What does "incompatible source" mean? Was there a licensing issue? It looks like this reverted these edits: changeset/47219776 and this deleted a bunch of buildings, leaving lots of nodes without ways (since the nodes were re-aligned and not reverted, I guess). Can we restore the edits or do we need to redo them?

I can see from your links that "Hamlet Xx" is the official property name and first part of the official address.

But I am not sure I agree that we should map it this way. On the Ground Rule says "whatever [..] used by the people on the ground", which is what my previous reply was about -- on the ground, you see house plates with numbers, prominent numbers with extra info, and almost never "Hamlet Xxx". I would argue that, intuitively, anyone looking for addresses would look for the numbered part. After all, that's what's actually on the ground and that's what local hamlet maps are like.[1] (In fact, some have an additional local street name and number, which isn't official and doesn't even appear in kadastrs.)

The Addresses guideline about addresses with no street names mentions "in small villages the address may be just the village name and the name or number of the house".[2] It seems a reasonable way to map it for rendering and routing software.

I can say from surveying and looking at the map that having house names for each address is illegible and numbers are much more readable. Many names don't even render, because there's no space for them. Often they overlap the streets and nearby features.

I guess the question is how strictly OSM should follow the official name. I don't mind listing it in addr2: (though I don't think there's a way to mark address as "official" versus "on the ground"). But I'm not sure we should list the property names as the first addr:. After all, so many features on the ground do not match what the official sources claim.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/rhrgL
[2] osm.wiki/Addresses#Addresses_without_street_names

Hello,
I was looking into this as I was trying to determine how to fill out the addresses in nearby hamlets. I went over to look at what they actually are in reality (see below). The best I can tell is that those are not real house names. Something like "Rožkalni"[1] is -- you can see it does not have either street or hamlet number, while surrounding houses do. Otherwise, they would be in "Vietvārdu datubāze"[2]. My experience has been that kadastrs.lv mangles addresses due to their own system shortcomings when they cannot organize them correctly for whatever reason and have to resort to novel naming schemes (my own property is like that where actual address is 10-5, but kadastrs lists it as 10D, though nobody, even utility contracts, list it that way).

In case of Silmala 223, the hamlet/village is "Silmala" and the house number is 223 without a street name. If it had a street number, it would likely be Rīgas iela 11 or something, but you wouldn't say "Rīgas iela 11" is the house name. With that "Rožkalni" example, you can see the nearby houses have both the street number and the hamlet number.

If we go by full modern property street plates, they (not that I checked every one) have a prominent number with additionally both hamlet name and street name listed.[3] Since OSM--in theory--goes by what we see on the ground, then we would expect the plate to say "Silmala 143" as a single name if that was the name. In fact, 223 is just a number plate[4] (though I realize we are only using it as example here). I find that this is the case for the properties in this and other nearby hamlets, like nearby Banga, Selga, etc. In fact, most have just a number[4][5] and some don't have anything visible.

[1] changeset/51827482#map=18/57.25089/24.45043
[2] https://vietvardi.lgia.gov.lv
[3] https://imgur.com/a/lOX5I
[4] https://imgur.com/ajSlhlB
[5] https://imgur.com/ARDZP19
[6] https://imgur.com/vYVZl3W