Sorry for not replying earlier.

The issue is that you are conflating what OSM records and what is "official". OSM is a global geospatial database and while it generally records what is official locally, that doesn't imply that OSM won't map something if it's not official. OSM maps what is "on the ground".[1] So, as in this example, OSM records names if they are shown to exist even conceptually. It doesn't have to be part of VZD address data, nor any Council documents, nor official square designation, nor UNESCO plans, etc. - it just has to verifiably exist.[2] Similarly, a "square" in OSM is not defined based on local designations, but what is there on the ground - broadly, an urban paved area with various urban features around some buildings. You may be used to maps like LĢIA official data layers and Jāņa sēta renders and even Google/Apple maps that gather their data from primarily official sources. But OSM is not limited to that, which is the whole point of OSM - to be an open map that isn't restricted like that. OSM is often much more detailed and record many more features and data about them. For example, just the name tagging itself has dozens of variants.[3] In general, OSM maps what is correct rather than what may or may not appear when rendered on some map.[4]

Your reply is quite long and you touch upon a lot of different concepts, so I cannot really reply to every point. For example, features that are part of UNESCO would be recorded as heritage tagging scheme[5] as UNESCO sites, VKPAI sites, etc. You wouldn't judge what is or isn't a heritage site or location (or name) based on what some particular map renders, but whether it is tagged as heritage site and associated with a particular heritage-tracking body. The same argument applies to all the other points - having a name is not limited to any particular source or feature.

In any case, this name can be easily verified as used by sources. This isn't even the typical case where we can't find any mentions. This is more than enough to include the name.

[1] osm.wiki/Ground_truth

[2] osm.wiki/Verifiability

[3] osm.wiki/Names

[4] osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

[5] heritage=*

You have added incorrect floor count again. Please see and reply to the previous message about this at changeset/175816841 . I have reverted your edit.

Please do not add tags to existing area elements like this that contain more than just grass within them. Here, it's obviously dozens of buildings, roads, footways and much more.

Sveiki,

Lūdzu norādi avotu šai izmaiņai priekš autortiesībām un verificēšanas. OSM visiem datiem un importiem ir jābūt ar avotu, ja tie nav pašsaprotami.

Please don't change landuse=grass into natural=grassland. Grassland is wild grass normally outside urban environments that isn't regularly mowed and maintained. There is almost never grassland like that in places like this. Almost all grassy areas here are maintained and part of urban properties.

You have again mass-deleted dozens of existing features (ditches, landuse, trees, etc.) mapped by others and replaced with many incorrectly-tagged features instead. I have reverted your edit since you are ignoring requests to stop doing this. You can restore your changes *without* deleting existing elements and tagging everything correctly.

Please do not use AI tools if you are not going to properly review the edits. Here you added a duplicate building way/1422915906 . Here buildings are overlapping way/1422915888 . This is clearly only half a building way/1422915886 . This building overlaps a fence way/1422915894 . This way is drawn through a fence and over grass way/1422915909 . And other issues. Please fix these errors and others in the changeset and any other changesets that used AI tools.

Can you please clarify the above question since you are continuing to edit, but have not replied yet.

These tiny waterways are definitely not rivers. Please don't change minor waterways to such high classifications. Rivers are major waterways, for example you could normally drive a boat there, you cannot cross without a major bridge, etc., not these sort of overgrown minor melioration ditches and streams.

Ļoti līdzīgas ir arī daudzas citas izmaiņas, kur pievienotas ne-luksoforu pārejas. Es pieņemu, ka nepareizi izvēlēts redaktorā. Lūgums apskatīt vērtības crossing=* un redaktorā izvēlēties atbilstošo uz nākotni.

You removed some valid oneway tags from ways here like way/846345814/history. Please be more careful.

Šajā izmaiņā ir veloceļš nomainīts uz ietvi, kas šeit, cik zinu, nav pareizi. Vai te kaut kas ir mainījies vai arī kas bija domāts ar šo izmaiņu?

Dalot un zīmējot šādus lielus ceļus atsevišķi ir jāņem vērā, ka šeit ir autobusu maršruti, pagriezienu ierobežojumi, esošas ceļu un pāreju vērtības un citas nianes. Lielu ceļu, kā šeit ir ļoti uzmanīgi jādala. Šādām izmaiņām vajadzēs iepazīties ar daudziem OSM sīkumiem.

Šeit diemžēl ļoti daudz problēmu un to labošana ir ļoti laikietilpīga, tāpēc šo izmaiņu pagaidām atcēlu.

Šajā izmaiņā gājēju pārejas nomainītas no luksofora pārejām uz tikai zebru, kas šajā vietā nav pareizi. Kas tieši šajā izmaiņā bija domāts?

Sveiki,

Ar footway=sidewalk apzīmē tikai celiņus, kas ir gar brauktuvi un CSN izpratnē ir ietves ar īpašiem nosacījumiem. Parastus celiņus kā piemēram way/1065908822 it īpaši ārpus ceļu infrastruktūras kā ietves noteikti neapzīmē.

Why did you delete the platforms and ways here? What has changed here? Where is the boarding for Jaunkalsnava now?

You have double-drawn some ways here like way/1457068390 and way/1457068392 .

You deleted a road instead of reusing or correcting it way/804415110 . After that, you left this road way/804415109 unconnected.

You drew multiple buildings twice on top of existing ones like way/1457068398 or way/1457068396 .

This way way/1457068375 didn't have any tags.

Many service roads were mistagged as drive-throughs, which definitely does not fit here.

Please be more careful mapping. JOSM was certainly showing you warnings about several of these issues, especially overlapping features. Please review your changes before uploading.

Why did you delete this road way/500076230 ? It is clearly visible on aerial. Has something changed here?

Please double-check this edit - this was previously (and is still partly) mapped with directional speed limits. As mentioned previously, please check maxspeed:type values. What has changed here recently?

Like the other changeset, what is your source for these speed limits? These are very specific values you added to what is non-public territory. So how did you acquire this data and where can it be verified?