That topo map isn't the same as VZD data. I'm not entirely sure how they assemble and edit it and how often (I've never looked into it). I don't think kartes.lgia.lv actually has any map with street lines, because the lines are often messy. You would need to parse https://data.gov.lv/dati/dataset/varis-atvertie-dati or use one of the internal layers from LGIA/LVM WMS service such as [1].

Many roads are represented by just one line, so when in reality there are several parallel roads, it's often down to mapper judgement. For example, the northwest end of that street is actually Stacijas iela, which turns around the corner.

[1] https://lvmgeoserver.lvm.lv/geoserver/ows?FORMAT=image/jpeg&VERSION=1.3.0&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=public:Orto_LKS,publicwfs:Kadastra_karte,publicwfs:arisstreet,publicwfs:arisroad,publicwfs:arisbuilding&STYLES=&CRS={https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}

Those don't have an official name either. Only the main highway has a street name in the VZD street line data.

VZD and VARIS are the same "source", broadly speaking. VZD is the state agency that maintains the VAR(IS) address database.

For the purposes of SC, these should normally be tagged noname=yes. But, as you say, street signs on the ground are ambiguous, so how could one know. Ideally, we will map all street names from the database directly first, so SC doesn't really need to offer this quest (like they don't offer some other address-related ones anymore in Latvia).

From experience, in Latvia may be 1% of street lines have offshoots into side roads. Normally, these are either not named or named differently. There are many crazy streets layouts, but most often street lines are just continuous lines without branching. So if you see the name on the main road, offshoots more than likely don't actually have the same name, at least in the official data.

By the way, you can specify `source:name=sign` to show that a street is named based on the signage. This usually happens for non-official and local names. That is, someone looking at this on-the-ground would conclude that this is the name. Unfortunately, it seems that in this location the Council installed the sign without properly defining street lines for VZD/VARIS. So the road doesn't have an official street name even though the sign points to it. I don't think we have a clear consensus in Latvia what to do about such cases.

Hi!

Thanks for your edit. I fixed the road connection and classification here.

I wanted to ask what the "Via Klapia" name is exactly? Does it appear somewhere, like on a sign or local map? If this is a just private driveway, then we wouldn't map the name unless it was publicly well-known for some reason. Normally only official names are set for roads.

Thanks

Ups, saspaidīju kaut ko un nepamanīju.

No worries and it's always good to have more mappers. A lot of data is out of date and even incorrect, so it's always helpful to fix and update it.

P. S. We can switch to Latvian in the future if you prefer.

Hello,

Thanks for you map changes! A few notes.

It's not necessary to specify source on each road/feature. It is enough to specify the sources for the changeset when uploading. In fact, having sources on elements makes it harder to maintain the data long-term, since there would be way too many and they will go out of date quickly.

When drawing roads to individual properties, these should be driveways highway=service + service+driveway not tracks. Tracks are land access roads in forests and meadows and such. While driveways are "final" approach roads that lead to properties. There is some variation and it's often necessary to check the cadaster layer to see what properties roads pass through.

Some of the roads you drew did not connect to the other roads, like way/1465690426 , which means they would not work for navigation. Make sure to snap road connection in the editor (there usually is a warning before upload).

I have fixed the above issues.

I should note that a lot of the data on the map, especially in rural areas is old and might not be correctly tagged, so be aware if using it as examples.

Cheers

Hello,

You are again changing compacted to unpaved, which is incorrect. Please see the comments at changeset/177016291.

You are also mass-changing road classification and it's still not clear what criteria you are using.

Cerams, ka izlaboju ar changeset/176998075 . Man visi dati ar dienu kavēšanos no dump`iem, tāpēc nevarēšu uzreiz pārbaudīt un salīdzināt visu.

I am not sure how JOSM managed to do this, but I think JOSM got confused by version synchronization and failed to sync with revert + changes data merge and "uploaded" all elements even though none of them are actually modified. I'm also not sure why OSM server allowed an empty change like this...

Hmm, interesanti, kāpēc tā sanāca. Es it kā pārbaudīju sarakstu. Te pat nosaukums pilnīgi cits un it kā nekādīgi nesaistīti. Paskatīšos visu vēlreiz. Paldies, ka pamanīji.

