This is not what I am talking about. I am not questionning your sources, I am just saying that shops should not be mixed with building outlines. If you want to add a business, it is better to add a floating point inside the building and put the shop-related tags to it.
Don’t bother, I will fix it.

I am also reviewing all the changes you put to the production database in the last hours, to fix as much as I can.

Hello,

This is a comment on your changeset. I am writing to you because I see you wanted a review, and also because the changeset contains a mistake.

The Italian restaurant is already mapped as a node, here.
node/5832150834
This is the correct way of mapping objects.

In your changeset, you changed the building as if the building itself was only a restaurant… creating a duplicate because now we have a restaurant inside a restaurant.

Please remove the restaurant tags on the building itself. Leave it for what it is: just a building. Thanks.

Je crois que vous mélangez les bâtiments et les commerces.

One feature, one element, please.

Ce changement n'est pas correct et il fait disparaître le bâtiment de la liste des bâtiments.

landuse=residential + residential=apartments désigne une zone de terrain et non pas un bâtiment.

Ne pas se baser sur les mauvaises traductions françaises de iD pour choisir, svp → il faut regarder les tags de la database.

Nous corrigeons.

I get your point, so probably horse=yes should be removed here.
But if you want to comment a changeset, you should address your comment to the mapper who introduced "horse=yes" here. If you inspect the history of those ways, you will see that my changeset was not about deciding to change access for horses but to clean up some obvious errors in tags (merely for pedestrians or to remove motor_vehicle=no, which is implicit for paths and footways).

To answer your last question, SC has separate quests for roads and paths, and my (English-speaking) device says this: "What’s the surface here? Foot path".
Don’t bother, I’ll fix it.

Hello,

I checked your edit and it is a bit strange.

On this picture, we can clearly see that, if the road is made of asphalt, the former bus platform is made of concrete, and the sidewalk is made of setts.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=447554067142648

I see that you tagged the former bus platform as "asphalt". Was this a mistake?

OK, thanks. In that case, I will redo your edit and re-use the existing amenity with the new name and contact details, this will make the make much cleaner.
Have a nice day.

I agree that the brand could be part of the name but this is not my point here; the problem is that in multilingual territories, the "name" tag must be an exact concatenation of "name:fr" and "name:nl" with the multilingual separator between them " - ".
i understand that as a new user you are not really familiar with how multilingual names work. I’ll fix it, don’t bother.

Why did you want to create a non-matching name here?

I mean, name:fr and name:nl no longer match the name tag. The way you wrote the main name tag makes it impossible to split cleanly. Can you please explain or at least provide the correct link you used instead of just "Mapillary 2024". Thanks.

Hello,

We are having a little bit of an issue here. There is already a restaurant within the same building.
node/4903511028

Would you mind clarifying what you saw here:
– Are there really two restaurants next to each other?
– Or should Babam replace the existing one?

Looking forward to your reply. Thanks in advance.

Hello,

It won’t hurt adding extra access restrictions here but it looks like this is an attempt at solving problems that do not exist.

From the north, Woluwelaan has an explicit "bicycle=no" and "foot=no" restriction, and from the south the only way to enter Woluwelaan is from a motorway, which has default "no" for pedestrians and cyclists alike. No sensible routing engine should have used them.

Was there a problem with the tags here? Did you see an app or a routing engine trying to route users on the main road?

Also, same remark as on your other changeset: "foot=use_sidepath" and "bicycle=use_sidepath" are the only recognised values. If you create your own spelling variants for those tags, apps will ignore them. :-(

Erratum for the second paragraph, which should read as such:

First, "bicycle=use-sidepath" is incorrect, the correct value uses an underscore, i.e. "bicycle=use_sidepath".

Hello,

I am afraid there is a problem with this changeset.

First, "bicycle=use_sidepath" is incorrect, the correct value uses an underscore, i.e. "use_sidepath".

Also, such a tag is there to prevent routing on the main road; it should *only* be used if a separate path exists on the map. In the current situation, the said path is not on the map and you are just ordering routers not to use the road. So, the consequence is that you forbid a turn entirely on this intersection, which will damage both pedestrian and cycle routing.

Please make sure to create a valid routable graph before adding restrictions.

Hello,

The path here is inside a bus depot, it should either not be mapped at all or should have restricted access.
way/1332536565

Hello,
In our city, objects like information boards are normally multilingual.
Did you notice anything special here? Was it really a French-only sign?
Thanks.

OK pour ajouter le magasin, mais svp ne jamais écrire les adresses sur les magasins eux-mêmes, OSM = database géographique qui associe déjà automatiquement les adresses = ne pas créer de valeurs doubles, merci.

Thanks for the reply. I rarely use Vespucci and had never seen this issue so far; it is probably something they added recently. I will immediately turn it off on my device too. 😀

Hello,

Apart from the plaque which is a tongue-in-cheek reference to a fictious battle, is there any evidence that this area is really named La Marolle - De Marol? I don’t think this name should presented on OSM as a real neighbourhood.

Hello and welcome to OSM.

For your first steps on the map, I would *strongly* recommend that you do minor changes, preferably on less-critical places of the map.

Although the changeset title claims you corrected parking layout, the "and out building" part seems mysterious. It turns out you changed the main tag on two buildings of VauxHall. I wish to inform you that we had discussions between mappers about how to draw and tag them precisely, because UrbIS data assigns one single ref number for the whole structure, despite it is made of 3 parts. We have special tags to deal with those particular situations. Please do not play with major tags like this until you gain more experience with how the map works. Small mistakes can very quickly corrupt the database, and create unwanted situations for rendering or other third-party apps.

We repaired the situation here.