They seem to be a local, but they did not identify their interest further.
Do you have a chance to survey this location (and perhaps even upload Mapillary imagery)?

Hi Natfoot, thank you for the great improvements.
A user is reporting that the footway way/243471032 does not exist.
If you have recent on-the-ground knowledge that it actually still exists, I'll remove it next week.

Neat, that makes sense (and the fence would be great to keep in the map). Thank you for the attention to detail.
BTW, various places could be photographed with the Mapillary application, then a link to the image would clarify things immediately.

Thank you for clarifying.
I assume the fence is perpendicular to the footpath then - not connecting two paths?
If some segments can be drawn reasonably accurately, no need to delete them - incomplete data is still better than nothing.
Thank you so much for the great improvements :)

Hi, this fence looks a bit strange - could it be some other feature instead?
way/800363192

Paldies par atbildi.
iD redaktorā to neesmu darījis, bet varbūt palīdz šī dokumentācija:
https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/#drawing-multipolygons

Vai ar tādu metodi izdodas?

Dzēst noteikti nevajadzētu, bet papildināt būtu brīnišķīgi.
Droši vien vislabāk apspriest epasta listē talk-lv.

Heya, paldies visiem par labojumiem :)
arcth, varbūt ir vērts uzrakstīt ziņu autoriem, ja kaut kur šķiet par daudz sazīmēts - noteikti kopā varam vienoties par vispareizāko risinājumu.

Sveiki un paldies par kartes uzlabošanu :)
Būtu jauki izmaiņu aprakstā sīkāk uzrakstīt, kas darīts - ja visi apraksti ir tikai "Labojumi", nav noprotams, kas un no kādiem avotiem ir darīts.

Woah, thank you for mapping this area.
I just went through it all and was going to map some stuff =)
Mapillary imagery coming soon, should help to add detail ;)

Now that addr:flats is rendered, it can be seen that all entrances for way/110797504 have it tagged as 1-15.
Could this be accidental?

Ne visas automātiskās lietas ir vienādas - iD dažreiz izmaiņas notiek strauji, un ne vienmēr tiek rūpīgi parbaudītas.
Paldies par labojumiem :)

Oops, they were supposed to be addr:flats.
Fixed now.
Thank you for spotting that.

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?