Sveiki,

Lūdzu nepārveido parastus ceļus zem tiltiem par tuneļiem, ja tie tiešām nav tuneļi. Ja tu gribi norādīt, ka ceļi ir zem tilta, tad var pielikt `covered=yes`.

Un lūdzu nesavieno ceļus ar elementiem citos līmeņos. Šeit šoseja tika savienota ar barjeru, kas šos ceļus pilnībā nobloķē pareizai navigācijai.

Kā arī elementiem, kas ir uz tilta ar `layer`=*, arī jābūt ar atbilstošu `layer`, konkrēti margām - citādi tās neskaidri šķērso citus ceļus un rada datu kļūdas.

Sveiki,

Gribēju precizēt par way/1350841153 ceļu. Vai šis savienojums vairs neeksistē vispār?

Paldies

Sveiki vēlreiz,

Vai varētu precizēt, kā tieši noteikts maksimālais ātrums šeit? Ļoti neprasti būtu, ja te tiešām ir ceļa zīme ar 5 km/h.

Paldies

Sveiki,

Vai varētu precizēt, kas tieši šeit tagad ir? Pēc izmaiņas komentāra sanāk, ka paša tilta nav, bet ceļš ir - kas tad sanāk ar to upi? Vai tur ir pārbūvēts par caurteku vai kas cits?

Paldies

A different feature 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.

Not that any feature here actually has the same name.

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

A different feature 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.

Not that any feature here actually has the same name.

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.

How is the meaning of the name relevant?

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

How is the node misplaced? You have not corrected 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.

A different feature 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. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

The forest here isn't even currently named in OSM data.

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. And it was already mentioned to you that `locality` does not apply as a tag for this.

Please fix your edit.

I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts. And it was already mentioned to you that `locality` does not apply as a tag for this.

Please fix your edit.

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.