Hi! That was a mistake. I of course meant `man_made=yes`. There's a prominent feature, but I have no idea what it is, so I cannot be more specific. Here it is on Mapillary, but it's a bit distant:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=3371163416448544

Tegs lai norādītu plašu ceļu/celiņu/ietvi, kas nav speciāls laukums, parasti ir `area:highway` area:highway=* , konkrēti būtu area:highway=footway šajā gadījumā. Parasti gan tik mazus "laukumus" nezīmē. Jebkurā gadījumā tur celiņu kā līniju vajadzētu tikai vienu.

Par privātīpašumu un objektiem tajā runa ir par to lai kāds cits varētu pārbaudīt šo objektu. Ja to nevar redzēt no aerofoto, no ielas vai tas nav kaut kādos oficiālos datos, tad to vari apliecināt tikai tu, un tas padara to par nepārbaudāmu citiem. Nav jau tā, ka neviens netic. Bet teiksim pēc 20 gadiem to statīvu noņem, bet tu jau sen vairs nezīmē karti. Kā kāds cits var pārbaudīt vai tur vispār vēl ir tāds statīvs? Bet nu aizliegts jau nav to zīmēt, kaut gan liela varbūtība, ka kāds to ar laiku izdzēsīs šo iemeslu dēļ.

Sveiki!

Šādi sazīmēti celiņi way/1104387616 izskatās diezgan dīvaini. Vai tiešām tur ir 6 paralēli atsevišķi/atdalīti celiņi?

Un ņemot vērā, ka te ir privātīpašums, tad parasti sīki detaļas kartē nezīmē. Vairāk info osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information .

Tādas lietas kā privāti soli vai velo statīvi, kas nav publiski pārredzami, netiek iekļauti, jo tos nav iespējams pārbaudīt. Piemēram, ja kāds cits kartes zīmētājs gribētu pārbaudīt vai tiešām tur ir statīvs ar 1 vietu, tad viņiem nebūtu tāda iespēja - tas padara šo informāciju par nepārbaudāmu. Vairāk info osm.wiki/Verifiability .

Hi!

About some of the railways you added and extended. Please be careful adding them where they are not actually visible on location. See OSM Wiki for more info about this sort of tagging:
railway=abandoned . In short, segments such as way/1104490331 are not possible to see on the ground (here - there is a highway with no trace of railway), so they should not be mapped.

I'm not sure how much of the other features are still visible/present. If, for example, a switch like node/10106992116 no longer functions, then it should not be mapped as an existing feature. If it's still visible, then it probably needs one of the osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix prefixes . If it's completely gone, then it shouldn't be added at all.

In general, see osm.wiki/Demolished_Railway about this specific topic.

I didn't survey as much as you, but there were some private property signs and these looked like ghetto forest cabins, so I couldn't think of of anything better than residential other than to not map at all. I wouldn't tag is as camp site either as I don't think you can actually book anything here, can you? Unless we put "capacity" at like 0 for all or just make it private. I guess it's `historic=camp_site`, haha.

A lot of these buildings and parcels are on cadaster, so they can be traced. Not sure how accurate it is. I didn't use cadaster at the time, just added approximately.

I think the name is misleading. I bet it's a name that remained from when these were actual Soviet forest dachas, presumably rentable. The closest example I can think of is this place [1] which is probably mapped completely wrong. Or that place East of Gauja you put a note about. I don't know much more about their history.

But yeah, to sum up, I can't think of anything better even knowing more about it now.

[1] node/9442363367

I would probably not tag it as an islet if I added actual land cover tag(s), like scrub or wood or something.

Indeed, changed to islet.

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that we have an address bot in Latvia,[1] so you don't need to add addresses via StreetComplete.

If addresses are completely missing on a building, it is probably because the official address location is not where the building is located. If you think there's an error, you can leave a note and someone can check it out. For example, here the building was not correctly traced, so the address point was just outside it.

But any addresses you add or change will likely get deleted or reverted by the bot, because it is following the official Cadaster data,[2] which is not always the same as real-life objects.

[1] @latvia-bot
[2] https://www.kadastrs.lv/

Hi! I see you changed a lot of roads from residential to living streets. Are they all in living zones now? Many form unusual (for typical living zone layouts) connections to other residential roads and you only specified aerial imagery as a source for your change, so I am wondering if you are certain about these?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127054883

Also, please be careful not to connect individual physical features to boundaries, in this case railing way/1101272536 got connected to boundary way/199139718 .

Also, please don't replace crossings, like way/550285428 to way/1101062123 without preserving details. Exactly-mapped crossings start at the road (where the kerb would be, if it was mapped) and may have different values - surface, tactile paving, etc. Most crossing are not mapped to such detail, but you should not remove it if they are.

Also please be careful not to leave behind individual nodes like this crossing node/2386796014 after deleting the crossing way itself.

When changing building shape like way/71198467 , please make sure to not delete any previous tags and info, like an address. It is best to reuse the old way, which has the way's edit history, especially 7 revisions, like here.

Also note that due to tree cover your new shape was not accurate as you didn't add the South portion of the building.

With service roads like way/257816286 , they should only be marked as parking isles if they are actually adjacent to parking spaces, not simply leading into a parking lot -- see service=parking_aisle#Disambiguation

Also, as with another edit, you deleted cycleway tags from a cycleway to change it to sidewalk, like, for example, way/421653116 .

Please don't remove details by replacing multi-segment traffic islands with a pedestrian refuge with a single traffic island as with way/1101272518 . You can add `surface` to traffic island sections. In fact, `landuse=grass` is also not incorrect ( traffic_calming=island#Tags_to_use_in_combination )

Also, as with other edits, please don't replace footways with sidewalks when they don't have any direct access to the road, like, for example, way/553534532 , which has a guard rail in between.

When creating crossings like way/1101290648 please don't replace `highway=cycleway` with `highway=footway`. It is still a cycleway and thus a cycleway crossing (with `cycleway=crossing`).

Also, you replaced detailed mapping of parking locations with a single area with way/1101062146 - why are you removing such detail? One cannot park across driveways. You should retain them as parking spaces if you wanted to group them into the same "parking lot", but you should not be outright deleting them.

Hello,

Why are you removing cycleway tags from cycleways, like for example way/689069584 ?

Also, why are you changing regular footways into sidewalks when they are not adjacent to the road, but merely parallel or not even so, like, for example, way/689069122 ?

Sveiki! Pielaboju izmaiņu nedaudz.

Velo remonta stacijai nomainīju krāsu uz `colour=yellow`, iekš OSM tiek lietoti angļu krāsu nosaukumi (vai kodi).

Stacijai arī nevajadzētu būs savienotai ar skolas teritoriju. OSM nesavieno elementus, kas ir iekš teritorijas ar pašu teritorijas robežu.

Nebūtu korekti likt skolas teritorijai `access=no` - tas nozīmē, ka piekļuve nav ļauta nevienam no publikas. Principā `access` ir pārsvarā legāliem ierobežojumiem. Te varētu būt ierobežojumi, ja pie visām teritorijas ieejām/piekļuvēm būtu tādas zīmes, kā "nepiederošiem aizliegts" vai citādi. Vispārēji, skolas teritorijām reti kad tiek lietots `access`, jo tas reti kad ir tik visaptveroši un ierobežojoši. To varētu likt atsevišķiem celiņiem, ieejām, stāvvietām, utt., ja tur nav vai ir speciāli atļauts (ne)piederošiem.

Hi! I undid the change of way/135837531 from unclassified to track. It's not a track - it's a wide maintained LVM road going through the forest, but not a track.