Hi!

Thanks for your edits! I fixed a few issues and just letting you know about these.

Names should not be used as descriptions - either the feature needs a more specific tag or if it really needs an "explanation", then a `description` tag can be used. But the `name` should never be something like "bāzes stacija" or "pirts", because those are not the actual names of the features. Similarly, there are tags for things like `operator=LMT` or reference number, e.g. `ref=155` that data consumers can use. If the name of the area or point is something like "LMT bāzes stacija "Zaiceva"", then it would be just "Zaiceva" (and may be official_name for the long name assuming it's from an official source).

You also shouldn't create unspecified/unknown `site` relations for objects that are already within a common area, such as farmyard or industrial. Firstly, this is redundant to the area - everything is already in it. Secondly, data consumers don't really know or process these, because the actual type of the site or what should be included is not defined in OSM. It's better to just draw an area around if it's still not there. This also means other mappers have to maintain fewer features and there aren't data redundancies. And finally, one could make sites for pretty much anything they can think of (playgrounds, schools, supermarkets, etc.) - and while this is not forbidden, it also doesn't really improve the map unless there is a larger community support and standards for such sites. At the very least, if adding a lot of such features, then it should be discussed with at least the local community.

Let me know if you have any questions. I tried to summarize a lot of stuff in a very short message.

Thanks