Hello,

Just to let you know, the lake you added was already mapped as way/123171980 before, so I deleted the duplicate. Not sure if this is a bug with the editor you used and you didn't see the already-drawn lake.

Sveiki!

Pamanīju, ka esi pievienojis `bicycle=designated` vairākām ietvēm/celiņiem (piemēram, way/1051590254/history vai way/689019882/history).

Vai tie visi tiešām ir ar ceļa zīmi apzīmēti veloceliņi (kopēji/dalīti)?

Paldies.

Sveiki!

Ar šo izmaiņu way/230683048/history bija nomainīts no `highway=secondary` uz `highway=path`. Tā kā tas ir LVC ceļš, tas neizskatās pareizi, tāpēc es nomainīju atpakaļ. Es pieņemu, ka tā bija vienkārši kļūda?

Paldies.

Thanks for detailed reply. Yeah, I'm aware this is a common topic. And, yes, both methods are valid. I'm not saying that you should use one or the other. I'm only asking to not convert between them at scale, i.e. not remove separate sidewalks if someone has already drawn them.

The data is not poor quality either way. Routers just don't properly handle pedestrian routing. I agree separate sidewalk routing has issues. But integrated sidewalks have equally many problems. They treat sidewalks as if you can always access the road and cross anywhere. Both suck for routing.

If we are talking about examples, here's an example with sidewalk=both that sends you across 4 lanes of traffic because it thinks you can "jump" from one side of the road to the other:

osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=56.93715%2C24.22460%3B56.93692%2C24.22554

I'm not saying this is or isn't better with either sidewalk method. Integrated sidewalks sometimes produce these impossible routes. And separate sidewalks usually take the long way around. I'm just saying that both suck at routing.

I don't want to repeat everything that has been said on the topic in many places. But, in these examples, my argument for separately-mapped sidewalks is the potential additional information that I mentioned - for wheelchairs or strollers or mobility- or vision-impaired users or just anyone wanting to avoid kerbs and arbitrary crossings or prefer verges and non-adjacent sidewalks. Or just using the map visually for navigation outside motor vehicle. There are a couple active StreetComplete users in the area adding a lot of kerbs, crossings, tactile and other mobility information. This wouldn't be possible for them with integrated sidewalks.

Again, I'm not saying that you should switch to separate sidewalk mapping or add such details. But if someone has already added separate sidewalks, it is easier in the future to add more details. So at least you should not remove them.

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?