Please do not change living street roads like [1] into other types if they are within a living zone and are public roads, such as these courtyard roads. This is still a living zone even if normally these would just be service roads.

Also, please use `path` for unofficial ground paths without infrastructure, not `footway` such as [2] - unless something has changed here. You didn't update the surface value, so it's not clear what you intended to do here. The path was not yet paved about a month ago.

[1] osm.org/way/122255633

[2] osm.org/way/1419989843

Ā, tagad sapratu, paldies.

Sveiki,

Kas bija nepareizi biroja nosaukumā ( https://www.lvm.lv/jaunumi/7146-valmiermuiza-atklaj-lvm-rietumvidzemes-regiona-klientu-centru ). Ja nepieciešams atdalīt struktūrvienību, tad name=Latvijas valsts meži un branch=Rietumvidzemes reģiona klientu centrs .

Pieminēšu vēl, ka te arī nav pielikts office=* tegs un pašlaik nosaukums sanāk pašai ēkai nevis birojam, bet tas arī pirms tam nebija.

Aha, skaidrs. Jā, tad tas būs ED gļuks.

P.S. Es gan te drošvien liktu bollard šiem.

Sveiki,

A kas tie ir par bluķiem šeit? Viens (tagad izdzēsts) bija uz ceļa, otrs pašlaik ir uz ietves.

Hello, why did you change these cycleway sections into sidewalks? Has something changed here? I have reverted the changeset for now.

Es noņēmu; es pirms tam neaiztiku, kamēr bija komentārs, lai nebūtu putra.

Nu jā, Latvijā vienmēr ir bijis maz kartētāju, tāpēc kaut kādas kļūdas vai nepilnības var ļoti ilgu laiku nepamanīt un neviens to nepieminēs. Pārskatīt citu lietotāju izmaiņas arī ļoti daudz laiku aizņem. Un, ja katrs pats nelasa un neseko par katru sīkumu OSM wiki, forumos u.c. tad tiešām visas laika gaitā izmaiņas un precizējumus nav iespējams nosekot. Līdz šai dienai labojam 201x agro gadu importus. Bet kopš tiem laikiem daudz kas ir salīdzinoši tiešām daudz standartizētāks (bet arī kartēt nozīmīgi grūtāk, jo jāņem vērā viss iepriekš kartētais un vēl liels daudzums nianšu).

Es tavu rusjanis kontu daudzās vietās elementu vēsturē redzēju, jā. Bet arī tev piemēram vecais konts ir izdzēsts un, pat ja uzrakstīt komentāru izmaiņai, tu to neieraudzīsi, piemēram osm.org/changeset/143487301.

Skaidrs, paldies par skaidrojumu. Laikam tur kaut kas mainījies, pirms dažiem gadiem varēja izbraukt, vismaz iziet noteikti. Pēc kadastra te viss ir viens īpašums kopā ar dzīvokļu māju, tāpēc grūti neklātienē saprast.

Vai no otras puses arī ir vārti vai kaut kas? Jo ceļš joprojām sanāk publisks, tikai cauri vārtiem nevar izbraukt.

Runa par šiem punktiem - osm.org/node/10912828490 un osm.org/node/13124449313.

OSM apgriešanās aizliegumus kartē tikai, ja tam ir CSN vai līdzīgs pamatojums - parasti zīme(s) vai līnija. Citos gadījumos, apgriešanās ir atļauta. Vai tas ir fiziski iespējams tiek kartēts ar piemēram ceļa platumu un nomaļu esamību, un ir atkarīgs no katra paša. Jo aizliegums apgriezties attiecas uz visiem transporta veidiem, no mašīnām un motocikliem līdz autobusiem un velosipēdiem.

Aizliegumus nevar noteikt tikai no automašīnām. Piemēram, šajos punktos nekas netraucētu apgriezties velosipēdam (bet šis ierobežojums to aizliedz). Bet autobuss vispār reti kur apgriezīsies (bet visos citos punktos nekas nav kartēts par to). Tāpēc, ja tas nav oficiāls aizliegums, tad tas ir subjektīvi un tādus OSM nekartē.

Hi,

This is a living street/zone, so the speed limit here is 20 and not 50 unless something has changed here recently? I undid the changeset for now.

HI,

Just to let you know, this section osm.org/way/1427747153 is in fact 30 not 50. When setting road speed limits, you usually would have to travel along the whole road in case of extra signs like this.

Hi, please be aware that OSM does not follow official classification exactly and rather builds a logical road network based on function and use. For example, don't change small deadend roads to high classification or downgrade roads when they form network connections between classes. Official classification is a starting point and these often match, but these are also wrong, especially on municipality level. OSM instead builds a hierarchical network where road class gradually branches out based on how the roads are actually used and what they actually connect.

