Hi, why did you delete way/177033064/history ?

You tagged more of these as buildings (changesets 128132917 and 128132992). Can you please clarify what you are trying to do? These are clearly not buildings.

Hi!

These structures do not look like buildings: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1166353293788990&focus=photo

What did you mean to fix with this edit?

`historic=memorial` is probably wrong and should be around the whole area. But these look like (retaining) walls.

Hello? Are you going to fix your edits?

Hi!

These look like roads leading to and within a private property, so they are likely driveways and almost certainly not unclassified roads.

I see someone already mentioned this before in your earlier changeset.

Can you please use the correct highway classification for these?

Hi!

Is this really a park way/1106749103 ? There's a fence drawn in the middle of it. And these way/1106749092 as well? These are tiny and look to be within private property.

For nodes like these node/10127430732 I think you meant to add `natural=tree`, not `wood` (which means a forest).

Sveiki!

Vai šie ceļi nav tomēr `highway=residential`, jo pēc aerofoto te ir privātīpašumi un mājas? (Pēc kadastra viens ir iela, otrs is kopīpašuma ceļš)

Un piebrauktuve pie mājas/privātīpašumā noteikti būtu `highway=service`; `service=driveway`.

Hi! I'm pretty sure the intention of `country=lv` was to specify which country's flag is on the flagpole. And this does in fact appear to be the correct tag (man_made=flagpole#Tags_to_use_in_combination; country=*). Regardless, flagpoles don't have addresses, so this correction is wrong. I notice you have made other similar corrections like this, for example this consulate (node/10058957494/history), which is just completely wrong as you merged represented country with the address. Please review all your recent country tag corrections.

Weird. I don't see any other edits or changes here, so it may have been the renderer bugging out initially or later. Oh well.

Yeah, it has re-rendered correctly now, so I suspect the crossing ways was indeed what caused it. They were one outer and one inner, which probably confused the default renderer.

Oh whoops, yeah, the residential is drawn as separate way. I was selecting the main/big forest way going down the same nodes as residential. (Also, this is why people should stop connecting forests to residential area as if they are mutually-exclusive. Gotta fix this area at some point...)

Hi!

You changed the North end of this temporary road way/1099914482 to be more South than before.

This does break routing now since only `highway=construction` way way/1099914484 is between the usable road segments.

Also has it really been moved so much? Considering the bridge ramp ends basically where the track used to connect to the road, it seems unlikely. Here's my Mapillary from a few weeks ago https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2680085605457244&focus=photo

Hey! I think this changeset broke something about the forest multipolygon relation/13480473. I can't tell exactly what and why (and I'm not even 100% sure it's this edit). If I had to guess, the lake way/112309345/history now overlaps residential area, both of which are members of the forest relation.

Hi! Please be aware that aerial imagery is not always correctly aligned when tracing/fixing buildings. For example, Bing/Maxar are not aligned in Latvia and are usually a couple meters off.

More general info about this: osm.wiki/Using_aerial_imagery

Hi! That was a mistake. I of course meant `man_made=yes`. There's a prominent feature, but I have no idea what it is, so I cannot be more specific. Here it is on Mapillary, but it's a bit distant:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=3371163416448544

Tegs lai norādītu plašu ceļu/celiņu/ietvi, kas nav speciāls laukums, parasti ir `area:highway` area:highway=* , konkrēti būtu area:highway=footway šajā gadījumā. Parasti gan tik mazus "laukumus" nezīmē. Jebkurā gadījumā tur celiņu kā līniju vajadzētu tikai vienu.

Par privātīpašumu un objektiem tajā runa ir par to lai kāds cits varētu pārbaudīt šo objektu. Ja to nevar redzēt no aerofoto, no ielas vai tas nav kaut kādos oficiālos datos, tad to vari apliecināt tikai tu, un tas padara to par nepārbaudāmu citiem. Nav jau tā, ka neviens netic. Bet teiksim pēc 20 gadiem to statīvu noņem, bet tu jau sen vairs nezīmē karti. Kā kāds cits var pārbaudīt vai tur vispār vēl ir tāds statīvs? Bet nu aizliegts jau nav to zīmēt, kaut gan liela varbūtība, ka kāds to ar laiku izdzēsīs šo iemeslu dēļ.

Sveiki!

Šādi sazīmēti celiņi way/1104387616 izskatās diezgan dīvaini. Vai tiešām tur ir 6 paralēli atsevišķi/atdalīti celiņi?

Un ņemot vērā, ka te ir privātīpašums, tad parasti sīki detaļas kartē nezīmē. Vairāk info osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information .

Tādas lietas kā privāti soli vai velo statīvi, kas nav publiski pārredzami, netiek iekļauti, jo tos nav iespējams pārbaudīt. Piemēram, ja kāds cits kartes zīmētājs gribētu pārbaudīt vai tiešām tur ir statīvs ar 1 vietu, tad viņiem nebūtu tāda iespēja - tas padara šo informāciju par nepārbaudāmu. Vairāk info osm.wiki/Verifiability .

Hi!

About some of the railways you added and extended. Please be careful adding them where they are not actually visible on location. See OSM Wiki for more info about this sort of tagging:
railway=abandoned . In short, segments such as way/1104490331 are not possible to see on the ground (here - there is a highway with no trace of railway), so they should not be mapped.

I'm not sure how much of the other features are still visible/present. If, for example, a switch like node/10106992116 no longer functions, then it should not be mapped as an existing feature. If it's still visible, then it probably needs one of the osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix prefixes . If it's completely gone, then it shouldn't be added at all.

In general, see osm.wiki/Demolished_Railway about this specific topic.

I didn't survey as much as you, but there were some private property signs and these looked like ghetto forest cabins, so I couldn't think of of anything better than residential other than to not map at all. I wouldn't tag is as camp site either as I don't think you can actually book anything here, can you? Unless we put "capacity" at like 0 for all or just make it private. I guess it's `historic=camp_site`, haha.

A lot of these buildings and parcels are on cadaster, so they can be traced. Not sure how accurate it is. I didn't use cadaster at the time, just added approximately.

I think the name is misleading. I bet it's a name that remained from when these were actual Soviet forest dachas, presumably rentable. The closest example I can think of is this place [1] which is probably mapped completely wrong. Or that place East of Gauja you put a note about. I don't know much more about their history.

But yeah, to sum up, I can't think of anything better even knowing more about it now.

[1] node/9442363367

I would probably not tag it as an islet if I added actual land cover tag(s), like scrub or wood or something.

Indeed, changed to islet.