Hello,

Please do not connect waterways to railway bridges - these are features that do not intersect and are on different layers.

I corrected the three placed on Latvia border.

Thanks

Ar mācību iestādēm ar tiem avotiem katrai pašvaldībai ir savā mājaslapā savā nodaļā kaut kādā veidā. Parasti tie ir aktuāli, vismaz es neesmu sastapies ar galīgi vecu informāciju. Daudzām skolām ir savas mājas lapas. Ar privātām faktiski tikai pa savām lapām, ja vispār ir. Bet nekas tāds, ko uzlikt kartes slānī vai pa punktiem, cik zinu, nav. Ar tādu iestāžu kartēšanu ir ļoti grūti, jo katra gandrīz pa vienai.

I have no idea how these changes are made because every other edit you make just says "edit, add places". And you clearly badly used AI for buildings before. If these are drawn manually, then that just means that you are making mistakes yourself. You did not even address the actual problem about fords. I already left you a detailed explanation before. It is your responsibility to not leave incorrect data and explain and source your changes correctly. Over years, you have mapped hundreds of features that did not appear correct even when checking against LIDAR and aerial. And I didn't even mention most of these minor issues. But no one is obligated to review and fix after your edits when you make major errors like breaking navigation. You have ignored every comment for months and years and not just about this issue.

Viss kārtībā. Šajā gadījumā kanāla ūdensceļš way/1016739831 bija pievienots šiem diviem punktiem node/13732148583 un node/13732148584 starp tilta ceļiem, kurus tu sadalīji uz pusēm izmaiņā. Visticamāk, tu nedaudz pabīdīji tos viduspunktus un tie "pielipa" redaktorā pie kanāla. (Redaktors kļūdu šajā gadījumā nerāda, jo var būt arī pareizi gadījumi (piemēram dambis).)

I don't know if this was a StreetComplete bug, but you added an empty value for board_type here.

You are again adding incorrect fords and have not responded to previous messages. I am not going to be fixing your edits anymore as you are clearly ignoring the issue but continuing to mass-add features from AI detections and not fixing them afterwards. I have reverted the edits.

Unfortunately OSM doesn't really have established tags for individual bicycle parking features (not like amenity=parking and amenity=parking_space), so these shouldn't currently be separately mapped. Otherwise data consumers cannot distinguish "individual" elements, so they would show 9 bicycle locations (in search, in navigation, etc.).

Sveiki,

Kā iepriekš minēts, ja elements jau ir iezīmēts kā punkts, bet tu zīmē laukumu, tad šis laukums ar punktu ir jāapvieno. Šeit piestātne jau bija iezīmēta ar node/3646335704 . Citādi tagad šeit ir divas piestātnes.

Es izlaboju.

Sveiki,

Lūdzu nesavieno ūdensteci ar braucamo ceļu - tie atrodas dažādos līmeņos un noteikti "nesatiekas". Tas rada navigācijas un ģeometrijas kļūdas.

Es šeit izlaboju.

Stop adding fords unless you are certain they are actually fords. There are now several dozen changesets you have made doing this and ignoring comments not to do this.

How do you know this is a ford node/13939264791? And what is this culvert then way/1148710523 ? And how did you trace the track - it looks completely elsewhere on LIDAR. What source are you using for all of this? Did you really survey there being a well here?

Hello,

Please don't draw building parts as multiple separate buildings, such as way/1529531795 . If you want to specify individual building parts, then these need to be additional ways with building:part=*.

Hello,

You added 20 zone here way/38915556, but the street imagery shows a living zone sign. Is this really a 20 zone now and not living zone anymore?

Jau iepriekš jautāts par šo posmu changeset/183460788 - ko šeit nozīmē cyclestreet=yes? Lūdzu paskaidrot šādas nestandarta izmaiņas.

Hello,

Please do not add incorrect access values to OSM. These are for legal/permitted access. The only time it is legally `bicycle=no` is if there is a sign or traffic law that forbids it. OSM does not map subjective values like "safe" because everyone interprets them differently and you cannot determine this objectively and verifiably. Road properties are specified by classification, lanes, width, max speed, surface, etc.

osm.wiki/Verifiability#Subjective_opinions

And please don't add horse=unknown - this value is similarly the same across the whole country and it's horse=yes unless otherwise specified. There is no point adding `unknown` unless you are trying to deliberately signal that this needs a survey to confirm the actual restriction, if any. And there are only a handful horse-related signs in the whole of Latvia, so it will almost never be applicable.

Please do not change living zone streets into other road types. You have broken classification here and removed living zone attributes. And service roads are not driveways when they are public connecting branching roads through public courtyards. Driveways are meant for final destination roads to individual properties that should not be routed otherwise. And then you left other roads and random segments not retagged at all, creating invalid and inconsistent road network. Your changeset comment does not explain what exactly you are doing and based on what sources and "wrong tags" is simply false here. And then there are a bunch of paths and footways that you mistagged. Almost everything here was correctly tagged. Please do not mass retag like this.

Ņem vērā, ka LĢIA pārskata karte norāda pārsvarā ēku paredzēto izmantošanu/uzbūvi (no kadastra/ēku datiem) nevis faktisko. Šie dati var būt gan nepareizi gan novecojuši. Tos var izmantot piemēram noteikt vai tā ir daudzdzīvokļu ēka. Bet no tā nevar noteikt vai tur ir faktiski aktīva mācību iestāde. Citiem vārdiem, tur ir tikai dati par `building=school` vai `building=preschool`, bet ne par `amenity=*`.

Un nosaukumus nevajadzētu likt, ja tie nav no avota. Piemēram, tāds termins "bērnudārzs" Latvijā vispār nepastāv vairs.

Šajā gadījumā izskatās, ka neviena no šīm iestādēm šeit vairs nav.

Hello,

Thanks for you edits. Just wanted to let you know that it's not needed to specify access values such as foot, motor vehicle, horse, etc. unless they are specifically forbidden or designated. On almost all streets, there are no special rules like that.

The editor or OSM does not resolve anything by default. The only way a ford is added is if you click the issue validator option to add it. The editor cannot know if it's a ford, a culvert, a bridge or a gap. Regardless, it is your responsibility to add the correct option and only if you know what it is.

Lūdzu izlabot šīs vērtības, jo pašlaik navigācijā turpu-šurpu mainās ātruma apzīmējumi.