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 As you have added it with maps.me, it seems likely that data there is outdated.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?

Should way/1185384005/history perhaps be building=construction ?
At least it seems so from https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=819781419262974 .

Duh, indeed. Thanks, fixed now.

Probably, I was following the simpler approach that's feasible in a mobile editor for me - hopefully that's easier to update once the approximate layout is there :)

Thanks, is the part from P6 to the lift gate also inaccessible?
If the road is traversible by pedestrians/cyclists, maybe better to mark it as motor vehicle inaccessible instead?

Noted, thank you so much for the updates.
If map drawing seems interesting enough, it might also be useful to chat with the Latvian OSM community at https://osmlatvija.zulipchat.com .

Similarly, this changeset deletes a bunch of tracks - were they completely gone?

Hi, thank you for the map improvements.

This changeset deletes several tracks - are they completely gone, or was there some other change?

Got it, thanks - that makes sense, mapping fences that limit movement is very useful.
One more reason to map them separate, not on landuse - currently the adjacent residential landuse areas have fence tag applied, sort of implying double fence. And if fence type tags get added, there could easily be two conflicting types tagged on the sane stretch.

Hi, thank you so much for the great map improvements :)
Looking at orthophoto, way/1155849240/history does not seem to be fenced, and it's not clear whether way/1155849241/history is fully fenced. Have they been surveyed to be so?

We also recently discussed landuse and fence mapping, and in general it seems better not to use landuse and barrier tags on the same objects, tagging fences (and walls etc) as separate ways only where they are known to exist (https://osmlatvija.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/358602-general/topic/neapvienot.20landuse.3D*.20un.20barrier.3Dfence) - does that sound good?

Hmm, paga, Google Earth?
Mēs nedrīkstam to izmantot necik. Ja veikti labojumi no jebkādiem Google servisiem, tie jāatceļ.
Vai ir vēl kādi līdzīgi labojumi, kuri būtu atceļami šādu autortiesību problēmu dēļ?