Sveiki,

Vai varētu precizēt, kas šajā izmaiņā ir mēģināts izdarīt? Ar šo izmaiņu mežs ir izdzēsts, bet nesavienoti gabali ir pārveidoti par parku. Tajā arī iekļautas privātīpašuma teritorijas bet nav iekļautas pastaigu ielas. Un parks arī tagad ir divreiz kartēts, jo bija jau punkts node/10796729145.

Hi,

While I personally don't know the situation here and was just fixing invalid values, I should note that A/P/V to trunk/primary/secondary is the recommendation and starting point, but it is not necessarily the final decision. OSM classification is based on function and logical road network, while A/P/V are just the codes used by LVC that happen to mostly match. But frequently in Latvia P and V roads are not actually used in real-life how classification would suggest - a lot of them were assigned historically and internally and LVC doesn't really make major changes to codes even when real-life situation changes. So someone with better local knowledge might retag them higher and lower to build a more logical hierarchical network for navigation. I have myself previously surveyed roads and retagged them seeing how in real-life the P/V/x values were old, outdated, rerouted, etc. If this P66 is a gravel/compacted road and in practice all people use P68, then I can see how this might actually be secondary or even tertiary compared to P68. Based on OSM road network principles, you generally want road classification to decrease as the roads branch away and people don't use it as the main way for travel/navigation. Anyway, I'm just noting that it's possible this to be secondary and P, but as I said I don't know the local situation. You would have to ask the original editor who adjusted it. I didn't want to change the classification here because I would just be guessing and it looked okay at a quick glance.

Hello,

Could you please clarify about this point here node/12879605908 . You have mapped both a bridge and a ford. It's very unusual for it to be like this. I am assuming this was a mistake and it's either a bridge or a ford (or perhaps a ditch culvert)?

Thanks

Hello,

You changed this service road into a path - way/1126129864 . Can you please clarify what has changed here? I have undone this for now because this is not what is on aerial, this removes access to the property North and this also seems to be one of the entrances for the properties South.

Hello. OSM tags are generally based on the function of the feature/building. If it's used for growing crops/plants, then it's most likely a greenhouse, regardless of the material it's constructed from. The polyhouse design you describe is a common type of greenhouse for OSM purposes. You can specify the primary `building:material` to distinguish it.

Здравствуйте,

Вы добавили ограничение скорости 30 км/ч на улицу в жилой зоне - way/321543858. Не могли бы вы уточнить, находится ли эта улица в жилой зоне или ограничение скорости было указано неверно?

Спасибо.

Hello,

Thanks for your map updates!

I just wanted to note that if you change `maxspeed` value, there may also be a `maxspeed:type` value for the source of the limit. For example, here `maxspeed:type=LV:urban` means the implied speed is 50. So you should either remove the value or change it something like `sign` or `LV:zone30`.

I fixed these here.

Cheers

Sveiki,

No kāda avota ir šis ciems/mazciems un tā robeža Mežamuiža? Ne VZD, ne Vietvārdu datubāzē šāda vieta pašreiz šeit nav. Vai tas ir kaut kāds vēsturisks nosaukums?

It sounds like organic=* fits here. So it can be shop=* + organic=only. It's probably shop=convenience because they seem to sell several categories of goods?

I recently biked through here, so the photos are available here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1207689734465017&focus=photo / https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=732016132572944&focus=photo .

It is indeed still the typical 301+849. I would normally adjust the access myself, but your changeset comment mentioned further details. (It's actually very rare in Latvia for such signage to refer to permits that can be publicly acquired by anyone. Usually these are on private roads, parking, courtyards, etc.)

I see, thanks for clarifying! This does indeed sound like a "public" permit (usually such "izņemot ar xxx atļaujām" locations are actually private).

Hi!

Wanted to ask you about this Circle K/Kurši connecting road since you seem to know the situation here - do you know who exactly can get a permit here? Like, is it literally anyone who wants it or is it limited to residents or employees or something like that?

Thanks

Hello,

Please do not delete roads that exist. If there is restricted access here, such as private property, then this needs to be marked with appropriate access restrictions, such as `access=private`.

access=*

I have restored the way and set it to private instead, and also adjusted it to fit with the local layout.

Are you sure you mean way/1069073427 ?
It is visible on the latest imagery and it was here last year https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1514949169396731&focus=photo .

Hi,

Thanks for your changes. I made some corrections here.

Please note that features on OSM should be correctly and consistently tagged rather than for a specific visual map. In this case, way/1409556872 is certainly not a park. Judging by the name, you might be trying to map a fire pit. If it's permanent, you can specify it with leisure=firepit but likely set it to private.

You should also not map the shape of the roof of buildings, but the footprint of the foundations. In this case, these are most likely square buildings. The aerial imagery is usually slanted and the top of the building is not actually the shape of the building.

If these patches way/1154386220 are individual trees, then they should be mapped as points as natural=tree rather than top-down tree crown areas.

Buildings should also be only given names if these are in some form official and verifiable and not just description of their purpose. In the case of way/1154389707, it should be of type building=tree_house without a name.

Thanks

Hi,

Thanks for your changes.

Just a note that you should not remove driveways even if they are private. Only delete roads if they don't exist at all. In this case, we should specify a driveway as private access (which was already correctly set). I have restored that way for now.

Thanks for clarifying. And no worries, these restrictions and their intent is always confusing to map; I adjusted the access value. In this case, it should just be "private" since it's presumably for resident (motor) vehicles. (The "izņemot ar atļaujām" signs are almost always not literally "permit", but exceptions for residents, employees, etc.)

Hi!

Just wanted to ask you what the real-world access restriction is here on way/1396804342 road segment ? It's very unusual in Latvia to have permit access on roads (permit means[1] anyone can get a permit and access it). Is there a traffic sign or some other new signs? Common examples for Latvia are at [2].

Thanks

[1] access=permit

[2] osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#Transportl%C4%ABdzek%C4%BCu_ierobe%C5%BEojumi

Balstoties uz citām kartētāja izmaiņām, drošvien no kaut kādiem pašvaldības dokumentiem, iespējams iekšējiem. Pateikšu tikai, ka jebkurā gadījumā, tā kā autors neatbild uz izmaiņu kopu komentāriem un avotu nenorāda, tad šādus droši var dzēst, jo nevienam nav jāmin, no kurienes iegūti dati.

Čau,

Es šos way/1378893167 nomainīju uz plant nursery kā blīvas jaunaudzes. Es gan nebiju klāt piebraucis. Tu norādīji, ka no survey, tāpēc gribēju pārliecināties, ka te nav kas jauns, un ka es nejaucu, kas tie ir.