where you have to take detours difficult even when biking, let alone if mobility is impaired.

And as rich says, there are plenty of cycle routes along former railway infrastructure where it is actually possible and restored/repaved ones are called Greenways, for example relation/11003258. And yes, you can map something like historic relation/18002788 here. And there are examples like this where it would match closely. But these are the minority.