Is the source this website?
https://www.vub.be/foundation/projecten/rectoraatsgebouw#braemgebouw

👏 Impressive work on that page, thanks.

OK, thanks.

Hello,
This "bicycle_rental=docking_station" tag looks interesting.
Shouldn’t we make it a wiki entry?

Hello,

Thanks for adding bicycle racks (node/9393065392).
Just one thing here: I guess the racks are not in the middle of the road, they are probably next to one of the walls, aren’t they?

Also, in OSM, bicycle stands or racks must be floating points, they should not be attached to roads.

Tell me what you’ve seen and I’ll fix this situation.

Hello,

Congrats on your first edit.

Does this tunnel really have a name? It’s very rare that infrastructure like this does have a name, and if it does, it is quite unlikely the name would be in English.
I think you may want to use the "description" field instead.

Happy mapping.

So, you surveyed it, didn’t you?

Did you spot Febelfin Academy vzw? They claim to be on the same address.
https://www.febelfin-academy.be/nl/contacteer-ons

Hello,

Do you know if Bâloise Insurance occupies everything that is related to number 19 in this building?

If there are multiple businesses or departments here, Bâloise should be tagged on a separate node, while keeping node/2482656333 clean.

Looking forward to your reply.
Thanks.

Hello,

About this one:
way/1017532860

building=yes + construction=office is incorrect, please fix it.

Either it is building=office (if it exists) or chained tags such as building=construction + construction=office (new building under construction)

Hope this helps.

Thanks, everyone. I didn’t expect that small changeset to become famous. An ordinary change at 1:00 a.m. in my timezone. ;-)

I think we could even add this tag too, right?
social_facility=shelter

Hello,

Thanks for this.
You seem to have created hundreds of changesets in the last weeks, with lots of different stuff: green spaces, buildings, moving roads, adding the name of a castle… but sadly you almost always name your changesets with the same title: "Details".

This makes it a nightmare for other mappers who try to review changes and see what is going on on the map.

I felt I had to tell you.

Can I encourage you to please spend a few seconds every time before uploading your changes, to say in a few words what the changeset is about.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks in advance.

Hello,

Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap.

You seem to be using Organic Maps.
Perhaps you should have a look at the app settings because at the moment you are uploading very strange data, which is causing validation issues on the map.

For instance this convenience store here:
node/1128028001
The way it looks now is that the original name "Bon Coin" is still there while you only provided translations into French and English to make it appear as "Flow".
I guess "Flow" is the real name, and that should be for every language, am I right?

Thanks.

Hello,

Wouldn’t building:min_level be a more suitable tag here?

Hello,

Mechanical edits are a bad thing in OSM.

Sure, there is a general rule in Belgium that a cycle path is mandatory but it does not mean you must add "bicycle=use_sidepath" every time you see a cycle track on the map.

Routers will understand it as bicycle=no for the main road and will remove it from the grid for all queries involving bicycles. We can only do this once we are sure we will guarantee all possible moves will be possible with cycle tracks.

For instance, if I want to cycle from Sint-Martinusweg to Hoge Wei, it won’t let me do it because the only way to connect them is by using the main road.
If I start from Sint-Martinusweg and I want to turn left on Leuvensesteenweg it won’t let me do it because the road does not connect the eastbound cycle track there.

This changeset broke a lot of stuff here.

Hello.

The proper way is by adding "oneway:bicycle=no" in addition of "oneway=yes".
It seems you are using some simple mobile app to add data in OSM, therefore I guess you won’t be able to do it yourself.
Fixed by changeset/115303817

And for your second point, yes, we try to monitor changes in our city, because lots of people are relying on correct OSM data. ;-)

Hello,
In Belgium, one-way streets are rarely one-way for every transport mode.
There are typically additional white road signs with exemptions for cyclists. This changeset is located in Flanders, and class-A mopeds are frequently exempted too.
Ignoring this and simply adding "oneway=yes" would break routing for those modes of transport.
Did you see which additional signs were here?

Hello,

Thanks for this reply.

You are right: if the router does not route properly through a place you know is valid, there is probably a data problem that should be solved.

It seems one new mapper had done his first edits in this area and messed up with tags. That might explain why you couldn’t properly route through those streets.

Some explanations about the differences between road types:

highway=unclassified is a generic category for a street. It will open the street to every type of vehicle by default.

Then, you can of course set motor_vehicle=no and that will be enough to tell routing engines to bar motor vehicles (cars and motorcycles) from entering here while accepting non-motorised vehicles, such as pedestrians and cyclists.

There might be some minor issues to solve (for instance, speed pedelecs are a special type, I don’t know whether they may legally use those roads, it will depend on the road signs).

highway=pedestrian + bicycle=yes is fairly adequate too. This would the preferred option here. It does not matter to me whether it is highway=unclassified or highway=pedestrian, though having the same type in comparable situations on the same territory is desirable.

Routers are expected to treat information like this:
1) read highway=* and set default permissions (e.g. a motorway is for cars, unclassified or residential is for everyone, pedestrian is solely for pedestrians)
2) if access=(yes|no) is set, it will allow or disallow everyone and override all the default permissions at once
3) if vehicle=(yes|no) is set, it will allow or disallow a particular type of vehicle. The word "vehicle" can be replaced with anything, namely: "vehicle", "motor_vehicle", "bicycle","foot", "speed_pedelec", "mofa", and much more. The rule of thumb is that they should be read from the least specific to the most specific category. For a speed pedelec, the router should know it is a vehicle (yes|no), then it is a bicycle (yes|no) and finally it is a speed pedelec (yes|no).

Another aspect of OSM is rendering, i.e. the way our geographical data is transformed into a beautiful map.

Highway=pedestrian is rendered in light blue on the main layer, while highway=unclassified shows as a normal road; it is filled with dashed light-gray lines if access=no is set, but access=no complicates everything because you have to grant an "exception within the exception", i.e. access=no to exclude everyone, then set bicycle=yes and foot=yes to allow some users.
A standard practice is OSM is that we do not map for the renderer. If the map "looks nice", we are happy, but we try to avoid overly-complicated tagging schemes just for the sake of having them look nice on one particular layer.

Happy mapping.

Hello,

Why did you change this street—and a few others, apparently—into highway=unclassified?

This is a park with several large roads that used to have motor traffic but are entirely closed nowaways. We had extensive discussions within the community a few years back and settled to use highway=pedestrian.

I do not recall having seen recent discussions to revert all of this work.

Would you please be so kind as to explain the reasons of your changes.

Thanks.

Hello,
That must be a recent change, indeed.
Just one thing: is this street open to motor vehicles as well? way/230959392
According to OSM tags it is. Otherwise, making it a cycleway and granting access to pedestrians could be better.