Yeah, I understand that it's better to use original, but I didn't know it's possible to restore it after deletions (without reverting whole delete changeset).
Please show me the magic you used

Good point. I assumed that anybody would check street level photos, but more I think about that, more I see how bad of an assumption this is.
I'll add was:amenity=parking shortly

So, as I understand, you are trying to work around the limitation of wikipedia's map plugin by creating relations in OSM. This is a wrong path.
Please create route=road only where it is really necessary.

And if you still really want to have full outline of the street, you might go GeoJSON route. Extraction of GeoJSON for embedding in wikipedia can be done with tools like https://overpass-turbo.eu

Why are you creating all these relations?
Tag description for `route=road` says that "Most urban streets and minor roads which are identified only by a `name=*` tag do not belong to a relation.": route=road

I was more interested in understanding why that happened, in case if I misunderstood something, to be honest)

But in general, I think no, it shouldn't.
As far as I understand, current signs allow regular vehicles to use this space as a turn around, for example.

Also, as an example, similar space at Dzelzavas way/91758798 has 301 sign:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1384660526531744

Why did you tag entrance to the depo as `motor_vehicle=no`?
It has 523. sign, which as far as I understand means that cars can enter there, just not allowed to stop. Or do I misunderstand meaning of that sign?

No worries.
I'm trying to revitalise Osmalyzer, and it actually noticed this)

Actually, I found photo from 09.2025: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1460316635177126
It's still a parking machine. Will retag it back.

I'm pretty sure that node/10981967339 is not a ticket vending machine but a parking machine. It was a parking automat at least from 2020 until 2024 (based on Mapillary), and I can't imagine why a ticket vending machine might be replacing it in this location.

Yes, with this one I was finished.
I missed bench closer to bushes.
"bike parking" (if the one next to bench) is not a bike parking, but rather a left over from removed playground. "Planters" are bins from same playground on their sides.

But I understand what you mean. I'll reopen note here, and will be closing them less liberally

I new that it was reoccurring, since it was also missing last winter, and then it was back in summer. Just wasn't sure if it is actually buried or removed, because sand level (based on changing booths) seemed quite constant.

Regarding seasonal and routing - I don't think it matters very much. In winter sand there is quite compacted even when not frosen, so same route will be navigable at similar levels.

I don't think it is actually under sand, but rather it is removed for winter.

Description of the project (admittedly when in was only planned) says "Laipa ir demontējama uz ziemas sezonu" which if I understand it correctly means that boardwalk is removable for winter.
https://balso.riga.lv/projekti/vecaku-pastaigu-laipa

Thanks for advice: I sometimes adjust bing, but not always. Will keep this in mind.
With noexit - it seems my assumptions were wrong. Thanks for pointing that out, too

Yes, it was discussed at the time in local chat

Whoops, sorry, missed a dot in script.

Corrected.

May I ask why have you added translation of the name and not transliteration? I mean, as far as I can tell, there is no particular reason to do so.

I based my understanding on this wiki page: amenity=recycling#Recycling_type:
> `amenity=vending_machine` + `vending=bottle_return` for all machines that accept bottles, cans and crates which return.
and considered ambiguous tagging as undesired.

I see that I might be wrong here. Please consider joining discussion here: https://osmlatvija.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/358602-general/topic/depoz.C4.ABta.20punkti and help us get to a consensus.

Not great. As a novice in tagging, I try to err on side of caution. And when I see warnings, I assume that it's my fault, not editor's (except for obviously ignored by somebody else previously warnings, like happens a lot with crossings).

Thanks for correcting!
I had same exact problem with somewhat similar "air corridor" here: way/475617182

I fixed it in a similar way, as you explained.

I still fill a bit confused regarding path underneath. Once I extended building and added building part, path had warnings. I think (but not really sure for now) that warning gone away once I placed points of separation of the path (for `covered=yes`) onto the contour of the building. But I'll figure this out.

Thanks again for you guidance!

It has 523, with "Izņemot ar RTK atļaujām".
After reading what the `access=permit` means I agree.
Thanks for clarification and guidance.