Pearle is already on the map, you are adding duplicate data.
node/3267487254
I’ll revert this.

Thanks for this.

If the new bakery replaces the former one on the same spot, the best way to map this is to change the tags on the existing object instead of creating a new one.

Tagging a shop as disused is good practice only when a shop is temporarily vacant.

Fortunately, your changeset description was very clear, and it was easy to fix. :-)

Hello,

The uic_ref tag is already set on the station node here: node/17401552

It looks like you duplicated this unique code to every single of the 21 stop positions here. We feel this is not necessary, since all those stop positions nodes are already bundled with the station node inside the stop_area relation here (relation/6261364).

Repeating a unique reference code to multiple objects isn’t good practice. This not only increases the risk of errors but also complicates data maintenance, making it harder to ensure accuracy. That is why it is better to create relationships between objects. This approach makes the database more efficient, easier to update, and reduces the chances of errors.

Is there really a park named "Lowfield Garden" here?

On aerial imagery I see houses here.

Either you are trying to map a private garden—and in that case it should definitely not be mapped as a public park—or you are testing how to edit… or just trying to prank us.

Would you please explain the situation here.

Thanks for the information but please do *not* delete objects from the database. This building is still visible on the official GRB basemap and on aerial imagery. If you delete it, there will be a gap on the map and people who look at reference maps will simply add it again.

The correct way to deal with such a case is to keep the object but change its tags, so that editors can understand that there *was* a building here.

We fixed your edit.
way/170480480

Have a nice day.

Hello,

Although it looks like the change was genuinely aimed at improving the map, it generated a high number of warnings, which you should have solved prior to uploading. It looks like you snapped roads to the edges of the Schwartz/Reisman Centre soccer pitch.

warnings:almost_junction:highway-highway=3
warnings:crossing_ways:highway-highway=8
warnings:disconnected_way:highway=2
warnings:impossible_oneway:highway=1
warnings:mismatched_geometry:unclosed_multipolygon_part=1

You also erased several aprons, like here: way/69342098/history/2

You also destroyed former objects from the database, even though they had been explicitely tagged with a lifecycle prefix to preserve their history: way/69342154/history/3

May we please request to follow some good practices for OSM:

1) One changeset per area and theme, do not edit "various stuff" in a single changeset, because that makes things particularly hard to review and repair.

2) Write real descriptions to your changes. About 50% of your changesets in the last 4 days are titled "changes to map" or equally meaningless titles. Here are some hints: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Happy mapping.

Very true, indeed. But what is the purpose of flagging my changeset as erroneous? What mistake are you reporting here specifically?

Hello, and welcome to OSM.

Please do not type addresses directly on shops, that causes unwanted duplicates (especially here because what you typed mismatched the official spelling). We fixed your edit.

Hello,

Were you really there? Why did you mark garages here (way/1263521898/history/2) as being entirely underground? This is not the case. They are physically *under* the small footway, but they aren’t buried at all.

Here is a picture taken this summer, which clearly shows the situation.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=767354029312651

Hello, and welcome to OSM.

Thanks for spotting that a new business is operating here.

You may have noticed that there was already a vacant place here. It is always better to change the tags on existing businesses than to create a new one besides.

I fixed your edit.

You are welcome.

Just one thing: in the future, please avoid commenting on changesets directly, when there is nothing *wrong* about them.

This is because OSM has statistics of mappers who got changeset comments, and comments are implicitely assimilated to… criticism. (People with a lot of commented changesets are viewed as bad mappers.)

Hello, jozin-belgium.

The "network" tag on De Lijn routes has recently changed. "VVR Limburg" is the correct value.

I have recently submitted a pull request to update the name-suggestion-index to include those names. It takes time.

Until the nsi updates its list, can you please ignore the tags "upgrades" suggested by iD about De Lijn routes? This is because it temporary gives silly suggestions, and you have just changed those Limburg routes into "DLVB" (De Lijn Vlaams-Brabant).

Since you are an experienced mapper, I expect that you will understand not to fall into the trap of clicking on iD suggestions when they make no sense.

Thanks, and happy mapping.

Those "details" are located in Scotland, Libya and North Korea. At the very least you should have uploaded 3 separate changesets. Also, could you please describe your changesets more accurately than writing "added details" on every possible change.
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Another advantage of explaining why you added those things is that we could figure out why you wanted to draw a natural=sand area (way/1453333553) inside an existing natural=sand one (relation/15807509).

Hello, @geoTD.

This message is to inform you that your edit has been reverted.

It looks like you are interested in mapping a university campus and dependencies. Fine. But please be considerate of the correct tagging practice.

We would be grateful to you by please stopping pushing the same faulty edits over and over. This changeset damages the address system (where you always want to force monolingual addresses, as if you had not noticed that all the addresses here are written in the two official languages) and one more time you create extra universities to the map. "Sint-Lucas Herenwoning" is a residence, not a university. If a researcher issues a query to measure how many universities there are in Brussels, they should not get students’ dorms in the total.

If that is so important to you, perhaps we can add this building inside the university multipolygon. But please reply to the multiple changeset comments that have been sent to you over the past few weeks, so that we can discuss how we can improve the map.

Hello,

You have just created a new university here… inside an existing area tagged as amenity=college.
way/238135161

This is not correct, such areas should not be nested.

Could you please explain what you have been trying to do here? If you are familiar with the situation, can you please describe it or link to a document where we can see if there are two separate parts here and who runs them?

Thanks in advance.

Dear @geoTD.

Once and for all, please do NOT add false or duplicate addresses to buildings.

And please do NOT duplicate sint-Lucas university.

The campus is already mapped as a multipolygon, which correctly includes its both parts.
relation/19847043

I wrote to you several times to warn you that you are adding errors to OSM, by creating multiple universities in this area.

Please be respectful of our work, please read the explanations that have been emailed to you, and please stop pushing the same bad edits over and over.

Hello,
There is a problem with this edit. Even if the tram tracks have just been removed, they are still on the GRB reference map of the Flemish Region and they are used by tram relations.
The good practice on OSM is to change the tags instead of destroying objects.
I wrote user multimob yesterday to ask to to have a look here and try to repair the map as soon as possible.
Have a nice day.

This looks more like a parking-ticket machine, and not a public transport ticket machine.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1721952388483930

## REVERTED CHANGESET

Dear geoTD, you keep submitting the same (false) information over and over.

I wrote to you several times.

Sint-Lukas is already properly mapped as a university site. There is no need to make it appear like multiple universities. And the "A Blok" is just a building (or more precisely a building part) inside the campus. "A Blok" is not an independant university on its own.

You should NOT map "A Blok" as a university.

I have tried to explain this to you mutiple times. Instead, you chose to ignore comments and you kept resubmitting the same changes several times.

You are also damaging the address system.

I am aware that the OSM data model can be complicated, and new users do not know everything. But your persistent refusal to address the comments that have been emailed to you is very disappointing.

You seem to be very desirous to see this part of the university on the map. How can we help? First, can you tell us if you use a third-party app that reads OSM data and that does not show the required information. We can start investigating this (some apps use outdated data and won’t show you recent changes).

Hello,

With respect, the two crossings below do not have any zebra markings. We are speaking of the node where the sidewalk must cross the yellow cycle tracks. We tag those with highway=crossing + crossing:markings=no.

node/6982830098
node/6982830102

Thanks for adding Mapillary links to every of those objects. If you inspect them, you will find out that there are no zebra markings here.

I will fix your edit for those two. The other nodes seem correct, though.