Varētu lūdzu precizēt, kas tieši šeit ir domāts iekartēt un kas šeit ir mainījies? Vārti ir krustojuma punktā, bet tiem vajadzētu būt uz ceļa kā barjerai. Vārtiem ir norādīta privāta piekļuve, bet visiem transporta veidiem atļauts - tātad sanāk aizliegts tikai gājējiem. Kāpēc dzīvojamā zona šeit beidzas posmā - vai te ir tagad kaut kādas jaunas zīmes?

Sveiki,

Kāpēc tieši šeit nevarētu apgriezties? Nepārtrauktās līnijas te nav. Aizliegumi ar ceļa zīmēm arī šeit nav.

Thanks for elaborating on how you are using this data. It's always difficult to know what the reasons, motivations or intentions of changes are without some more communication.

Yes, as I said, the signage here is really stupid and practically covers pretty much all cases, but that's not what it legally means. And OSM tags have specific well-defined meanings.

To elaborate on terminology. "General traffic" on OSM means "everyone", same as it means for all other similar tags, like access, weight/height restrictions, parking rules, etc. It means - everyone unless there is an exception via a sign, some rule or otherwise.

"Maximum" does not refer to the maximum between different signs/modes, it refers only to the maximum for that specific target. It can lowered, it can be raised, it can be cancelled, it can be an exception or the default. It all depends on the actual signage and traffic laws. This is true for all restrictions for all sorts of things - maximums, minimums, advisory, etc.

To explain this even more. Let's say every road in Riga is tagged with `maxspeed=50`. That is the default and applies to everyone. Then some roads have a 30 sign - for everyone. This cancels and lowers the normal limit for everyone and sets a different one. So it becomes `maxspeed=30`. It could also be a 70 sign. Then it raises the limit to `maxspeed=70` for everyone. Then some roads have a 30 sign but for HGVs only. This does not cancel the normal limit for everyone. This only changes the limit for HGVs. So it becomes `maxspeed=50` + `maxspeed:hgv=30`. And in very rare cases, you might even have something like a 70 sign for cars. So it raises the limit for cars only. So it would be `maxspeed=50` + `maxspeed:motorcar=70`. This is the case on this road, just taken to a (silly) extreme.

I would like to help you with your issue, sure. So I understand your app/service is having trouble with this exception. But be aware that it would also have issues with any other locations where the signs reduce or increase the speed for the specific modes of transport. These are infrequent in Latvia and generally in the world, but also there are plenty of such examples. And that's just scratching the surface of the real-world complexity. And these are the same rules used for access restrictions and many other rules.

Whatever routing or speed detection software you are using, you need to tell the developers to actually parse/implement the correct OSM tags. These tags have existed for a long time, so these are not new or obscure. They are also designed to be logical and machine-readable and parsable. This just takes a little more care in implementation than reading a single `maxspeed` value and assuming it's always valid.

If your ride-sharing is using cars, then it should be using the value hierarchy `maxspeed:motorcar` -> `maxspeed:motor_vehicle` -> `maxspeed:vehicle` -> `maxspeed` in that order of priority. This is the same hierarchy as used by access and you can see the full list here osm.wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation . So if there is a `maxspeed:motorcar`, then it does not matter what `maxspeed` or `maxspeed:vehicle` is - it's the `maxspeed:motorcar` that matters, like in this example. More specific mode of transport overrides the less specific one. This is why `maxspeed=50` + `maxspeed:hgv=30` means 30 for HGVs not 50 - the `:hgv` overrides the broader limit. And same is true for `maxspeed=50` + `maxspeed:motorcar=90` - the `:motorcar` overrides the default limit, even if it's in the "other direction".

When in real-life there are differences between modes of transport like this, the software will indeed have to actually consider which mode of transport it's for. `maxspeed` only describes the most broad legal value. Then additional subtags describe differences and exceptions. And I should mention there are also many incomplete, inaccurate and plain wrong values in the map data. As we slowly improve previously-inaccurately tagged roads like this one, it's inevitable that some software will break if it hasn't actually implemented tag parsing correctly.

The road like osm.org/way/1117665582 in your last example is set to `maxspeed=70` because it has a single general traffic speed limit sign that applies to everyone - https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1240676136946087&focus=photo . It's not an exception for cars or something like, it's for everyone. This is what almost all speed limit signs are like in Latvia, yes. Luckily, this also means software that only parses one value gets the right value. But that's just due to the tags are designed to have sensible hierarchy and traffic signs are usually logical.

I know this is already a lot of information for a complex topic. But just for your consideration, take this road as an example: osm.org/way/826601696 - it has `maxspeed=50` + `maxspeed:conditional=30 @ (Mo-Fr 07:00-19:00)`. Does your software think this road is always 50? Because for practical purposes, most of the time it's actually 30. I realise that most software does not implement every rule (especially complex conditions) like this and mostly responds only when users complain. But as I mentioned the real-world is messy.

Let me know if you have questions, I'm happy to answer them and direct you to whatever resources I am aware of.

So the case we have here is this sign combination: https://imgur.com/VsiC1py . This is definitely not how it's usually (and logically) done, but that's what we have.

