Hi everybody. This topic has been raised with DWG, let's try to find a consensus here.
Sorry for writing in English, but my Polish has not progressed beyond a few words.

In cases when something has been constructed illegally or is not open to public, it is better to map it and tag access ("private", "no" or others) accordingly, as suggested by Mateusz Konieczny.
This has the benefit of showing the real situation on the map while allowing routing to work correctly, as well as prevents somebody else coming in and re-adding such roads without the correct access tags.
This is also consistent with mapping places like industrial or military areas, not open to public - roads are mapped and set as not accessible.

vrg, does that sound like an acceptable solution?

Thank you all for caring about the detail and keeping it all civil.

Sveiki un paldies par kartes uzlabojumiem :)
Ja iespējams, būtu jauki izmaiņas sadalīt mazākās daļās, tās būtu vieglāk pārskatīt.

Šajā changeset ir dažas izmaiņas, kuras laikam tika veiktas ļoti ātri - būs nepieciešami daži labojumi.
Piemēram:
* node/5553820126/history pielikta brand informācija, nepaskatoties uz objektu - tur tagad ir ļoti dīvaini name tagi, un divas degvielas uzpildes stacijas.
* Daudziem Rimi veikaliem pielikta nepareiza brand Wikipedia informācija (norādot uz "Rimi Norway"), un nepareiza Wikidata informācija (arī norādot uz vairs neeksistējošu Norvēģijas Rimi ierakstu).

Būtu ļoti jauki, ja būtu iespēja visas izmaiņas pārskatīt. Automātiskie rīki bieži kļūdās :)

Sveiki un paldies par kartes uzlabojumiem :)
Šajās izmaiņās nedaudz nepareizi nomainījās šī te garāžu teritorija (pazuda puse teritorijas): way/154745145/history

Vai ir zināms, kā tas gadījās?

The note on addr:steet missing acknowledged, couldn't easily figure it out on the ground (the number plate did not specify the street). Looking at it now, made a guess and added addr:street.
There's a popular opinion that addr:city should be inferred, thus skipping that one.

Great, thank you for checking that :)

Everybody, please take a moment away from the keyboard.
Let's keep things civil and polite.

Mapping this node as historic=castle might be a bit misleading - there do not seem to be even any ruins for several centuries by now.
Is there at least a hill?

Sveiki, 2017. gadā dažas ielas pie Saulkrastiem tika nomainītas no access=destination uz access=private, bet tur tagad cauri iet Jūrtaka.
Vai tās tiešām ir "private", nevis "destination"?
Piemērs: way/70117367/history .

Sounds good, thank you for the quick reply.

This changeset added a duplicate building over an existing one, way/654246503/history - I cleaned it up.
Might be worth checking the workflow on how the original building was not spotted.

Šīs izmaiņas aizvietoja tourism=attraction Lauču akmenim ar natural=stone. Lai gan stone tags ir vērtīgs, pats objekts tomēr ir pietiekami slavens, pievienoju tourism=attraction tagu.

Thank you for the response and all the map improvements, it's now much more clear what happened there.

Perhaps it is worth leaving a comment such changesets to see whether the original mapper can improve the situation themselves, and to avoid miscommunication.

I see that most of the detail has been re-mapped, I hope it is of much better quality now.

Sveiki un liels paldies par kartes uzlabojumiem.
Būtu jauki, ja varētu tos sadalīt pa mazākiem reģioniem, un pierakstīt nedaudz detalizētāku komentāru - citiem kopienas dalībniekiem ļoti grūti izsekot izmaiņām, kuras aptver visu Latvijas teritoriju.

Unfortunately, we had to revert this changeset as it had too many data quality problems.
Please don't be discouraged from further contributions, but do discuss the process with whoever is organising this activity.

Unfortunately, we had to revert this changeset as it had too many data quality problems.
Please don't be discouraged from further contributions, but do discuss the process with whoever is organising this activity.

Unfortunately, we had to revert this changeset as it had too many data quality problems.
Please don't be discouraged from further contributions, but do discuss the process with whoever is organising this activity.

Unfortunately, we had to revert this changeset as it had too many data quality problems.
Please don't be discouraged from further contributions, but do discuss the process with whoever is organising this activity.

Unfortunately, we had to revert this changeset as it had too many data quality problems.
Please don't be discouraged from further contributions, but do discuss the process with whoever is organising this activity.

Unfortunately, we had to revert this changeset as it had too many data quality problems.
Please don't be discouraged from further contributions, but do discuss the process with whoever is organising this activity.

Unfortunately, we had to revert this changeset as it had too many data quality problems.
Please don't be discouraged from further contributions, but do discuss the process with whoever is organising this activity.