Sveiki,

Lūdzu ņem vērā, ka zīmējot celiņu ģeometriju, tie būs `area:highway=footway` nevis
`highway=footway` + `area=yes`. Ar `area:highway=footway` tiek aprakstīta vienkārša celiņa precīza ģeometrija un pamata navigācija ir pati celiņa līnija. Tas būs gandrīz visiem celiņiem, ietvēm, utt. Arī `area:highway=cycleway`, `area:highway=path` utml. Savukārt ar `highway=footway` + `area=yes` apzīmē laukumus, kur nav nosakāms viens celiņa virziens un navigācija ir visā tā laukumā. Tie parasti būs retāki lieli laukumi, kur savienojas kopā vairāki celiņi un gājēju kustība ir visos virzienos.

area:highway=footway

highway=footway#Areas

Paldies

You haven't responded, so I have removed these access values for now.

Sveiki,

Kā iepriekš minēju, lūdzu ņem vērā, ka Rīgā jaunajam Bing ir nobīde pāri metram. Pirms zīmēt no Binga, tas jāpabīda/jāpielīdzina. Citādi sanāk pēc tam visus jaunos elementus labot/bīdīt.

Skaidrs. Ja pagrabs aizbērts, tad tīri precīzi tas laikam būs `disused:entrance=cellar` kā punkts uz ēkas kontūras līnijas. Bet es te vispār nekartētu to - nekad to neviens cits tik un tā nevarēs to pārbaudīt privātīpašumā.

Since you have not replied or explained how exactly these are wrong or why official sources are to be disregarded in this case, and since the nodes you kept versus deleted does not appear to be based on verifiable sources, I have reverted their removal.

I have added the exact official border boundaries so there is no confusion about locations. Feel free to move admin centres to better or more representative locations.

Kā jau daudz reižu iepriekš minēts - nedzēst ceļus, kas eksistē, bet atbilstoši tos rediģēt/izmainīt. Kā var būt "ceļa nav" un "rises" reizē? Izmaiņu atcēlu.

Var, bet labāk nevajag. `entrance` is standarda tegs priekš ieejām. Šeit es gan nesaprotu, ko tas vispār nozīmē uz bijušās ēkas? Uz kurieni šī ieeja ved? Principā privātīpašumos vispār tādas lietas parasti nekartē.

Here is the map from kadastrs.lv https://imgur.com/zB7sP1J . You can see the red point (the exact address point) is on the southern building rather than the northern one. You have to search the exact address id to see it on their website. This is the point that would appear in https://data.gov.lv/dati/dataset/varis-atvertie-dati that the daily automated import uses. And this import tries to place the address on a building if there is one where the point is. In this case, it's the southern one.

Hello,

Just wanted to let you know that address data is Latvia is automatically imported from the official VZD
database. And the address point in the official address database is actually on the other building here - you can see it has the full nominal address. If you want the point "moved" to a different building, then its really up to the property owners to ask VZD to correct this.

Also, just to confirm - the other building you deleted are no longer here?

Thanks

I provided a source. It's literally published by the municipality. It doesn't get much more official than this. You can also get the exact shapes at https://data.gov.lv/dati/lv/dataset/apkaimes . The names are also in LĢIA name database and they are classified as "pilsētas daļa".

Yes, I made a couple typos when transcribing because there were a lot to add and I didn't notice. The solution is to fix these or let me know and I will fix them.

There is no available center point data, so I placed them approximately around the shape's centroid. Which ones were misplaced? Again, let me know and I'll fix them. Or feel free to import the boundaries, I have not had the time to do that yet.

Which other names are wrong and/or illogical? You fixed only two which were obviously typos and not otherwise wrong. Everything else seems to match the dataset's names and the names given in the article.

I am not sure how being a local matters, but if you can provide a source from the municipality which acknowledges that these are not considered valid names or divisions by the municipality, we can go further with this.

But it is completely inappropriate for you to delete this data. Please revert your edit and fix or point out any errors so we can fix them.

As far as verifiability is concerned, I have provided 3 official sources, but you only claim they are wrong. osm.wiki/Verifiability

Hi,

What is the source for this name? I cannot find any official mention of it. It seems to be a literal translation.

Thanks

Šie gan ir mazciemi, kas pēc OSM ir parasti kā `hamlet`. Es gan nezinu, cik Latvijā tas apspriests starp `village` un `hamlet`. Es zinu tikai to, ka liela putra.

Tu šeit laikam Bing offsetu neuzliki.

Ā, ups, es nepamanīju, ka tu disused: uzliki birku zupā. Es nemaz nezināju, ka Every Door to māk.

FALSE ALARM. 🔔❌

Šim punktam node/12060930551 (vairs) nav galvenā tega.

Thanks for noticing and fixing the mistake!

Atkal šajā un 160833448 izmaiņā ir izdzēsti nevis laboti elementi (parks, celiņi, ēka, teritorija), soli sazīmēti kā sienas (par, ko jau minēts), nodzēsts adrešu punkts, pazaudēts ielas nosaukums. Tā kā visas šīs problēmas iepriekš minētas un dažas no tām jau daudz reižu, kā iepriekš minēju, es vairs individuāli nelabošu katru tavu izmaiņu. Šis izmaiņas atcēlu.

Hello,

Please be aware that Bing is both out of date (older than 2016 in some cases) and misaligned (in some locations by several meters) in Latvia. Please confirm and align with local LVM aerial and cadaster layer before adding buildings.

For example, this building one is misaligned by some meters way/1346952199

This building/greenhouse way/1346952201 does not appear to exist anymore.

This building/shed is just misaligned already-drawn one way/1346952200

This building/barn is traced over half the roof rather than closer to the expected cadaster outline way/1346951958

Thanks

Kāpēc ir izdzēst Iecavas parks way/1200159536 ?

Kāpēc izdzēsta ēka nevis pārzīmēta way/188940199 ?

Kāpēc izdzēsta teritorija? way/944841225

Un visas meža teritorijas ir izdzēstas nevis labotas.

Es tev piekrītu un tā būtu loģiski. (Līdzīgi kā strāvas vadi.) Wiki lapā `layer` ir minēts kopš osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Tag:man_made%3Dgantry&diff=2249049&oldid=2206143 . Oriģinālajā proposal'ā tā nebija osm.wiki/Proposal:Gantry . Tā kā puse gantry pasaulē ir ar layer 1+, tad tā gluži nomainīt wiki lapu uz vienu vai otru variantu nevajadzētu. Bet varētu pagaidām pieminēt, ka prakse ir 50/50 un nav skaidrs no kurienes tas izdomāts. (Tāpēc es arī liku `layer=#` + `location=overhead` kā kompromisu (un tagad `layer=#+1` lai skaidrs neatkarīgi no pieņēmumiem, ja `location` nevēlams)). Vajadzētu uzprasīt wiki izmaiņas autoram no kurienes `layer` šķiet pareizā prakse. Minēts vēl piemēram te https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/man-made-gantry/123397 un pāris citos topikos īsumā. Zinot OSM apspriežu vēsturi, te visticamāk paliks pie vajadzības `layer=1`, jo "Vācijā tā liek". ;) Bet tad vajag forumā tēmu...