Skaidrs, paldies. Nomainīju tad uz parastu ielu.

Sveiki,

Gribēju pārliecināties, vai Mazā Pils iela tiešām ir dzīvojamā iela, t.i. dzīvojamā zonā ar zilo zīmi?

To be fair, I use iD for 99% of things and only some very specific complicated things on JOSM. It's just too cumbersome for normal editing. But you can do some cool specialized things.

JOSM, File -> Undelete object, w####.

(Alternatively, reverting all changeset, but only uploading specific selected elements also works if many are needed, which is basically a partial revert.)

Oh yeah, nobody checks street photos ;) I'm pretty sure most mappers are not even aware of it. You are more diligent than like 95% of mappers to check street imagery.

By the way, it's best to use the original element to preserve the history for these, i.e. way/34176909/history . That way, anyone actually looking at what this was before can easily see the dates and changes and sources and stuff like that. Obviously, this is a tiny location no one cares about and there's not much confusion (and you even left a note), but as a general consideration.

I think the problem here is that someone can easily map this as parking again. Our current aerial is going to be the latest for probably years. This should be something like was:amenity=parking, so no one accidentally redraws it, which is a common problem with old aerials (and in this case even with fresh aerial, it's not obvious).

Hello,

I made some fixes around here. Just wanted to clarify - the road now extends slightly further and there is a culvert for the ditch under it?

Hi, no worries. In general, it is best not to survey/tag things in winter that are impossible to determine. But if you are local and you know the surface, then that's fine. On aerial, these look like typical dirt informal paths.

Ground is more generic that dirt. It just means there's no man-made surface. For example, in a forest you might have a mix of grass, dirt, roots, pebbles, leaves, moss, etc. - so it's not really possible to say what one thing it is exactly. While specifically dirt is just the exposed earth layer without vegetation. It's rare in cities to have actual recognisable grass paths - they get quickly stomped out.

In the case of real-life dirt+grass mix, I would still put it as dirt, because that's the surface that indicates the path through the grass and differentiates it from the surrounding grass. Personally, I just leave it as ground most of the time exactly because of the question you ask. It's never going to be precise for these informal paths that are just exposed and stomped dirt lines through what used to be grass. I just recommend not putting specifically grass, but both generic ground or more exact dirt is fine.

The problem is that you are mass editing all over the world without any discussion with a vague changeset comment and apparently only to quiet down a validator warning. And you are still doing it despite the comment above. Where has it been decided to mass insert nodes to long ways? Which "practical constraints and community standards" are you referring to?

How are you determining the surface of these paths in the middle of winter with snow cover? How do you know this is grass and not dirt/ground?

This does not look like a handlebar holder type parking, this looks like typical frame-supporting stands.

Sveiki, kas šajā vietā ir mainījies? Pēdējo reizi te vēl bija uz sāniem iebraucams https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1146228850708870&focus=photo . Vai tagad šeit ir zāle vai kas cits?

This is not a detached house, this is an apartment building.

building=detached

Hi,

Just wanted to let you know, while I think this change (secondary -> primary) is probably correct, please be careful when relying on official documents for such changes, especially city/municipality ones. They have their own classification, rules, principles that vary between locations, municipalities and cities, and they do not always match OSM classification, which is based on functional usage on the ground and not things like for example planning documents, which may range from accurate to purely hypothetical. For major changes, it is best to discuss such edits first.

I think I was probably treating this as "private service area" rather than "public road" where cars shouldn't go. I guess you are right that there is no traffic sign or otherwise forbidding this (like your second example). Although I cannot imagine it's intended for cars to turn around here or something when, for example, drivers often walk between buses and accessing doors and such. But, yes, it's not disallowed explicitly. I don't have strong feelings on this, so I retagged it to be "more public".

Whoops, no, I didn't realize there was a proposed tag on the area when I merged node here. I don't know why it was retagged to that when the older node was still there. And I don't actually know if there's a playground or not here. I will fix it to playground tag for now. But I guess survey needed. I've never been through here. 2020 mapillary shows this as outdoor exercise area.

I honestly don't remember exactly why. But I probably tagged it like that because regular vehicles are not supposed to go here. Like, this is equivalent to private territory for bus use plus presumably employees (who according to sign may stop briefly but not park). Do you think it shouldn't be tagged like that?

Hey, no worries. It's a little bit confusing, because there are so many types of crossings worldwide, but OSM also has to capture local variations in a standard way. There is some subjectiveness to this. The difference in this location is the intention of the crossing. Generally in cities, if there are lowered kerbs and/or the crossing is a logical connection between the sidewalks, then from OSM perspective it is a crossing, specifically one that is unmarked - no signs or zebra. Think of it in terms of navigation - would someone walking along the sidewalk cross the road here normally? In contrast, an informal crossing is something where a crossing is not intended/planned/built/expected at all, but is still legal and people frequently use it.

There's a brief explanation at crossing=informal#Similar_tags

Please note that crossings are almost never informal if they are a continuation of sidewalks, like in this location with lowered kerbs. In this case, these are just unmarked crossings.

Hello,

You specified there are no lane markings visible here, but there are on aerial imagery. Can you please clarify if something has changed here?