First, I can't help that there is often so much to correct, repair or improve even on or near a short stretch of railway.
Second, my edit summary is clear: I was working on railway line L161.
Third, I made no mistake there. There is no building, nor a ventilation shaft there. The railway (although still below ground level) is twice in the open air: the tunnel is interrupted. The 'hole' is as wide as the railway bed. That's not a shaft anymore. So I cut the long tunnel in shorter parts and removed the tunnel and layer tags from the short stretches which are in open air. This is a valid (and I'd say, a better) way of mapping the situation. There are ventilation shafts further north in the Boulevard Clovis (tagged with man_made=air_shaft) and south in the Boulevard Charlemagne (not mapped). But man_made=air_shaft is a dubious tag (used only 48 times in OSM). Man_made=ventilation_shaft is used more often, but is not a documented tag on the wiki...

Jakka, this is the second time in a few days that you 'reopen' a stretch of road which is still closed for all traffic! Refrain from such edits, as you don't seem to know what you're doing.

De polygoon is eigenlijk niet veranderd: die bevat dezelfde nodes in dezelfde volgorde. Maar de coördinaten van de nodes zijn wel veranderd.

Je bent er zelf verantwoordelijk voor... Ik heb indertijd iets veranderd aan die polygoon, maar als je naar de historie van bijna alle punten van die polygoon kijkt, ben jij de enige en eerste die ze veranderd heeft nadat lodde1949 ze heeft getekend.

Please review your work in this area: a lot of the houses have the wrong postcode and city. I repaired a few, but I'm not going to check them all.

By joining highway segments you damaged some hiking route relations. Please be more careful in the future.

Please do not add aeroway=hangar to buildings which have nothing to do with aeroways.

Sorry. I won't use it anymore for streetnames. Is there a better source for streetnames/adresses?

For several reasons. 1. It overlapped many existing residential and other landuses. 2. In the good old days such big polygons were acceptable but now it is much better work more detailed. It takes longer before the map gets some colour. But that the map looks better, doesn't mean that it (or the database) is better. 3. Such a big polygon is bound to become a cluttered multipolygon. I once spent many evenings cleaning, repairing and simplifying a forest which had become a multipolygon with many outers and inners, and had many polygons in it which were not part of the multipolygon. There are still plenty of such examples left.
So I don't believe it would work out well starting from such a big polygon. Not everyone works meticulously enough for that (and this polygon is a proof thereof).

Why did you change the ref tag of this road (way/234990711) from N7 (correct) to N50 (wrong)? I reverted it.

I am far from happy with your edits around the N52. 1. You messed up the road classification. 2. Do not connect landuse to highways.

I mean: this track: way/135635251

You made a huge error: this track goes now to the USA...!

Hi,
You could see the situation as a tunnel through an embankment. If you read the wiki: "For some grade separated crossings it may however be debatable if the lower way is in the tunnel or if the upper way is on a bridge". This is perhaps one of the debatable situations, I agree. But saying it's wrong to map it as a tunnel, is a step too far. And on the wiki page of layer: "Negative values do not imply that object is underground".
Another point is: the map looks good: the railways and the platform are on top of the road. Compare with the bridge of railway L26 and its platforms: even though part of the platform has bridge=yes and layer=1, the map doesn't look OK. But of course you could use the argument: don't map for the renderer...
Further: the pieces of the platform between the Visélaan and Arcadenstraat have layer=1 but not bridge=yes, and one of them is even above a building: that's more wrong: that those parts are not above a road, doesn't mean that they don't need a bridge=yes. Wiki: "With some exceptions, layer=* on way ways should be used only in combination with one of tunnel=*, bridge=*, ...". I don't see why this would be an exception.
The same for the stairs going to the platforms: bridge=yes tags are missing.
And the southern parts of the platform have layer=1, while it's not a bridge: that is also not correct.
Regards,
StijnRR

Ik heb de reservaten (boundary=protected area) losgekoppeld van de bossen (landuse=forest) en daarbij de reservaten exacter overgetekend van de officiële contouren zoals op geopunt.be. De contouren van het bos aanpassen aan de contouren van het bosreservaat of omgekeerd is niet echt ideaal.

Het is niet omdat een bos eigendom is van ANB, een 'domeinbos' is of een beheersplan heeft, dat er sprake is van een beschermingsstatus. En op geopunt.be is het niet ingekleurd als Vlaams Natuurreservaat. Dus, gelieve de foutieve tags te verwijderen.

Guy,
Een verhoogd kruispunt is een traffic_calming=table, niet traffic_calming=hump.
StijnRR

Hoi,
Waar heb je de informatie gevonden die zegt dat het Domeinbos Het Holland een Vlaams Natuurreservaat is?

Beste,

Je hebt hier 6 huizen naast elkaar getekend. Ten eerste: het zijn maar 4 huizen.
Ten tweede: als huizen tegen elkaar zijn gebouwd, moeten ze in osm ook aan elkaar worden geplakt (met gemeenschappelijke nodes). Zie de huizen aan de andere kant van de straat als voorbeeld.
Gelieve te corrigeren.

StijnRR

Jammer genoeg heb je hierbij correct gemapte op- en afritten naar de vaantjes geholpen. Ik hoop dat ik alles terug gecorrigeerd heb...