Ak, reālās pasaules klasifikācijas grūtības :)
Skatos, šobrīd shop=crafting, kas šķiet ļoti OK un parādās defaultajā kartē.

How could vasara.shop be classified? Is it more like a shop or more like an office?
If a shop, what category could it be?

...although technically the alleyway was called (loc_name) like that back then, there was no memorial - not sure whether a memorial exists there now, the place is private and fenced off.

Ahah, nice - thank you so much for paying attention to detail more than me :)

It was mapped years ago (as a locality or something...), but somebody apparently nuked it. Not enthusiastic about trying to find when that happened, but would appreciate if somebody would find it :)

Šī laikam nav oficiāla adrese, jo nav VZD datos?

Velo maršrutēšanas "hintiem" var noderēt šie:
cycleway=separate
cycleway=sidepath

This changeset deleted a bus stop. The bus stop was present at least as late as of September this year (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=663510702413809), and is shown as existing in https://saraksti.rigassatiksme.lv/index.html#riga/map,page .

Why was it deleted, is there some very new change here?

Thank you so much for all the great map improvements.
One minor issue in this changeset and maybe somewhere else - road way/1192018197/history was not connected to Pasta iela. This is very important for routing purposes, as unconnected roads cannot be used for routing.
As the node was really close, it looks like the intent was there, but somehow it was not connected.

Liels paldies par kartes papildināšanu.
Forevers droši vien ir gaļas veikals - vai pareizi?

Enkurs - vai tas ir "standarta" nelielais veikals, varbūt arī ar kādu nepārtikas preci?
Ja tā, tas varbūt būtu shop=convenience.

Thank you so much for the quick reply. It's perfectly fine to make mistakes, that's the best way to learn :)

Briefly, the green areas with treee icons are forest (landuse=wood), grey areas are landuse=residential.
These can overlap (residential area that has dense tree cover), which would result in grey background with tree icons.
You mentioned yellow - not seeing yellow, do you have a specific area you see as yellow?

Area for address number 96, I assume it is now built up - does it still have heavy tree cover?

Map changes - that could be either browser cache, or tags not matching expectations. What exactly did you expect to see, how does actually look like?

BTW, you might be interested in joining the OSM Latvian community chat at https://osmlatvija.zulipchat.com - it would allow for a more convenient discussion on this topic.

Thank you for the map improvements.
This changeset has resulted in overlapping wood areas - the new way/1214120083 overlaps with the existing relation/15104238 .

What was the intent behind adding a new wood area, any ideas how this could be best merged?

Thanks, I believe in this case they are not allowed to fence up to 4m (10m for select larger bodies of water) from the edge of the river (or the top of the steep banks), so this particular gate might be legal.

Definitely a correct approach on mapping the current situation - if there was a legal requirement to allow passage at this point, it might be worth reporting to the local council instead.

Hi, thank you for the map improvements.
In this changeset, a restaurant was added that was already mapped. As you have added it with maps.me, it seems likely that data there is outdated.

You might want to try Organic Maps app, which is a fork of maps.me that receives more frequent map updates.

Hi, what does "Gate officially has to be open" mean here?

Indeed, that's why OSM works hard to avoid using any inappropriate sources - copying from other maps, imagery etc is not good unless explicitly allow.
As any other imagery was not used for tracing, verifying those cases in ESRI high zoom & real life seems sufficient to me in this case.

Unfortunately Google does not allow such usage in their terms of service, we are not allowed to use any of their data or services.
It would be great to check those objects via cadaster data, ESRI high zoom or other legal sources, otherwise such edits might have to be reverted.

Thanks, we both more or less passed it recently, but building survey wasn't quite the top priority ;)
My camera mount broke off, so no Mapillary images from Saturday either.

Thank you for the quick reply - indeed, it's visible in the ESRI World imagery higher zoom levels (I only checked the lower zooms).
No concerns remain about the existence :)

We're not allowed to use Google imagery, though - if any edits have been made from it, that would have to be reverted or sourced from legal imagery.

Noticed that way/1204702405/history is not visible in any imagery, nothing in cadaster.
Just to be sure, does it exist at this location?