Hey!

I don't think you should have merged the piste ways with the track. They have different trajectories, different layout, different lighting in winter, designated direction, different access and difficulty values. For example, lit values are incorrect now (lit=yes for the whole track is not true). And now there are tags that are confusing for both. You also didn't add some parts to the the right sections. I think you are using some sort of official map, but these were surveyed.

Hi,

Could you please not remove individually-mapped sidewalks? They provide information for pedestrians and especially accessibility routing. "Merging" them into the road `sidewalk` tag loses this information and removes the ability to map crossings, add kerbs, wheelchair access, tactile paving, etc. Editors have taken the time to draw these, so I don't see a good reason to delete them.

Thanks.

I was looking at this website - https://birdievillage.com/en/ . Do you know if the information here is not accurate or old?

Saliena at their website https://www.saliena.eu/land-plots/ is here, but looks like a larger area including the Birdie Village area.

Saliena is currently mapped as this area way/233206082 .

Hi!

It looks like you deleted the residential area "Birdie Village" in this changeset - way/952377769/history . Was this intentional? It seems like the area is still there and is still known as such. Could you please clarify what you wanted to do. If it was a mistake, let me know and I can restore the area.

Thanks!

Similar to your previous changesets, you changed a cycleway to a sidewalk - way/997641122/history .

Also, in this and previous changesets, you have changed some service roads to living streets (for example, way/252349891/history or way/593795534/history). Have you surveyed these locations or confirmed these are living zones? If these don't have the living zone sign, then they should stay as service roads, even if they are courtyard/apartment inner roads per osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#Mazāki_ceļi

Can you please reply to these messages and take a look at your edits? I don't want to revert your entire edits because there are a lot of good changes. But you are not replying and discussing your changes or fixing any of the problems mentioned.

Thanks.

Hello again,

You deleted these foot paths and service road:
way/678073522/history#map=19/57.31535/25.36589
way/58077061/history#map=18/57.30986/25.36374
way/427976003/history#map=18/57.31350/25.36930
But they are all visible on the aerial. Can you please explain why you removed them?

You also changed some cycleways into sidewalks along way/1118753245/history or way/976240018/history or way/589580610/history#map=17/57.31638/25.33212 . Are these really no longer cycleways? I have also previously asked you about changing cycleways to sidewalks and you did not reply.

Thanks

It's important because there remain almost 40 other edits from the same
batch that had incorrect changes. And even after a month and multiple messages, you still have not fixed them.

Hi!

I noticed your redrew some building. But one of them had an address - way/352094579/history. When replacing buildings (instead of adjusting existing ones), please be careful to preserve/copy valid existing tags like addresses.

Thanks!

Sveiki!

Par `place=island`, piemēram way/1116609522/history. Ja tās ir maziņas saliņas, tad tās gandrīz vienmēr būs `place=islet`.

Šajā vietā izskatās pēc putras ar salām, bet te viss (varbūt izņemot Lāču salu) izskatās pēc islet. Latviski gan tas viss is "salas", tāpēc nesakrīt ar OSM izpratni, kur līdz kādam kvadrātkilometram par "īstu" salu neskaitās.

Paldies!

Sveiki!

Pamanīju, ka ar šo izmaiņu izdzēsti daži adrešu punkti, piem. node/9876377880/history . Lūgums tādus nedzēst - adreses Latvijā ir no oficiāliem kadastra datiem un gandrīz vienmēr pareizas pat, ja īpašums ir meža vidū. Pie tam, importa bots tās tik un tā vēlāk atjaunotu.

Paldies!

Hi!

Was there a reason to delete address node node/9887775286/history ? These are from official VZD data, so they are technically correct and the bot will just readd it later anyway.

Thanks.

For info, I mentioned this at changeset/127982997 to no response. Most of the changes in this #countryTag batch were incorrect.

Jā, te bišku putra. Salaboju, cik nu tur var. Krustojums gan ir tik plats, ka pēc viduslīnijām tomēr atstāju 2 T krustojumus, jo jebkā savādāk sanāk pārāk asi leņķi atļautiem pagriezieniem un salīdzinot ar ortofoto.

Starp citu, Waze gan izmantot nedrīkst tā pat kā citas kartes - Google (kam Waze pieder), Jāņa sēta, utt, - tās visas ir ar autortiesībām aizsargātas un ar nesavienojamu licenci.