The relevant subsection from the article would be osm.wiki/Key:maxspeed#Vehicles

In this case, there is no signed speed limit for "general traffic" for the primary `maxspeed`. The speed limit for general traffic here is 50, implied by default urban speed limit. Then the signs set the *exceptions* for specific transport modes to 90 and 70.

Now, is the sign combination here stupid and does the 70/90 limit cover 99.9% of practical cases? Yes. But technically it does not cover bicycles, quads/tricycles, mopeds, horse carriages, electric scooters, different types of psvs or any other legally-distinct transport modes that those supplementary signs don't apply to. That is the result of car-centrically signing exceptions like this - they will not apply to all cases. So we also reflect that into `maxspeed` subtags.

If the signs were instead more logically set like this similar to your example: https://imgur.com/x1kuE61 , then, yes, it would be `maxspeed=90` + `maxspeed:hgv/bus=70` because the top sign would refer to everyone, i.e. "general traffic", and the 70 is an exception.

You didn't link anything in your last message, so I'm not sure which area you are referring to. I am sure there are still many errors and mistakes with max speed tagging, but I would have to see the exact example to say more. If there is only 70 sign and nothing else, then yes, it would be just `maxspeed=70` for everyone.

Hello,

Can you please check the existing tags and element history before changing them. It was previously already mentioned to be more careful with max speed tagging. All the speed restrictions are tagged here exactly. This road is in the city limit and the urban default speed is 50. The 90 is an exception for cars and motorcycles given by signs on each segment.

Oh, by the way, osm.org/way/168320202 is actually signed as a shared cycleway from the NW end (but it's the only sign along here). I biked by here today and noticed it and thought to myself "hold on, has this always been here?" So that would actually probably solve your example if we retag this. (Of course, the whole routing issue is broader than that.)

Hello,

I undid your change here because the default speed limit is not 90. It is the default 50 within urban/city limit with 90 being an exception for cars and motorcycles specifically. This is already fully correctly tagged in subkeys matching what the traffic signs show.

Yeah, I have tried to generate cycle routing in many engines and they all feel like beta versions. I wish there was an easy country-based solution to routing that didn't require everyone to jump through hoops, but I also believe OSM needs to be consistent not just at a country level but worldwide level to remain useful and competitive. Adding inconsistent data now will inevitably lead to maintenance for decades to come. I think this is the view held by most mappers with allowance for discrete exceptions. I guess I digress a little here, but since you mentioned motivations, I certainly err on the side of correct (whatever that means) in long-term.

You mention a trend to remove `bicycle=yes`. One thing I will disagree with is describing removing `bicycle=yes` as a trend rather than the trend that people have been *adding* `bicycle=yes` without broader discussion, without referring to any OSM guidelines and generally using personal experience. The few mappers I have asked either mentioned a specific router they had issues with, did not yet understand the traffic laws or just didn't really understand what access tags mean. In any case, there was never any broader discussion to fix such broad router issues with local OSM data changes. This sort of `bicycle=yes` tagging on sidewalks was literally everywhere from major trunk sidewalks to random living street sidewalks to sidewalks literally next to cycling infrastructure. So I did remove all of it fairly indiscriminately, although I did look at each place briefly and I'm more or less personally familiar with all of them. That said, places like bridges or your example are certainly one of the most likely candidates to be an exception.

I would be curious to see how mappers deal with what routers do in all the other countries that have similar rules to Latvia. In fact, Latvia is one of the last "developed" countries to actually add the explicit "no bicycles on sidewalks except..." and make an "official statement".[1] Many other countries have had this codified for a long time. And terrible routing is certainly not exclusive to Latvia.[2] "Avoid bicycles on sidewalks" is pretty much the default scoring for all routers. It's just that we have so little cycling infrastructure that it's incredibly obvious. And it's not even sidewalks, routers just bias roads a lot.[3] And given that this is a systemic problem with routers, I don't see how we can solve it on OSM end. Like, if every other sidewalk we map needs to be an exception, then clearly something else is fundamentally wrong.

The "solution" to connect the cycleway to the highway is technically how it's usually done, yes, at the end of cycleways that have to merge into traffic. It would be incredibly stupid here, but that is the legal "primary" route with sidewalk being the alternative. Although I should note in this particular example, I don't think any of the default routers will score the route to actually use the trunk road over other sidewalk "alternatives" and it's already connected to the trunk at the crossing. Even cycle.travel, which is arguably the best cycle router, does crazy stuff in this location (although it does actually route along the trunk road in this section if you put the points apart).

[1] https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/dzive--stils/motori/lukstins-ietve-ir-paredzeta-tikai-un-vienigi-gajejiem-velosipediem-iznemuma-gadijumos.a127199/
[2] osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_bicycle&route=60.384%252C23.127111%253B60.383931%252C23.125663
[3] osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bicycle&route=57.313513%252C24.41389%253B57.311653%252C24.412565