Please fix all the incorrect fords you created. Several remain like node/13738824009.

This cycleway section way/909367317 has motor_vehicle=designated. I assume this was a mistake? Or were you attempting to specify which way is used to access the parking/service road?

This parking way/1063716664 has access=permit. How is this signed on the ground? If it's one of those "tikai ar atļaujām" signs, then the access will be private, because on OSM permit means anyone from public could purchase/acquire it.

Čau, dzīvojamās zonas vajadzētu norādīt ar living_street nevis residential. Es te izlaboju.

Like mentioned before, please stop adding misaligned, overlapping AI building without actually manually checking them.

Please do not disconnect ways from other ways like you did with way/1497946028 and way/1497946029 . There were mapped correctly. If disconnected, these become unroutable deadends in the rest of the path/road network.

I surveyed the location. The west path is basically non-existant - I could not tell it apart from just grass - you would basically be walking through bushes and old fences. Regardless, the westmost fence by the service road is now repaired/closed, so you would have to enter by private gate/driveway and it doesn't look like anyone is seriously using it. North path is accessible and there aren't any barriers except an annoying kerb. Eastmost locked gates signage makes it pretty clear it's private courtyard access. So technically you can get to the east courtyard via the north path, but you are just entering a private courtyard through a roundabout way via some old destroyed gates and fences. I tagged west courtyard features as private and left paths in the meadow as public.

Hello,

This edit broke the geometry of the building, deleted the original way, deleted the tags, deleted all the building parts and misaligned the new shape. I have reverted this edit. Please edit more carefully and only adjust things you are confident are correct and follow correct OSM tagging and geometry for 3D building tagging.

Hello,

Could you please clarify what the real-world access here is - is it private? If so, there should only be access=private on this way and none of the other values. "designated" means that this way is not just public but specially marked as for pedestrians.

access=*

Thanks

Looking at latest aerial (Bing), it seems that this path is gone or very rarely used way/1177100639. May be some of the fences around 160B have been repaired or something. I would probably consider removing this section altogether since it's basically just overgrowing grass indistinguishable from the rest. The original edit suggests this is one of those "hole in fence" paths. OSM doesn't generally map paths like this unless they are clearly identifiable.

Sveiki,

Lūdzu nekartē highway=service + area=yes priekš ceļu ģeometrijas - tas ir domāts tikai vietās, kur ir liela plaša teritorija un navigācija/pārvietošanās ir visos virzienos, piemēram industriālās teritorijās. Uz šādiem maziem celiņiem starp mājām, kur ir vienkārša lineāra kustība, šis nekad nebūs.

Ja tu gribi kartēt precīzu ceļu ģeometriju, tad to norāda ar area:highway=service. Un šie laukumi nevar pārklāties ar gājēju celiņiem vai citām virsmām - tiem jābūt tikai līdz brauktuvju un krustojumu robežām (faktiski pa apmalēm). Arī layer=* un citām birkām jāsakrīt ar pašiem ceļiem.

Jo citādi sanāk iekartēts, ka faktiski mašīnas var braukt pa ietvēm, un piemēram rezultātā var sanākt šādi navigācijas "brīnumi": osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car&route=56.941454%2C24.040272%3B56.941684%2C24.03947

highway=service#Linear_ways_and_areas

area:highway=*#Differentiation_area:highway_vs._area=yes_on_a_highway

Šis ir tas sienas posms, par kuru minēju: https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/hellphoto?&pKey=2151843558688976&focus=photo

Hi,

A small note - addresses like node/9819743227 should not be deleted (or changed) - they are automatically daily imported by a bot and are correct (at least, as far as official data is concerned).

Hello,

In this edit you connected highways with waterways. This is incorrect - waterways should never share nodes with roads unless there are literal fords there, i.e. road goes through water. Please fix these instances.

node/4974702495
node/5044879524
node/4969866649
and a couple more that were already fixed.

Čau, gribēju pieminēt, ka šīs nav informal pārejas, bet unmarked. Informal ir tikai vietās, kur ceļa šķērsošana nav vispār paredzēta, piemēram pāri šosejai starp takām (aizliegts nav, bet infrastruktūra nepastāv). Pilsētās tādu vietu ir ļoti maz. Ja gar ceļu ir ietve vai celiņš "pievienojas" ceļam, tad tā faktiski gandrīz nekad nebūs informal pāreja.

Kādēļ ceļam way/34582752 nomainīts kods no V1047 uz V9? Līdz ar to arī maršruta relācija vairs neatbilst. Arī Baldones iela nav nosaukums šim posmam.

Kādēļ izdzēsti tilta celiņi way/1317156828 un way/1324455641 lai iezīmētu tieši tur pat?

Lūdzu nezīmēt krustojumus ar neeksistējošiem ceļiem - šeit nav atsevišķu `link` kā way/1488052037 vai way/1488052038 , ja nekas nav pa gadu mainījies.

Šeit pārejai nav saliņa node/12255838615 , ja katras brauktuves pāreja ir iezīmēta atsevišķi. (Un otra pāreja nav līdz galam iekartēta.)

Šie mazie celiņu laukumu posmi kā way/1488052035 nav `highway=pedestrian`, bet `area:highway=footway`.

Sveiki,

Nosaukumus vajadzētu pievienot tikai, ja tie ir oficiāli vai vismaz labi zināmi. "Dūņezera piknikvieta" izklausās drīzāk pēc apraksta. Vai te ir kāda (jauna) zīme vai norāde ar nosaukumu?

Please don't change roads that access multiple properties to driveways, especially if they have separate "lines" in the cadaster, in this case way/425515678 . Normally, only the final access road section in the private property is a driveway.

I think the entrance node to the building should not be on the way itself, but rather on an offshoot of the way. Currently, navigating along the way implies using the entrance. Kind of like barrier=*#How_to_map_barrier_nodes

Šeit way/1489434747 nevarēs būt access=private, jo 35. ēkā ir publiski-pieejams veikals.