Could you please clarify why these paths are now private way/1535693085 ? Are there new signs, construction, fences, barriers?

Hello,

Please do not mistag way classification for subjective reasons like "priorisation of navigation". Wrong navigation is a router problem, not a data problem. These are not signed cycleways and cycleway laws do not apply here, so they cannot be tagged as cycleways.

Hi,

Thanks for your edits.

Please note that if roads have sidewalks already-mapped as separate ways, then you should specify in StreetComplete that they are mapped separately.

Hello,

Thanks for your edit, but there are some issues with it that I had to correct and undo.

Please do not change ways to cycleways unless they are marked as such (blue sign). This is certainly not a cycleway and you cannot access it without traversing stairs. Just because bicycles can theoretically use it doesn't make it a cycleway - it's still just an unsigned footway.

And a value like horse=designated is wrong. There are most certainly no bridleway signs here.

covered=yes is not applicable when the way is already tagged as a tunnel. It's not covered, it's fully-enclosed. At bets this is redundant, at worst it's misleading for data analysis.

wheelchair=yes is also invalid, as you cannot get here with a wheelchair on your own as there are very steep ramps on steps. This should only be used for showing ways with mobility-accessible navigation and this tunnel is certainly not. If anything, this would be wheelchair=no.

Also, what source did you use for the tunnel's name? OSM only adds names that are official or at least listed somewhere. I cannot find a name for this tunnel on the Internet and as far as I know, there are no signs on the ground. There is a common scheme how tunnels are referred to, but I do not believe there is an official name for this one.

Hi,

Is this way really asphalted? way/1042081654 This seems very unlikely unless something new was constructed.

As already requested multiple times, please stop changing areas to incorrect tags. These are not parks. All your edits have had consistent errors that need fixing.

Hi,

Thanks for you edits. A couple notes.

`bicycle` legal access values should not be set unless they are somehow posted, such as road signs. Basically, there would have to be a sign like "bicycles are allowed in the park" somewhere to set `bicycle=yes`, otherwise the value should stay empty and can be assumed to be default nationwide.

`access=permit` means that such a permit can be publicly obtained by anyone. This is very rare in Latvia and such roads are almost always just private - for residents, employees, etc. and not actual "permits".

Lūdzu paskaidrot, kā tieši šīs sētas vairs "nepastāv". Vai tās ir nesen nojauktas? Vēl dažus mēnešus atpakaļ pastāvēja. Izmaiņā nav norādīts nekāds avots izņemot Bing, kurš ir novecojis un kur noteikti nevar redzēt.

Kādēļ avotam noņemts nosaukums? Līdz ar to datos vairs nekur nav "Dāvida dzirnavu avoti" kartēti. Vai šie avoti ir citur? Kas šeit ir mainījies?

Kādēļ ceļiem noņemtas motor_vehicle=private vērtības? Kā var var būt publisks ceļš, ja līdz tam ir privāts ceļš un vārti?

Lūdzu izbeigt pievienot nepareizas vērtības un ignorēt komentārus.

Thanks for clarifying! Are the blocks on the North or South side? I assume by path "on the right" you meant East?

Hi,

Thanks for the change!

Could you clarify how exactly the road is blocked? It's possible this is something that we can map as a barrier or otherwise. You mention "not possible to drive", but is this also blocked for pedestrians and bicycles?

Hey, there's still access=no on way/412667366 - is it still closed/blocked? Also, I assume you haven't moved it west yet? Also what did you mean by construction=footpath on it? Without a main tag like highway=construction, this doesn't really mean anything.

Uzlādi nepamanīju (bet osm nav tegs pielikts) - to atsevišķi es piekrītu, jā, jo tas atšķiras. (Kaut gan teorētiski arī vajadzētu tomēr būt kā auto parkingam charging/disabled skaits ar tegu.)

Es tādus noteikti nezīmētu atsevišķi. amenity=bicycle_parking infobox bildē pat 3x lielāks attālums starp stendiem. Es kaut kur citus minēju, ka velo stāvvietām nav OSM ekvivalents kā amenity=parking_space, kas faktiski sanāk, ja liek vairākus punktus.

Čau, vai velo stendiem tomēr nebūtu labāk vienu punktu vai laukumu nevis 3 punktus? Kartē un navigācijā diezgan stulbi sanāk meklējot parkošanos trīs atsevišķas vietas rāda.

Just a couple notes.

This left proposed=footway on way/1346637395 . If the main highway value changed, then the life-cycle qualifier needs to also be removed.

The new ways like way/769759154 are not retagged as cycleways, so they cannot really have bicycle=designated nor remain footway=sidewalk. If it was rebuilt to cycleway, then the highway=* value needs to be changed with appropriate other tags.

Crossing was added here node/12456005933. But not on the other road here node/12456005928 . There is also still the old crossing node/267495548 .

What is your comment supposed to mean? I did not say anything about AI here.

LIDAR is in many locations more than a decade old and cannot be reliably used by itself. And the track going that far is neither visible on LIDAR nor latest aerial. If the track is here, then provide some verifiable source like a GPS track or photos.

You added a ford in the middle of nowhere where you most certainly have not surveyed in person.

Sveiki,

Lūdzu nepievieno public_transport=platform uz highway=platform ceļiem no redaktora labojuma, ja pati pietura ir kartēta kā atsevišķs punkts. Jo tad sanāk divas pieturas vienā vietā. Un visādi StreetComplete divas reizes jautā labot abus elementus.

iD šo rāda kā kļūdu, jo uzskata, ka domāta pietura, bet tas nav pareizi Latvijā, kur pieturas pārsvarā ir ar atsevišķiem punktiem, bet klāt bieži iezīmētas arī platformas navigācijai kā ceļi.

Paldies