Is the new bridge closed to traffic? way/1500317330 are still with access=no

No reply, so reverted.

Hello,

When setting use_sidepath, only set it on the road which has an immediate sidewalk and only in the section that actually has an immediate parallel sidewalk. Otherwise, navigation is interpreting it as if you could travel along those ways. Existing values here were already correct, please don't change them unless you understand why they are a mistake. For example, this section way/373229405 does not have a sidewalk - you would be required to cross another physically-separated way to reach it.

I fixed the values here.

Personally I don't like to break up waterways into stream and ditch section, but yes, much of this is just melioration ditches by its function (which is what OSM maps), so that's fine too. I mean, these along-field sections were already tagged as ditches correctly before subsequent retagging. Having them tagged as (bigger) stream is already a compromise.

Es nomainīju tegus pēc https://maaliceramics.lv info. Laikam jau tas atbilst tam, kas uz vietas.

It does not matter what some random map calls it. OSM tags what is here today. River means boat=yes. Tagging it as river is mistagging. It's literally just narrow culverts under the roads. It makes data useless to tag this as river when nowhere else in Latvia such field ditches and streams are tagged like that. This is just tagging to prove some point rather than what actually makes the map data consistent and usable for waterway network.

Ko fee=yes uz amenity=drinking_water vispār nozīmē? Kādā veidā apmaksa notiek un kādā veidā krāns ieslēdzas?

Interesanti, kā SC šeit uzdod jautājumu par šito. Vienkārši "kāds ir šī veikala nosaukums?" bez apraksta par veikala veidu?

Haha, yeah, I didn't check Mapillary that thoroughly since the note said no path, but I can see the new one. I added it, since it's prominent.

You deleted a point on way/159327502

Čau,

Ja tu zīmē zāles gabalus, lūdzu nesavieno tos ar ceļiem vai celiņiem. Celiņi ir viduslīnija, bet laukumi ir ģeometrija - tie nekad nevar sakrist. Arī rediģēt šeit ir ļoti grūti pēc tam.

Vēl pieminēšu, ka ietves ir tikai ceļu malās. Parasti celiņi kā way/1548662398 nav ietves un uz tiem ietvju CSN neattiecas.

Vēl atgādinājumam - lūdzu nobīdi ortofoto pirms no tā zīmēt, jo tas ir ar nobīdi pāris metrus, citādi pēc tam viss jāpārbīda. Gan Mapbox salīmētais gan oriģinālais Bing ir šķībi. Latvijā (gandrīz) precīzs ir tikai LVM/LĢIA ortofoto.

It's not two different features. It's the same object with multiple uses. So you map everything that it supports on the same OSM element. So a drinking water amenity that is a water tap and support both bottle filling and direct drinking fountain with wheelchair access. In this case, no dog bowl. It's also seasonal according to the article. Almost all drinking waters from mains water are seasonal in Latvia.

Do you mean it looks like this https://www.rezekneszinas.lv/lv/Sabiedriba/1/38209/Rezekne-atklata-struklaku-un-brivkranu-sezona ? Then, yes, it should be one feature.

Why is water tap `bottle=no`? Is this actually a drinking fountain, and not a water tap? Or is it really some kind of weird shape that you cannot fill a bottle?

You created a duplicate drinking water.

OSM maps what is on the ground, not what something was historically. You cannot even put a canoe here, let alone a boat. You can literally jump over it in most places. How is this a river? It's the definition of a ditch along fields or at best stream. It used to be mapped as a ditch before you started changing classification.

You were already asked to not change small streams into rivers. This is not a river, it's barely a stream.

Why was this deleted way/1289608569 ?

@kaposts: I generally agree with you and would not add unmarked parking "spaces" like this, but the difference here is that a different section had different surface. I don't really know how else to show this information. Yes, capacity is missing and would need to be added (but, honestly, there are so many places this is needed).

@L4PSA: In this example, the four locations were way/1552527751/history and around.

I think there are theoretically some hazards that can be identified unambiguously and mappers can agree on rare exceptions to tag such places. But in general, it's pretty much always some variation of "signed":

hazard=*#Tagging_guidelines

I don't think anything to do with wildlife could be an exception, because it's all just really random. I don't know of any other established tags for this either. I don't think there are any since OSM specifically discourages subjective tagging and such tags would get removed anyway by others.