Hello,

How about adding oneway:bicycle=yes?

We do this sometimes, to make human review of one-way streets much easier, i.e. we know that the situation was already examined and that there was definitely no M2/M3 sign.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for replying. That’s perfect, then, and your next contributions will be welcome; we always need more eyes to look for recent changes like this. (I admit I rarely care to inspect them in detail when passing by, and this is quite useful.)

Hello,

Is this change based on a field survey?
It raises a few issues.

1) You deleted the repair station in Woluwe here:
node/8972946744/history
On this Mapillary picture, taken hardly one month ago, it was still there: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=166245279137004

2) You deleted the one in Docks Bruxsel here:
node/6329699865/history
I recall seeing it earlier this year, probably in January.

Of course, those devices might have been removed recently, but a group of changes for 6 different parts several kilometers apart, the same day, and for one specific kind of object and nothing else, inevitably looks a bit suspicious from the outside. We would appreciate if you would be kind enough to explain how this information was obtained.

That being said, if you are surveying cycle-friendly devices, that could be really helpful to keep the map up to date.

Have a nice day.

Hello,

Thanks for this and welcome.
I think there are a few issues with the following road:
way/1069375330

1) If it really has a name—even though it probably doesn’t—it must be written as such: Parking Rubenspark, instead of parking rubenspark (lowercase).
2) Do not type "unknown" when you do not know whether access is granted, leave blank. This value is not recognized, routing engines only accept "yes" or "no".
3) You should draw an extra bit of the road to connected Prins Boudewijnlaan, because for the moment it only touches the cycle path. Only then, vehicles can be routed through your road.

Hope this helps.
Happy mapping.

Hello,

I think there is a problem with this changeset.

You created two identical trees, a few centimeters from each other, right in the middle of an intersection. On the latest aerial imagery there is no tree here, just asphalt for a large road intersection.

If you are testing MapContrib, please fix your changes to avoid leaving non-existing data on the map.

Some people have been commenting on your other changesets, I encourage you to have a look at their comments as well.

Have a nice day.

Very good, thanks.

Hello,

You created a node with a name and no other tags.
node/9814206905

This triggers errors on the map because it lacks at least one basic tag to describe the type of activity (amenity, leisure, shop…).

Do you think this will correctly describe this place?
shop=charity
second_hand=only

Hello,

AFAIK, Radio Panik only occupies one part of the building, and the building has residents, who enter through a private door; I spotted several mailboxes on this mapillary picture: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=3060619920826076

In your changeset, you mapped the _entire_ building as being used as a radio studio. I think it would be better to create a single node inside the building and move the studio-related tags to it.

What do you think?

Hello,

It’s good that you care about routing.

I fixed this because your set wouldn’t work (you added bicycle=yes on the sidewalk but the sidewalk is not connected to the road, and the routing engine wouldn’t have used it).
That can be solved by adding bicycle=yes to the "crossing" way too, but I found a more elegant solution, i.e. creating a short cycle connector instead.

Incidently, is cycling legal along Venelle G. Désir?

way/1068234458 looks like a small driveway, and should not be tagged as an ordinary residential street.

Hello,

I think you made a small mistake here.

Changing the address is okay but you must also move the point to its new location, otherwise it gives something really weird in the database.

Thanks for this reply.

You may want to edit the wiki accordingly; so far it only refers to US-only rules about this. If there is a consensus to apply the same rules here, documenting it on the wiki would benefit everyone.

Hello,

This changeset is quite puzzling and the changeset title does not help much.
It looks like you are mechanically adding the "highspeed" key on several railways and removing it on other ways.

For instance, you removed highspeed=yes on this way: way/173295414
It is part of the high speed line (HSL), has maxspeed=160 and is used by international high speed trains such as Eurostar and Thalys.
That seems incorrect, and not coherent with other ways where it was added.

Is there any publicy-available documentation or data source you are using?

Hello,

Fixing the awful multipolygon is okay but it seems that in this changeset you also merged all the nodes for shops with the existing nodes for private addresses.
There are several private doors and apartments on top of the shops in this gallery.

This is annoying: for one part because housenumbers will no longer be rendered on the map, and also because you took the residential ones as references, hence destroying the history of objects. (See an example here: until today we could query this POI and follow how the shop changed over time: node/4418285545/history)

I think we should undo the parts with shops.

FYI, we are currently reviewing all your edits of the past months, one by one.

Lots of incorrect data, e.g. postcode 1070 with Molenbeek as you did here. (By the way, manually adding postcodes on every address is a waste of time, they are already contained in relations.)

If you want to learn to make better contributions to the database, you might open the editor and study the tags from the shops you touched and see how they are now.

Just a quick reminder for the correct way to add shops (or anything else: doctor, car-wash…):

1) If the shop is the *entire* building, you tag the building. Otherwise, create an extra node inside the building.

2) If a building has multiple addresses, no addr:* tags on the building itself; there are several nodes inside the building, one for each address.

3) You can re-use those addr:* nodes only if the *entire* housenumber matches the shop. If people live there and have this housenumber as their real address, create an extra node inside the building.

Happy mapping.

This changeset is 100% destructive (14 ways and 65 nodes) for no apparent reason: most of those small garden sheds still exist.
Your change has been reverted.

I surveyed it the other day. The tags are fine now.

"Add Bicycle parking"… and bars, bakeries, waste baskets, shops, a tree, a fire hydrant… ;-)

Hello,

You may be interested to use the "Background settings" button when you edit, and scroll down to "AIV Flanders GRB". This is a correct source of data for building outlines.

Never trace buildings on aerial imagery because it is distorted and buildings always look a few meters away from where they really are.

Hope this helps.
Happy mapping.

Hello,

Welcome to OSM.

Something strange about the numbers, your edits are creating duplicate numbers in the same street.

The correct way is to type numbers as 87A, 87B as one part, instead of filling the number box with 87 and the unit box with A, B…

Hope this helps.