I see you are using the iD editor.

It even lets you do it easily:
"Garden Type" → residential
"Allowed Access" → private

Hope this helps.

Hello, @elucci.

I suggest to always include the following tags for private gardens
* access=private
* garden:type=residential

This is because the garden you’ve just created here is now showing up in apps as an ordinary place where people would be encouraged to go for a walk.

Have a nice day.

Hello, and thanks for checking this area.

I surveyed it a few weeks ago to see the changes but this a really complicated intersection here.

I can help with the bus route relations if you need some assistance; I lack a reliable source of information about what Flixbus buses really do in this area, maybe you can help if you know that.

OK, thanks for this.
We should keep it as a separate object from the building but I made it larger, then. And we could improve it further once 2021 aerial imagery is available.

Hello @Vucod,
Thanks for the follow-up.
Yes, your project is really great and useful, thanks again.

Fixed by changeset/111100826
changeset/111100826

Hello,

Something strange about this node:
node/8589616576
operator=avocats

Who is behind this camera exactly?
Could you please have a look?

This changeset was supposed to cover a small part of Brussels, on the border between Jette and Wemmel.

It also contains an update for node/1808792792 in Woluwe, which I thought I had uploaded separately, hence creating a large bbox. This was unintented. My apologies for this.

Hello,

I am reverting most of your changeset, here are the reasons:

1) The river partly flows under the museum indeed, but not the way you drew it. (That’s the least critical part of your changeset and it made no harm.)

2) You erased the Tram Museum and replaced it with a badly-formed multipolygon. That is a bigger issue. I think there is a problem with the way you handle multipolygons because you create lots of them and very frequently we have to deal with bad ones and corrupted data. You generated two U-shaped ways joined together into a multipolygon. That’s incorrect, please stop cutting building into small pieces, it serves no purpose and is damaging.

3) tunnel=building_passage on tram tracks (not routable, unlike footways or roads) make no sense. Perhaps another problem with iD, which encourages people to click before thinking about the consequences. I added an indoor tag on them, it seems to deter iD from suggesting this again.

Have a nice day.

Hello,
Do not forget to add disused:* on the stop sign too, or remove it altogether. ;-)
Otherwise it is interpreted as a stop sign without a proper road, which validators flag as a mistake.
Same for lift gates and everything that only makes sense when being part of a road.

Hello,

If you want to add buildings or addr:* nodes to associatedStreet relations, here are two things you need to know:
1) The postcode, city, country are all in the associatedStreet relation itself, no need to duplicate that information on every house; the house itself gets only two tags: addr:street and addr:housenumber.
2) In Belgium we use the only two roles set up in the wiki: street and house. I see the iD simple online editor lets you add them as an "address" but it’s just an undocumented—and probably wrong—suggestion. Please ignore this option and use "house" only, even when it’s just a small address point inside a large building.

Hello,

I suggest you put a more appropriate title to your changesets, reflecting what you did exactly.

As you can see, the changeset spans a really large territory and no-one can see exactly what you mean about the area having been rearranged.

Also, you seem to have changed the tags on several De Lijn routes. (Probably clicking on automatic options in the iD online editor, am I right?). If the changeset is also aimed at putting more tags on bus routes, perhaps you should also mention it in the description, or do separate changesets, one for each type of change.

Have a nice day.

Hello,

I saw you added a name to a bridge here: "Pont de la rue du Charroi - Gerijstraatbrug"

There is a Wikipedia article with that name, but most online sources seem to rely on that article, hence creating a circular reference.

The Wikipedia article links to a PDF with a government decision about it, but the government refers to it as "Pont ferroviaire à décor égyptisant situé rue du Charroi" / "Spoorwegbrug met Egyptiserend decor gelegen Gerijstraat", obviously because it lacks a name.

This inventory does not seem to name it properly either: https://monument.heritage.brussels/nl/Vorst/Gerijstraat/A001/29025

You seem to have an interest about the names of bridges, tunnels and that kind of stuff, so if you can find a good source for this bridge, I think that would be useful.

What do you think?

Hello,
This changeset breaks a few dozen bus routes: I tried to fix the most urgent damage, see changesets 110685945, 110686091, 110686229, 110686241, and 110687140. Plus the route itself had a problem: 110687529

Hello,

I am afraid there is a problem with this survey.
I know Buissonnets/Braambosjes and Heembeek tram stops very well and there is tactile paving on both those platforms. Those are the small soft rubber squares in front of the first door of the tram, and they will typically have some white stones for people using white canes.

May I suggest you turn off this quest. You can easily go to the Settings menu in StreetComplete and turn it off.

Have a nice day.

Hello,

Thanks for spotting that the supermarket had some sort of extension at the back of housenumber 117.

I kept the change but fixed the outline of the building. In fact, we never trace directly from aerial imagery, distorsion is too high for buildings, we stick to available numerical imagery (in this case, Flanders’s GRB).

Happy mapping!

Hello,

Thanks for this but are you sure this is really a fix?

After your change, the path along the boulevard is now said to be open to both pedestrians and cyclists (way/314681320) whereas the one around the corner is solely for pedestrians (way/978557881/history). This breaks cycle routing if there is no way to escape.

It looks like the one along the boulevard is an ordinary footway, but I will put this to my survey list. If you have local knowledge to share, it will help.

Just one more piece of advice: do not bother too much with the "designated" tags: this is one of the presets in the simple online editor but we never use it outside of the UK. Belgium law is more straightforward and the default types work fine (footway is for pedestrians but you can add bicycle=yes if there is a blue D9 or D10 sign, path is open to both pedestrians and cyclists by default).

Have a nice day.

Hello,

Adding areas around streets with highway=pedestrian is a good idea.

But do not forget to set noname=yes and copy existing "lit" and "surface" tags, otherwise they will flag warnings, or show up in StreetComplete or other apps.

Thanks.

Hello,

There is something strange in this changeset.

You added access=private on this one:
way/117615631

Yet, the area around it is fully routable and will successfully route pedestrians through it (well, technically, *around* it):
way/977848141

What is the current situation exactly?

Hello,

You shouldn’t worry about this, no-one erased your monument. ;-)

As I put in the description, the problem was the badly-formed multipolygon.
It looks like you used the "split" button in iD on a way. iD is a very basic editor aimed at making it easy to edit OSM data directly from a browser, but it does a really bad job when dealing with complicated structures, relations or multipolygons. For instance, the monument was split into two U-shaped ways joined together in a multipolygon relation, which is invalid.