How is the node misplaced? You moved it outside its boundary, which is most definitely incorrect.

What is the spelling error or how is the name incorrect? You have not changed the name in any way.

Please fix the position of the node.

I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

What is the spelling error? You have not corrected the name, but deleted the node.

How is the node misplaced? You have not correct the position, but deleted the node. I previously already mentioned you can adjust the position away from the boundary centroid if this seems better to you.

How is the name illogical? Even assuming this has any bearing on OSM using official names, you have not corrected the name, but deleted the node.

Please undo your edit and fix the issue instead.

I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

What is the spelling error? You have not corrected the name, but deleted the node.

How is the node misplaced? You have not correct the position, but deleted the node. I previously already mentioned you can adjust the position away from the boundary centroid if this seems better to you.

How is the name illogical? Even assuming this has any bearing on OSM using official names, you have not corrected the name, but deleted the node.

Please undo your edit and fix the issue instead.

I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

A forest and a boundary can exist at the same time with the same name. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

The forest's name is not even the same.

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.

I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

A forest and a boundary can exist at the same time with the same name. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

The forest's name is not even the same.

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.

I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

A forest and a boundary can exist at the same time with the same name. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.

I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

A forest and a boundary can exist at the same time with the same name. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.

Thanks for replying.

Access restrictions on OSM means legal/permitted access. Please see access=* . Notably, this never means subjective reasons like solely religious or spiritual that you mention. These must be based on verifiable criteria, such as laws, municipality regulations, traffic signs, property usage rules or something like that. See also osm.wiki/Verifiability .

The value `customers` means just that - a customer of a business, such as someone shopping, paying for service, buying a ticket, etc. and is thus gaining access to the location. Normally, anyone can become a customer. See access=customers . This would almost never apply to a location like a cemetery. If the cemetery is gated and permission is only granted to individuals, then it is `private`. If the cemetery is open, then it's public access.

Sniķeru kapi is owned by the Sigulda municipality (as per "Par kapsētu uzturēšanu un lietošanu Siguldas novadā" law), so it is almost certainly public unless there is something special here (which is why I asked to be sure).

Regarding area tags, they are part of the map. Any values you place on ways also indirectly impact surrounding features. They must match or they don't make sense (for example, public parking for a private cemetery).

Let me know if I can clarify anything else.

Since you have not replied again, I have reverted your changes.

Te vienkārši tāda sāļa stiga ;)

Bet, ups, jā, sand.

What is incorrect about this name in Latvian? It is from official sources.

I asked you to provide any sources at changeset/160441247 for arbitrary tagging changes like this that would conflict with official sources. You have neither replied, nor provided a source, nor explained what is wrong here. You cannot keep changing values against officially-published sources.

Es tieši tā būtu darījis, jā. Kadastra līnijas te precīzas.

Via "Dreiliņu priedes" nosaukumu gribam atstāt kaut kur? Tas bija uz construction laukuma.

Tas bija piemērs tikai par ģenerēšanu. Neatkarīgi no tā, vai tur ir fizisks objekts vai nē, bez līnijas datos šī savienojuma nebūs un uzģenerēt to automātiski nevar.

OSM nav daudz piemēru ar tādiem abstraktiem objektiem kā koku rindas. Bet nu teiksim jūras zīmju/boju navigācijas/kuģošanas ceļi, piemēram way/1280192655 . Nekas fizisks to nesavieno un bojas nav pat uz līnijas...

Ģenerēšanai vajag kontekstu. Kāpēc piemēram tie koki šeit dienvidos nav rinda tad?

Tā pat kā elektrības vadus nevar viennozīmīgi noteikt tikai no elektrības stabiem un nevar dzēst vadus, pat ja stabi uzzīmēti.

I love how you misspelled it when pointing out a misspelling. But, yes, "Nica" with "a". Terrible word to spell between two languages. And don't get me started on auto-correct.

Haha, varēju, ja es tik precīzi un cītīgi visu būtu skatījies... Nav jau nepareizi, drīzāk nedaudz neoptimāli.

Šeit pagrūta situācija; es arī nezinu, kā es labāk liktu. Tur ir tie 6 "gala savienojumi", kas kaut kā jādabū kopā ar pēc iespējas mazāk līnijām, kas dod skaidru priekšstatu. Bet to vieglāk pateikt, nekā izdarīt ;)

Es varu pamēģināt salikt, kā es to darītu te, tikai es negribu šo piemēru "izbojāt", jo tu to minēji tajā otrā izmaiņā.

Es liktu abus kopā. Šeit ir objekts - koku rinda. Ja šī līnija nav iezīmēta, tad datos šīs rindas nav. Koku punkti paši par sevi neveido koku rindu.

Te jau ir tieši otrādāk - ja rinda ir iezīmēta, nav "jēgas" tegot koku punktus, jo pietiek jau ar pašiem rindas punktiem. natural=tree_row#Tagging "additional nodes along the way might be placed in the location of individual trees, but this is not required" .

Es gan personīgi arī tegoju koku punktus, jo tad ir skaidrāks un kāds nejauši nenodzēsīs pa vidu punktus.

Šis ir vienkārši celiņš ar `covered=yes`, sānos uzbērumi. Virs viņa ir celiņš, kas ir tilts. Varēja arī nebūt tilts, varēja būt kaut kas cits.

Manuprāt, zemes uzbērums priekš tilta galīgi nepadara zemāk esošo celiņu par tuneli. Tam nav gandrīz nekādu tuneļa īpašību, galvenokārt, tas ir gandrīz vai īsāks neka plats. Manuprāt (no wiki) "if the lower way is short and the upper way is supported on concrete, brick on metal pillars and beams then that is almost certainly a bridge" šeit pilnībā atbilst.

Ceļš, kas iet cauri zemei ir tiešām tunelis, bet tad nevis uzbērums, bet zeme apkārt un tunelim vienlaida korpuss. Ceļš cauri mājai ir "mājas tunelis" vai caurbrauktuve - building passage.

Ja tu domā, ka te tiešām atbilstošāk ir tunelis, var jau likt. Es gan neuzskatu, ka tā būs pareizāki dati..

Negribu pa daudz info tajā otrā izmaiņā, bet manuprāt šeit ir krietni pa daudz celiņu pa vidu sazīmēts. Ar celiņiem norāda loģiskus savienojumus/virzienus, nevis visus iespējamos fiziskos savienojumus (tas jau ir renderēšana kartei, ko pats laukums jau ir paveicis).

Piemēram, tas navigāciju padara apgrūtinātu. Šādā vietā navigators pat 5 reizes pasaka pa labi, pa kreisi turp šurp. Protams, šis navigators pats par sevi ir stulbs, bet kā piemērs tam, kā tos datus redz automātisks process.

osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=56.938588%2C24.146635%3B56.937926%2C24.147632#map=19/56.938161/24.147343

Vai arī aplikācijas kā StreetComplete / EveryDoor, kas katram gabaliņam atsevišķi prasītu parametrus kā segums/izgaismojums/utt.

Arī no analīzes/statistikas, tas palielina kopējo celiņu garumu ar faktiski atkārtotiem celiņiem.

Tās protams galīgi nav lielas problēmas uz kopējā fona un reti kurš sastapsies ar šo, bet manuprāt vērts to ņemt vērā.