I haven't reviewed all edits, but I also think some of the road classification is incorrect, because these changes modify individual segments but break the overall hierarchy of the network. Like the road in this changeset - the east side of it now mismatches. I don't personally know all these roads, but for example way/45184870 seems wrong and similarly splits road hierarchy while equating it to nearby roads that are definitely of lesser significance.

Hello,

Please don't change compacted surface to unpaved. "Unpaved" is a generic term - it can be anything from mud to gravel. Compacted is a more accurate value than unpaved, if this road is compacted (which most unpaved rural roads in Latvia are). By removing this value, you are making the data less precise. If your navigator doesn't understand this value, then contact the developers and ask them to fix it. If anything, compacted is a better surface than what you can assume from plain unpaved.

surface=*#Unpaved

Hello,

As mentioned before, please do not retag areas into farmyards unless that's what they actually are. You are not just adding, but mass-converting residential areas to farmyards. Farmyards on OSM have a specific meaning and not what you are mapping. Please read what landuse=farmyard says. You are creating incorrect map data making it look like Latvia is covered with farmyards when in reality most of these locations do not engage in any farming or livestock keeping.

To return to the original query, to really simplify it:

Rīgas Nami calls it "Benjamiņas laukums". They manage the area, so they can call it and its features whatever they want. Per OSM Verifiability principle, it is shown that a feature's name comes from a reputable source. No other source gives it a different name. Tag `name` is used for such names. Therefore, `name=Benjamiņas laukums`.

I linked you several relevant pages. If you don't think the name should be here, you should demonstrate how it conflicts with OSM and not some other map or plan.

The one relevant thing to OSM you mentioned, which could be a concern, is that it "misleads users that it is infact official name/adress of this square". But OSM makes no such claim. This was the very first question I asked you that you never replied to. Who are these users? Who from Riga Council is confused?

Wrong relation, fixed in changeset/176577938

Ups, jā. Izlaboju.

Vienīgais Polijā viņi pārsimts (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hW5). Iespējams tur tirgo sporta preces un apģērbus, bet Latvijā tikai apģērbus pārsvarā. Tad iespējams jādala NSI ieraksts Latvijai nodalīts. Bet NSI drošvien pateiks, ka 4 ieraksti ir pa maz priekš atsevišķa ieraksta... Es nezinu, kā NSI risina šitādus gadījumus.

Izskatās, ka redaktorā tulkojums latviski lietots ar "bruģis" = `sett` un ar "bruģakmens" = `paving_stones`. Tas gan nav pareizs tulkojums vai vismaz ļoti mulsinošs. (Tīri precīzi "bruģis" ir ceļa seguma veids, bet "bruģakmeņi" ir paši akmeņi, kas var būt betons, plakans, apaļš.) Šeit izskatās, ka tulkojums ir vienkārši nepareizs un otrādi ielikts.

Skatoties latviešu tulkojumus, ļoti daudz diemžēl izskatās nepareizi (iespējams mašīntulkoti), tāpēc laikam pirmreizēji būtu vērts apskatīt kādu vērtību reāli tas tulkojums ieliek. Personīgi, man redaktors angļu valodā, tāpēc neesmu sastapies ar šo līdz šim un nebiju aizdomājies par šo.

Es pamēģināšu redaktorā tulkojumu izlabot un iesniegt labojumu. Pagaidām gan būs kā ir.

Sveiki vēlreiz, šai un citām ietvēm segums nav `sett`, bet `paving_stones`. `sett` OSM nozīmē ir `cobblestone` variants - noapaļotu vienmērīgi saliktu veselu akmeņu bruģakmens. Latvijā gandrīz visur jaunie segumi ir tikai `paving_stones` ar vienlaidus ciešiem "ķieģeļiem", bet `sett` vai `unhewn_cobblestone` no akmeņiem ir palicis tikai vēsturiskās vietās vai arī, ja veidots kaut kādiem dekoratīviem mērķiem. Jelgavā piemēram pie pils vai vecajā centrā ir pāris ielas un celiņi sett, bet kopš tā būvētais praktiskās vietās ir gandrīz tikai paving_stones.

paving_stones: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=601352485625022&focus=photo

sett: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=556798790826629&focus=photo / https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=4121163301493349&focus=photo

unhewn_cobblestone: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=552224007143304&focus=photo

surface=paving_stones