Das hing auf der Seite zum Schlosserweg. Vermutlich am Zaun zum Kindergarten. Danke fürs Prüfen jedenfalls! Angenehmen Abend noch

Es gibt (gab?) ein Schild, das dort am Zaun angebracht ist. Der Weg geht wohl über das Grundstück des Kirchengemeinde. Das ist natürlich kein amtlicher Straßenname, aber highway=service war für mich in diesem Fall ausreichend Markierung dafür. Nutzbar ist der Weg (früher?) mit Fahrrad und zu Fuß (gewesen). Besten Gruß!

Changed in osm.org/changeset/127189175

Every tagging in OSM is just arbitrary but has some traditions which we should follow also for the Estonian data since otherwise it is not comparable to other countries anymore. I agree that place=suburb tends to imply a size which the subcity places in e.g. Rakvere don’t have. But the tagging I used is not uncommon in other countries either, also for small places! But since Tallinn’s asumid have around the same inhabitant size of Tartu’s linnaosad I agree it would be good to change the subcity place tagging in the places I’ve done earlier to place=quarter (since in Tartu there are smaller entities which already have place=neighbourhood). I will do it in the next days.

I would consider this very much mapping for the renderer then. I saw the problem before but the categorisation (also with the possible looseness of borders) matches the definition in the wiki.[1]

Maybe we would have to find new definitions (based on wikipedia definitions of these british terms of course) for the Estonian case again, which I can try to deal with but not in the next weeks.

[1] osm.wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb

I will move Narva’s linnaosa boundaries and those of some other cities to boundary=place then.

And I made a short wiki article [1] to document the current usage a bit more detailed and with a hint to boundary=place. I would like to move it to /wiki/WikiProject_Estonia/Administrative_divions_of_Estonia or the like, the way it was already made for e.g. Georgia [2] and Portugal [3].

[1] osm.wiki/User:Apo_lemus/admin_level%3D*_Estonia_specific_values
[2] osm.wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_Georgia
[3] osm.wiki/Portugal/Divis%C3%B5es_Administrativas

Tänan kannatlikkuse eest!

Although Rakvere has 'linnaosavanemad' I wouldn’t declare their type of 'linnaosa' administrative, since the Rakvere Majaomanike Selts appoints them and the Selts is obviously only some kind of semi-state like.

Yeah, I begin to understand the details and agree on most of your points and decisions.

One last thought on the administrative boundary thing (maybe for the changes after the next, hypothetical haldusreform if it’s not wrong what I think) because it seems to me as a mistake to not declare Tallinn as a linnasisene linn and Tartu as a linnasisene linn the same way. Don’t they rather belong together with the other asustusüksused in 8 and the Tallinn and Kohtla-Järve linnaosad alone in 9? (9 is often used only for city suburbs.)

The Narva/Tartu/Pärnu/Viljandi style linnaosa borders I would map as boundary=place [1] now because this way we don’t declare them misleadingly as administrative. Do you agree on this? Actually the wiki explanation really matches our problem here.

[1] osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dplace

Hi! Your contribution is highly appreciated. There is really a lack of OSM contributors in Narva and people who know the local area are important for improving the map. I have just two nitpicks, it is unlikely that the areas which you added are really 'dog parks' in the sense that it is a place only for dogs. Usually these would be fenced. And please don’t use the name=* tag as a description for what you see. If you mark a playground it will be seen as a playground in the map which is enough. These two things I just changed. But these points shouldn't stop you from continuing to contribute if you have the time and mood! Thanks again for your contribution. Apolemus

Actually the Estonian admin_level=* scheme doesn’t match NUTS and LAU levels compared to most other countries in the wiki article above (except for Turkey). Has this some practical reason or has it been discussed?

Also some thought (but I wouldn’t want to change it), it seems to me that if the borders of the haldusüksus match that of the asustusüksus, that there actually wouldn’t have to be two relations (but I see why you did it). For example, Berlin is a 'city state' which includes that as a federal state it is also a municipality and goes from admin_level=4 to admin_level=8 but only the level 4 is on the Berlin relation because the others wouldn’t have any practical implications.

I get your point and I’ve already discovered the inconsistency in Estonia at the moment. I’ve also seen your proposal at [1]. For me it seems that this discussion has already be done for other countries and our problems are not very specific for Estonia.

Let me collect all the discussion that has already been done for Estonia and a bit more to compare. I will try to make a more detailed table on the wiki to propose something which we can then discuss more.

Thanks for reaching out!

[1] osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative

Fixed in osm.org/changeset/107381138

I see your point and will correct it. For the reason why I did it this way: I am not Estonian and used [1] where this difference between superior and secondary authorities is not that clear as in your source. Nor am I jurist, so „Tallinna Tolliinspektuur“ seemed to be the same administrative level as „Tartu päästekommando“ for me. (At least here in Germany fire departments can be directly subordinate authorities to the federal state’s administration.)

Thanks for your note and sorry that it is incorrect at the moment!

[1] http://www.eki.ee/books/ekk09/index.php?id=40&p=2&p1=7

Ok, werde ich beachten. Ich hatte mich ans Wiki gehalten, das das als optional angibt.

Ich nehme an, der hier angelegte Knoten war ein Testlauf. Falls nicht, vielleicht erläutern, was gemeint war.

Gibt es einen Grund, warum hier das Zentrale Prüfungsamt nun zweimal mit weitgehend gleichem Tagging auftaucht?

Hallo,
ich habe schon bemerkt, dass die KI-Daten ungenau sind und zu ungenauem Arbeiten anleiten, obwohl ich nach den Bing-Bildern geprüft habe, ob die Wege existieren. Mir war nicht bewusst, dass die Bing-Bilder und Facebook-Daten so alt sind. Ich hatte aber vorher schon ein Gebiet nordöstlich von Centenary abgesteckt, in dem ich mich auch in Zukunft kümmern wollte. Zunächst habe ich jetzt die KI-bedingten Daten aufgeräumt und werde dort nun nur Wege zu Dörfern und Höfen erfassen. Danke für den Hinweis und fürs Aufpassen!
Gruß
Apolemus

Bitte in diesem Änderungssatz nachprüfen, ob die Fährroute richtig in der Relation ist und ob ich was kaputtgemacht habe. Ist mein erstes ÖPNV-Mapping. Danke für den Aufwand!

Pardon für die Verzögerung,
wenn ich mich recht erinnere suchte ich damals eine Lösung, um die Flächen auf dem Schulhof fassen zu können. Vermutlich suchte ich mir das aus irgendeiner Forumsdiskussion. Wenn es heute bessere Lösung gibt: Natürlich gerne ändern!
Ich danke und wünsche noch viel Spaß!