Uhm, Big Street? I doubt that it is a valid translation, seems more like Liela Street to me.

Genau da schon länger nicht mehr, könnte aber in den nächsten Tagen da vorbeikommen und überprüfen

Als ich drüber geschaut habe, habe ich mich gewundert, ob osm.org/way/130965991 noch als area gezeichnet sein soll. Aus meiner Sicht reichen da einfache Linien aus.

From Mapillary it looks more like access=destination (for motor vehicles) with a condition. Are you sure about total use prohibition for all?

osm.org/way/693616294 has it set, applies only to the part near pedestrian crossing. Although a bit weird, as no restriction end signs can be found on Mapillary

Better use highway=service for access roads to facilities even if they are unpaved, see osm.wiki/Tag:highway=track for more details

Please do not use objects to mark map issues. Remember that this map represents real world and each object should exist in reality. You can just leave a note (dialog bubble with plus sign button) instead, so experienced mappers can correctly implement the fix.
Also please abstain from argumenting your changesets using Google Maps. OpenStreetMap is an open-source project, which is different than license terms of Google Maps. As a consequence, no data from Google Maps should be copypasted here (I believe, this was not the case here, consider it just a gentle warning).

I generally advise you to go through some tutorials on iD before further editing to get better understanding of what are you dealing with. Nevertheless OpenStreetMap appreciates all contributions (especially from locals) that help to make this map better!

This changeset was reverted in osm.org/changeset/117620492

Duplicating road object with the second on top of it is not a good idea. I think you've meant to split the road and set private status to the part of it.
I've investigated and fixed those issues, as well as some others already present on the map. Please check that this is what you've wanted to achieve and whether it now corresponds to reality better

The road part after the gate was already marked as private. Why does road object get transformed to barrier?

Hallo! Ich bin gestern hier osm.org/way/47918582 durchgegangen und habe nichts bemerkt. War die Sperrung deutlich zu sehen?

Опять же - это не дорога на парковке. Также эта дорога не находится над зданием (layer=1), а здание было неправильно расположено. Все мои замечания были исправлены
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112177198

Пересечения дорог следует отмечать общей точкой (iD предлагает это исправление). Тэг service=parking_aisle используется только для проездов между рядов парковки, в остальном можно просто оставить как service road
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112177112

Road osm.org/way/367876712 does not have connection with Malu iela - see recent aerial and streetlevel imagery. New footpaths are redundant because they already are tagged as sidewalks in according road objects.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108204139

source + aerial imagery and local knowledge

Laipni lūdzam OSM!/Добро пожаловать в OSM!
Vai var paskaidrot, kas šeit bija cerēts izdarīt?

*русских

О, я недавно тут правил и не смог официальное название на латышском найти, поэтому не менял. Только почему в латышском названии есть упоминание поморской общины, а в русской нет?

Hello, it seems like this business has been recently closed, is that right?

Many thanks for helping me add new features in Daugavpils!

I see that you are using Maxar imagery, likely without an offset. Unfortunately, this imagery is a bit misaligned, about (1, 3.5)m in Daugavpils. I'm using Esri imagery (almost the same as Latvia - Ortophoto in JOSM) without an offset. Esri also aligns good against Mapillary imagery, which is available in most parts of the city.
It is, however, a bit out-of-date, Maxar is better in this case (some features of recent years are visible only there, not on Esri) and in the case of drawing building contours.