The bot uses address data from https://data.gov.lv/dati/dataset/varis-atvertie-dati , which doesn't have these cadastral address assignments directly, just one address per location and the bot tries to place it at that location. I personally agree with you that the bot should not remove this, I'm just not sure how to implement this. Normally, the land owner is supposed to request VZD to fix the location. I'd like there to be a distance threshold in bot's logic to allow someone to manually "assign" a building on OSM. Or it could involve the bot parsing something like https://data.gov.lv/dati/dataset/kadastra-informacijas-sistemas-atvertie-dati/resource/2aeea249-6948-4713-92c2-e01543ea0f33 which I believe has data for each building. You'd need to talk to the bot author (on Zulip or something), I don't really know more technical details.

The short answer is because the official address point location is not on the church building, but away from it on a (non-existent/new) building outline in cadaster. It also looks like 51, not 49, which is already assigned to the building west.

Ēkas nav, bet ortofoto redzamas - tās kāds var atkal iezīmēt, ja atstāt kartē tukšu vietu. Daudz vietās tā pa jaunu tiek sazīmētas nojauktas ēkas, ceļi un viss kas.

Žogs ir gar ietvi, bet tikai līdz dienvidu sienai. Mapillary nevar redzēt uz sāniem; es pēc tam jaunākas bildes izlikšu. Es kartē atzīmēju to posmu.

Sveiki,

Ēkas nevajadzētu dzēst, kamēr tās redzamas ortofoto, ja neko citu to vietā neiezīmē. Jo pēc tam nav iespējams noteikt daudzus gadus, vai te ir neiezīmēta ēka un jebkurš cits to iezīmēs, kas bieži notiek. Te pat no kadastra vēl ēku kontūras nav noņemtas. Šeit arī adrešu punkti līdz ar ēkām nodzēsti (bots gan tos atjauno, bet vēsture elementiem pazūd). Un siena dienvidos šeit nemaz nav nojaukta.

Es atjaunoju.

Šādos gadījumos vislabāk lietot osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

The signs (at least the North one, but I assume both) have been replaced and now say "Anniņmuižas Jaunā pamatskola".

Sveiki,

Ja uz celiņiem nav veloceļu zīmes, tad tie nav veloceļi neatkarīgi no tā, kā to kāds kaut kur plānojis vai cik tas līdzīgs citiem celiņiem. Pēc CSN šeit ir parasts gājēju ceļš/ietve un nevar to atzīmēt kā veloceļu kartē. Ja pašvaldība uzliks zīmes, tad arī atzīmēsim.

Hello,

As mentioned before, changing the stops does not update the routes themselves. Please either update the transport routes when editing or leave a note or a review request so they can be reviewed and fixed. Otherwise, you are leaving an incorrect route layout and missing stops.

I have fixed the routes here.

Thanks

Yeah, I agree, this sucks and should probably remain a multipolygon until OSM has a proper site relation support for features with independent "parts". I was fixing a bunch of schools and started encountering this case with different values for parts, such as you cannot really use ref=* with multipolygon members because they are not areas as such - what happens if you split one of the ways? Now there are 2 outer ways - so do they both get a ref=*? And what if another feature uses the way - how does it know the ref isn't for it? But yeah, site relation doesn't seem like a better option either, so I changed it back to a multipolygon.

Kas šeit ir mainījies? Ir jāiezīmē izmaiņas tā, lai citiem kartētājiem vēlāk nerastos neskaidrības, jo tagad tas izskatās no ortofoto (un visticamāk vēl 3+ gadus tā izskatīsies) pēc neiezīmēta savienojuma un jebkurš to var pa jaunu iezīmēt. Jau iepriekš jautāju par blakus changeset/178731175 .

After checking these additions, a whole lot of these are non-existent and seemingly made up. Especially random street lights everywhere. Many duplicates, dubious tags, incorrect values, etc. I've reverted this edit. I am not sure the author actually surveyed any of this in person. Not sure what is even correct, but it all needs to be resurveyed.

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?