What is the "osm database history" you're talking about? I'm not aware of a way to browse OSM history other than changeset history and edit history of individual elements.

I'm not saying we should keep those disused:* nodes forever. We should keep them until a new business appears at the exact same place as the past business, add the new keys on the same node and delete the disused:* key. And if building is demolished, we would delete the disused:* keys along with it.

shop=vacant is an alternative. We could use that instead.

Here are some wiki pages, which encourage to keep the history:

shop=vacant
osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

You still haven't replied to my concern in my previous comment but are repeating the same thing. Please don't delete businesses if they are gone and instead mark them as disused (add disused: prefix before the main key. If it was a shop, it should become osm.wiki/Tag:disused:shop=). This will let people know what was there in the past if another business opens up in the same place.

Motoday is already mapped directly nearby.

Instead of deleting the node you could have marked this place as disused. Or change it to shop=vacant. This way it would not show up in the map but the node and history would still be accessible. People would know what was here in the past.

Es šos visus liktu kā retail, jo šeit pārdod preces nevis pakalpojumus.

Atkal šajā relācijā[1] biedru lomas saliktas ačgārni. Šobrīd tās vajag apmainīt vietām, citādi sanāk, ka zāles atrodas iekš celtnes.

Ātri var izveidot multipoligonu, turot Shift, klišķinot uz abiem elementiem un pēc tam spiest c.

[1] relation/18785332

Gandrīz mēnesi vēlāk pēc šīs izmaiņu kopas publicēšanas es, apstaigājot Andrejsalu klātienē, secināju, ka jūsu ieliktie ceļu būvdarbi nemaz vēl vispār nenotiek. Lūdzu nekartējiet būvdarbus, ja neesat klātienē apsekojis būvdarbu vietu!

Ok, paldies par skaidrojumu.

Man nav īsti skaidrs šo izmaiņu iemesls. Vai kaut kāds jauns likums aizliedz, ka ar riteni vairs nedrīkst braukt pa ietvi vispār?

Tad lai saliek pareizas "cycleway" birkas tie, kuriem rūp.

Labi, var noņemt cycleway birkas no ceļiem, kuriem blakus ir uzzīmēta atsevišķa velojosla. Bet tehniski, tā ir tikai un vienīgi Cycle Map renderētāja vaina. Dati kā tādi nav nepareizi.

Vai kaut kas salūzīs, ja veloceļi tiks zīmēti atsevišķi?

"cycleway=lane" ir pareizi, velojoslas joprojām neatdala fiziskas barjeras no ceļa. No dažām līnijām noņēmu, jo domāju, ka nav jēgas atstāt, ja es zīmēju atsevišķu veloceļa līniju, bet vēlāk sapratu, ka varēja atstāt, jo tehniski bija taču pareizi, bet slinkums bija atlikt atpakaļ.

Visparīgi, man nepatīk ņemties ar neskaitāmām birkām pie galvenā ceļa, es labāk visus ceļus zīmēju atsevišķi. Tad ir pārskatāmi, kartē renderējas un nav jāņemas ar birku haosu.

@arcth I really recommend you to check out the group chat @richlv posted. We can continue this discussion there. Another mapper made a really good point (that's as good as reply I would give) about this topic so advise you to read it: https://osmlatvija.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/358602-general/topic/rel.C4.81ciju.20lieto.C5.A1ana/near/500852509

Takas nekur nav pazudušas, ir tikai žogs aplikts apkārt! Pats apstaigāju šo vietu klātienē. Un kad reiz sāksiet izskaidrojošy izmaiņu komentārus rakstīt?

Pārsvarā esat veicis aplamus labojumus. Tramvaja sliedes vēl nav nekur sākts būvēt, joprojām proposed. Būvdarbi nenotiek teritorijās, kur nomainījat uz būvdarbiem. Pats dzīvē apstaigāju šīs vietas.

This edit directly duplicated many buildings and had to reverted to save my and other mappers' time. Please don't duplicate buildings.

All your recent edits had created duplicate features like buildings and lakes directly on top of existing features. I reverted these edits. Please don't create duplicate features.

Atliku atpakaļ "name" vērtību pagaidām. Ja izmaiņas autors vēlēsies turpināt šo diskusiju, tad redzēs vai būs kaut kas jāmaina.

I just want to point out that the provided mapillary footage is outdated. Here's a new one from July 2024: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.6729267&lng=25.2726497&z=19.9&pKey=880819717313713&focus=photo&x=0.08102023366484773&y=0.6206059317455411&zoom=0.8075370121130552

And in this region NŽT ORT10LT is outdated too. Bing here is much higher quality and more up to date. The separation between main street and cycleway is clearly visible in both Bing aerial imagery and mapillary footage.

Instead of "not:brand:wikidata" you should add the "operator:wikidata" tag which is Q132157239 in this case.