Hi, have you had a chance to look into this topic?
I have also sent you a personal message, please check it at your convenience.

On the note of communication, are you subscribed to the Latvian OSM mailing list at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lv ? If not, it would be great to join there, we could discuss all the detail.

Thank you for the reply, greatly appreciated.
Given that there apparently was an old park, maybe that name could be moved in the old_name tag?

Hi, this changeset has removed a number of features, including a named feature "Vircavas pils parks" - relation/9610533/history#map=8/56.810/24.560&layers=N .

What happened in this changeset?

Hi, this changeset has removed a lot of map data. For example, here footways, fences and all other detail has been deleted: osm.org/#map=18/57.09902/22.96025&layers=N .
Example deleted footway: way/692284646/history .

What happened in this edit?

Hi, this changeset (with a comment ".") changed way/103163479/history from highway=track to highway=footway. Based on the local orthophoto layer, I improved its layout and changed to highway=service (both imagery and previous tagging seemed to indicate that as a viable value). I also removed the incorrect theatre_type=grad1 tag (was intended to be track:type, obviously).
This might still need access tags, or even changing back to footway... If you happen to be a local, surveying would be greatly appreciated :)

I reverted all cemetery import changesets except one, where the revert had conflicts with changes by Tomas. Perhaps Tomas did manual deletes which caused that.

soshial, it would be sufficient for the data owner to allow importing it in OSM without changing the original licence - if they are legally allowed to do it.
https://timenote.info/lv/copy says the team is a few individuals, and "~8800 other persons". On top of that, the sourcing of that data might be a problem. RM87 mentioned some coming from Wikimapia, and other sources might be a problem, too.

As for discussing, if you'd like to aim for the 3 Baltic states, go for the talk-baltics mailing list, mentioned before. If you'd like to tackle Latvia only first, then go for talk-lv - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lv .

Note that there were data quality problems in Latvia, too - names included addresses, cemeteries split in multiple polygons, cemeteries imported over existing objects (especially in Riga)...

Looks like the licence might be the first challenge - see osm.wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility .

Thank you for the quick response, really appreciated - and thank you again for the interest in this topic. The first thing to do is go by the import process, outlined at osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines .
Given that this is spanning 3 countries, initial discussion would be best placed in the mailing list talk-baltics, https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-baltics .

Hi there. This seems to be the first changeset in a series of cemetery imports in the Baltic states. It is really great to see interest in this topic - I've mapped a few missing cemeteries myself and love see additional data.
Unfortunately, this import has not been discussed, and there are quality issues with the imported data. For now we have to revert the changes - let's discuss how we can make a quality import happen soon.

Noticed in #osm that for another location it was suggested to leave the outlines in place, prefixing them with demolished: - demolished=*: .

Does that sound good?

Dang, thank you - they looked fairly fresh on the sat layer ;)
Perhaps a "note" tag around here could help future mappers.

Hi, this changeset removed name from way/224286093 , added a name to way/646431456 and changed the name of way/646431457 .
What was the source of these changes?

Yay, thank you. And for the record, here's a Mapillary image: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/7bLLuAWEUpmdkUW7rhbgzw

Ha - thank you for the quick catch :)
This had to wait for me checking the images (also coming up on Mapillary). This is http://www.skrastas.lt/?data=2009-09-22&rub=1065924831&id=1253544039 - but checking spelling and capitalisation would be appreciated.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I noticed that this changeset added two untagged ways, way/655966964 and way/655966965 - this duplicated some of the existing ways and did not seem useful so I have reverted this changeset. Please let me know if there was an intent I have missed.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I noticed that this changeset added an untagged way, way/655967272 - this duplicated the existing track and did not seem useful so I have reverted this changeset. Please let me know if there was an intent I have missed.

Hi, I noticed that this changeset has created a new water area that overlaps with older water areas, and seems to include some non-water, based on ortophoto.
osm.org/#map=17/57.11687/24.67541

What's the source of this area, was this a mechanical edit?

Hi there and thank you for the improvements to OSM.
This changeset added building=yes to way/132364752 . From the imagery it is obvious that this whole area is not a building, so I have removed this tag.
Could you please check whether you have added building=yes to similar ways, and if so, remove it?
Thank you and happy mapping :)

Ah, that's great - thank you for improving the map and for the quick reply.