Bet par Waze runājot - viņiem karte ir mazāk precīza un orientēta mašīnām, tāpēc tādi lieli krustojumi nemaz problēmas nerada - te sastopas 4 ceļi un viss. Ja paskatās viņu karti un salīdzina ar ortofoto, tad Edvarda Treimaņa-Zvārguļa iela ir īstenībā iezīmēta šķībi. Tai pat laikā OSM te gan ietves, pārejas, gan piebrauktuve mājai, visi dzelzceļa ceļi, gan teritorijas un koku līnija un pat tās pašas ceļa zīmes. Tāpēc bieži arī ir, ka viens krustojums ir sadalīts vairākās "daļās".

Sveiki!

Pamanīju, ka esi pievienojis pāris give way ceļa zīmes ceļam. Bet zīmes ir pieliktas vietās, kur savienojas divas līnijas. Līdz ar to, nav skaidrs, uz kuru ceļas šīs zīmes attiecās. Piemēram, vai zīme ir Dzelzceļa ielai vai arī Edvarda Treimaņa-Zvārguļa ielai?

Vairāk info highway=give_way#Direction .

Vai varētu lūdzu apskatīt un pielabot/nobīdīt zīmes un atbilstošajiem ceļiem? Dod ziņu, ja vajag skaidrojumu vai palīdzību.

Paldies!

Hello again,

I see you changed the ways between Ceļinieku and Gaujienas from cycleways to just a foot paths. But they do have the 417 traffic sign "kopīgs gājēju un velosipēdu ceļš" at both ends, so they were correctly tagged as highway=cycleway. Even though they are terrible in real-life and signs are not properly repeated along them, they are legally cycleways.

I changed them back to cycleways.

For info on tagging such paths see and highway=cycleway bicycle=designated

Sveiki!

Redzu, ka esi atzīmējis divus ceļus ar nestandarta nosaukumu un kodu 1-3 un 1-4. Tā kā šai izmaiņai nav norādīts avots, jautājums no kurienes šiem ceļiem ir šis nosaukums un kods? Vai tas no pašvaldības vai no ceļa zīmēm? Lūgums nosaukt avotu, lai varētu pārbaudīt situāciju. Vai tādi ceļi kā 1-1 un 1-2 arī eksistē?

Hi again,

Since you didn't reply and it's been a couple weeks, I have reverted/removed these 0 level values.

Thanks for clarifying.

Yes, it looks like Valmiera has introduced a bunch of living zones https://www.valmierasnovads.lv/content/uploads/2021/07/satiksmes_komisija_dzivojama_zona21_kopejais.pdf

For reference, in Latvia, living streets `highway=living_street` are those in living zone - "Dzīvojamā zona" osm.wiki/Lv:Latvian_tagging_guidelines#Mazāki_ceļi , which is always marked with the blue children playing 533 traffic sign https://likumi.lv/wwwraksti/2015/121/BILDES/N_279/IMAGE196.JPG . So all streets within the zone should be tagged living streets and no streets outside such a zone should be tagged living streets.

Looking at the map, there are still a bunch of location where residential roads mix with living streets. There is no Mapillary footage and I haven't been there, so I cannot change anything. I also wouldn't want to use the official zone map because it could be incorrect.

Anyway, as long as you are aware of what the roads should be, that's fine and feel free to change them as needed.

Thanks for getting back! And thanks for changing the features.

Yeah, not everything has a tag. And the default openstreetmap.org editor iD does not have all of them. Sometimes things need custom values or even new values.

I think `barrier=retaining_wall` matches the primary purpose here. These do look like how retaining walls usually look. There is a lower area and a higher area and the wall is there to stop the soil (or any structures on it) from collapsing. So it's probably just a thick and decorative (retaining) wall here.

If these have additional features, then those can be mapped as additions, for example Soviet-style reliefs artwork_type=relief . iD will not have such very specific things. Places like this usually are harder to map and you have to search the wiki and other similar examples (assuming they are correct). If all else fails, you can always use a generic `man_made` tag man_made=* or leave an OSM note (osm.wiki/Notes) of `fixme` tag (fixme=*) for someone else to correct.

But yeah - I think these should not be buildings. In general, you should be able to enter a building. Of course, the world has 1000 exceptions, but in general if you saw a building on the map, you would expect to see a human-sized structure with some sort of inside area. There are some exceptions like `building=ruins` building=ruins which is why I asked you about this area - I haven't been here, so it could have been all sorts of things.

Also, I should mention that we should never use Google or other unfree maps to verify anything. See
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Can_I_copy_from_google_or_other_similar_sources? Mapillary is of course okay and made for using for this.

P. S. Your locale is set to `en-US` so I used English, but I can reply in Latvian/Russian.

Es pielaboju ar changeset/128779524. Te vecais P28 palika pa way/672636141/history līdz way/199260488/history