Also, please be careful not to connect individual physical features to boundaries, in this case railing way/1101272536 got connected to boundary way/199139718 .

Also, please don't replace crossings, like way/550285428 to way/1101062123 without preserving details. Exactly-mapped crossings start at the road (where the kerb would be, if it was mapped) and may have different values - surface, tactile paving, etc. Most crossing are not mapped to such detail, but you should not remove it if they are.

Also please be careful not to leave behind individual nodes like this crossing node/2386796014 after deleting the crossing way itself.

When changing building shape like way/71198467 , please make sure to not delete any previous tags and info, like an address. It is best to reuse the old way, which has the way's edit history, especially 7 revisions, like here.

Also note that due to tree cover your new shape was not accurate as you didn't add the South portion of the building.

With service roads like way/257816286 , they should only be marked as parking isles if they are actually adjacent to parking spaces, not simply leading into a parking lot -- see service=parking_aisle#Disambiguation

Also, as with another edit, you deleted cycleway tags from a cycleway to change it to sidewalk, like, for example, way/421653116 .

Please don't remove details by replacing multi-segment traffic islands with a pedestrian refuge with a single traffic island as with way/1101272518 . You can add `surface` to traffic island sections. In fact, `landuse=grass` is also not incorrect ( traffic_calming=island#Tags_to_use_in_combination )

Also, as with other edits, please don't replace footways with sidewalks when they don't have any direct access to the road, like, for example, way/553534532 , which has a guard rail in between.

When creating crossings like way/1101290648 please don't replace `highway=cycleway` with `highway=footway`. It is still a cycleway and thus a cycleway crossing (with `cycleway=crossing`).

Also, you replaced detailed mapping of parking locations with a single area with way/1101062146 - why are you removing such detail? One cannot park across driveways. You should retain them as parking spaces if you wanted to group them into the same "parking lot", but you should not be outright deleting them.

Hello,

Why are you removing cycleway tags from cycleways, like for example way/689069584 ?

Also, why are you changing regular footways into sidewalks when they are not adjacent to the road, but merely parallel or not even so, like, for example, way/689069122 ?

Sveiki! Pielaboju izmaiņu nedaudz.

Velo remonta stacijai nomainīju krāsu uz `colour=yellow`, iekš OSM tiek lietoti angļu krāsu nosaukumi (vai kodi).

Stacijai arī nevajadzētu būs savienotai ar skolas teritoriju. OSM nesavieno elementus, kas ir iekš teritorijas ar pašu teritorijas robežu.

Nebūtu korekti likt skolas teritorijai `access=no` - tas nozīmē, ka piekļuve nav ļauta nevienam no publikas. Principā `access` ir pārsvarā legāliem ierobežojumiem. Te varētu būt ierobežojumi, ja pie visām teritorijas ieejām/piekļuvēm būtu tādas zīmes, kā "nepiederošiem aizliegts" vai citādi. Vispārēji, skolas teritorijām reti kad tiek lietots `access`, jo tas reti kad ir tik visaptveroši un ierobežojoši. To varētu likt atsevišķiem celiņiem, ieejām, stāvvietām, utt., ja tur nav vai ir speciāli atļauts (ne)piederošiem.

Hi! I undid the change of way/135837531 from unclassified to track. It's not a track - it's a wide maintained LVM road going through the forest, but not a track.

Personally, I think "normal" mapping should end at pedestrian amenity and accessibility routing. So sidewalks, kerbs, surfaces, trash cans, benches, crossing details, fences, gates, etc. Basically, can someone in a wheelchair reliably and safely navigate/route through?

Then micromapping starts with lamp posts and manholes. :)

For reference changeset/124396404

I guess I'll change it to residential until and if this actually gets designated as a living zone. Someone might end up converting these to living streets assuming that's what they are once they are built.

Is there (now) a living zone here around [1]? From your Mapillary and my earlier visit, it doesn't look like it, but wanted to double check.

[1] way/1083248667

:) Gotta be fast with you around or there will nothing new left to map.

There are still a lot of minor details to map here though. Notably, all the grass dividers/medians/separators. But without aerial, they are a real pain. The only saving grace is that the building has an accurate cadaster outline, so it's at least possible to align features to it from footage.

In response to changeset/126375580.

Heya!

As far as I remember, this used to be how less-than-complete road works were tagged (i.e. the main `highway=x` keeps the tag).

But I see Wiki now says
"A deprecated option is to set the tag construction=yes." There are 4.9K uses of taginfo, so I am not sure when this was decided/changed. It does however suggest that `construction=minor` should be used for this particular purpose, so I'll change to that. There are 20.7K uses of that.

I didn't use `highway=construction` because the only major change currently is that they removed the top asphalt layer, leaving behind ground/sand/rocks, but there isn't any major work being done (at least, when I was here a couple times). I'm not sure if it's better to "close" the way with `highway=construction`. I have no idea if they intend to lay new asphalt or whatever else.

See also note/3357664.

Hi! Footways should only be tagged as `footway=sidewalk` when the road is directly or at least reasonably accessible from the sidewalk. In this area, footways are mostly not sidewalks, some just happen to be parallel to the road. Sidewalks to the router engines means that you can access and cross the road anywhere (or at least quickly/nearby) from it.

Ways like [1] are not sidewalks, they are far from the road. You would have to walk through grass and obstacles to get to the road.

Ways like [2] are basically crossings and leading to crossings. These would generally be sidewalks only if the "main" way is a also a sidewalk.

Ways like [3] are not part of any road to be sidewalks.

For example, [4] is a "real" sidewalk because it runs parallel to the road and you can directly access the road from it.

[1] way/107378321/
[2] way/1089410275/
[3] way/107375871/
[4] way/906335318/

Hey again! I added a fixme tag to most of the taps in [1]. I looked through a lot of them, compared to aerial and Mapillary and existing taps. My conclusion is that the municipality data is in some cases very approximate. The general area for them seems to be mostly accurate (like, none are in the middle of nowhere), but the exact locations (especially for older ones) are only accurate to an address or street, which in some cases (like Mežaparks above) means it's completely wrong. Hopefully, these can be surveyed and verified over time.

[1] changeset/126023696