Indeed, sorry for that, and thanks for keeping the surveyed data alive.

Perhaps you could make comments match the change more closely, like here if it was about moving the data to a relation, not just saying the data doesn't belong there.

The address was the correct one for the restaurant, which is now not obvious on the map.

Would you please not destroy surveyed information that is lost with a few of your edits, like this ChangeSet?

It's my interest to make my familiar areas correct, and useful, and not just in a 2D view, in line with openstreetmap.org - "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and current"

At the precision sometimes required for 3D mapping, UrbIS is often outdated, slightly incorrect, if not wrong, about building outlines, and insisting different data cannot be recorded for building outlines stops correct details from being added.

I would like to keep OpenStreetmap *correct*, represent the world, not being a copy of a different (even if freely usable) database.

In this case, the shapes took a long time to survey, and unfortunately could also take a few more attempts to make it display correctly with quirks in f4map or streets.gl.

This particular outline should not have been diverged from UrbIS in a confusing - or even noticeable - way in this occasion, to keep any relation to the database obvious; it's actually getting closer to the real world outline, why are you considering that approach wrong?

House numbers 104-118B (even) and 101-105 (odd) are not in Evere/1140 but in Schaarbeek/1030 according to the administrative boundaries. Should the street relation be split accordingly?

I'm familiar with handling the distortions and anchoring the positions but in this case indeed URBIS seems to be among the best, thank you for the note - finalised in #153471503

After all this time, I still can't get information about the shop's opening times. I can't stop there when they are open, and when they are closed, they have shutters on all windows, and no information is visible outside.

Hmm, you're right - I didn't take pictures, but I remembered I entered parking in April (well after the last change here otherwise). I was also sure it was accessed from Avenue du Port/Havenlaan. However, reviewing my locations, we probably used Drève Anna Boch/Anna Bochdreef, and not the parking here. As I kept the node, the bollard information is now reverted in #153447180.

The Examencentrum and the Technische keuring are completely separate offices, with distinct opening hours, need separate rendezvous, with different entrances. The first can only be accessed by foot, whereas for the inspection, after queuing with your car, you need to leave it at the workshop entrance where they drive it inside, and you wait outside at the exit to pay at a booth, you don't enter the building. I see no reason to join these two on the map, otherwise it doesn't help people how to find one or the other (the Examencentrum has specific signs to direct to the entrance marked here, there are several doors that look like an entrance, but only the one marked here is accessible).

What I commented on is that none of these two is matching the driver_training descriptions - it's not a training track area - perhaps amenity=driving_school is better - I'm just not sure if driving_school is good for places where only the final exams are done, but no actual education can be arranged - yet, perhaps driving_school is indeed the best match.

On the other hand, the asphalt covered area, looking like a large parking space, n/nw of the building *could* be a good match for driver_training.

FYI - I'm not sure driver_training is a good fit here, that would be for the physical area where the cars are being drive (i.e. the parking place n/nw from here). Not even driving_school, as far as I can tell, this is just for the official tests, not for any instruction/learning.

Yes, I'd appreciate if no mapping detail was lost, and the map matched the world instead of other sources.
For 3d/side views you can review google earth, or maxar (as used by realo to show the area).
Of course this is not to imply that these services should be (or even can be) used for mapping, nor that I needed to consult them for edits; I survey everything where I tag it that way.
Most aerial maps with high enough resolution (even "URBIS most recent aerial imagery" in josm) have also images showing no difference between these three buildings.

110 is the exact same as 108 and 112, you can see on every 3D map (that's not how I got the shape: I can re-survey it any week from any angle). How should I tag it so that it stays correct?
For example, UrbIS has a shape for Kolonel Bourgstraat 120, yet there's absolutely no building there.

Thank you for your comments! The name attribute was offered by a template from the iD editor, but I noted to avoid it in the future.

I do understand the need to only record what we can determine from allowed sources :)