Ikkagi soovitan taustaks Maaameti pilti. Sõltuvalt millist gpsi kasutad on ka salvestatud träkid vahel tibake valesti. Kõige täpsema tulemuse saab kui neid koos kasutada.

Väga soovitav oleks Bing aerofotode asemel kasutada Maaameti pilte. Bingi pildid on tihti tugevasti nihkes. Aegviidu kandis umbes 5m. maameti aerofotod on ka oluliselt teravamad.

Its border point where highways Semināra iela & Sepa intersect with stream Varžupīte.
You can see error in Osmose.
I can correct it.

Select below in your changeset node
Node: Valka (LV) - Valga (EST) (5022787218)
and you see the place

Why you connected waterway and highway with node?
Node: Valka (LV) - Valga (EST) (5022787218)

With "beacon" tag they are rendered on standard OSM, without - visible only on special maps.
I suppose, this is reason why OSMOSE algorithm shows them as error.

osm.wiki/Seamarks/Beacons

Please don't remove *beacon' if you don't have better solution.

Osmose gives for seamarks error: Missing object kind
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=8&lat=58.642&lon=24.84&layer=Mapnik&overlays=FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT&item=0%2C1%2C1010%2C1040%2C1050%2C1060%2C1070%2C1080%2C1090%2C1100%2C1110%2C1120%2C1140%2C1150%2C1160%2C1170%2C1180%2C1190%2C1200%2C1210%2C1220%2C1221%2C1230%2C1240%2C1250%2C1270%2C2010%2C2020%2C2030%2C2040%2C2080%2C2090%2C2100%2C2110%2C2120%2C2130%2C3010%2C3020%2C3030%2C3031%2C3032%2C3033%2C3040%2C3050%2C3060%2C3080%2C3090%2C3091%2C3110%2C3120%2C3150%2C3160%2C3161%2C3170%2C3180%2C3190%2C3200%2C3210%2C3220%2C3230%2C4010%2C4020%2C4030%2C4040%2C4060%2C4070%2C4080%2C4090%2C4100%2C4110%2C4130%2C5xxx%2C6010%2C6020%2C6030%2C6040%2C6070%2C7010%2C7011%2C7012%2C7050%2C7051%2C7060%2C7070%2C7080%2C7090%2C7100%2C7110%2C7120%2C7130%2C7140%2C7150%2C7160%2C7170%2C7190%2C8xxx&level=1%2C2%2C3&tags=&fixable=
If beacon is not exact, you must propose some other value. Just 'seamark:' is hot enough.

Sorry, my mistake.

- yes, OSM routes can be downloaded, but they are not copies from Rother originals. I newer copy original routes to OSM
- Rother original routes are recorded with gps by authors of book. They are not virtual.
juhanjuku

Just got answer from Rother Bergverlag:

glad to hear you’re a fan of hiking and our guides.

We approve that you refer to our books as source of information for improving OSM.

Just consider the following:
Do not upload our GPS tracks, so that they can be downloaded (e.g. as gpx or kml) by others.

And yes, we are interested if you notice mistakes in our tracks or descriptions. In these cases send us an email to: leserzuschrift@rother.de
We are also glad if you send us corrected GPS tracks, but then you must be willing that we use them free of charge and for our own purposes.

Wishing you nice hikes!

Kind regards

Florian Tukker
Lektorat und Herstellung
Bergverlag Rother GmbH
Keltenring 17
D-82041 Oberhaching
Tel. (+49) 089 / 60 86 69 - 29
www.rother.de

Hi Daniel,
- I do belive I have not violated "Rother Bergverlag" copyright. None of my routes are direct copies from original gps tracks from book. When I plan my vacation hikes, I usually buy Rother red book and make for choosed trips route relations in OSM. I use existing ways in OSM and if possible, make corrections with aerial images (for Iceland are quite good aerials and I checked permission to use them). GPS tracks from book are just for general direction (often they are not very accurate)
- usually I manage hike 5 to 10 prepared hikes during my vacation and those tracks I correct afterwards according my gps track and pictures.
- you are right here, I have not asked agreement. I will contact Rother Bergverlag and when they are not agree, I will remove all Rother routes relations which are not walked trough by me.
- I used German names for routes specifically to guide hikers to buy those great books from Rother
BR
juhanjuku

I'm sorry if you see it this way. It's not my intention. I try to correct errors from Osmosis.
On border area sometimes are errors that default name and local name are not same. I'm agree that elements on border (Narva river) can have duplicated name in both languages. It looks better on map.
I try to be more careful.
Peace

If your idea is show only residental land then you need constantly update those polygons. And not only big cities - look your rel. 2133242 (Tõrva ) for example. Growing residental areas everywhere.
What about add "place" tag to adm. boundary relation? Then we can use also "label" and no need to update areas.

Why we need "place" multipolygon? If this polygon is different from admin. boundary, from where comes this shape? Admin boundary is official from Maaamet but from where you take "place" polygon? P.S. Multipolygon relation can not have role "label"

what is the point to add multipolygon Haapsalu when already existed relation/350594 - Haapsalu linn as boundary:administrative? I'm asking because Osmose complains about your relation/2153393

see maja oli juba kaardil olemas, teise peale joonistamine ei ole korrektne Way: 489040137

Default name and local language name must be same by Osmosis rules

How did you noticed such small detail :)
But yes, this is driveway to my backyard and I'm using it as timestamp to my changes.