Hello,

I came across your change when reviewing the geometry of a building.

This building (way/226516933) is mostly in the Brussels Region but a small part of it is in Flanders.
GRB and UrbIS both show its entire outline… but do not match.

How are we supposed to deal with this case to avoid multiple reverts (in good faith) because of incompatible reference layers? How about "nodes in Flanders according to GRB + nodes in Brussels according to UrbIS + manual review to avoid nonsense where they join"?

Hello,

"Un des occupants" would imply it should preferably be mapped as a single node inside the building instead of naming the *whole* building after that single company, shouldn’t it?

Hello,

Thanks for this.

If you want to draw buildings, you might want to know that we never trace buildings from aerial imagery. Otherwise, it gives all sorts of funny shapes that do not match the real outline of the buildings.

In the iD editors, when you are editing, you can use the Background button and scroll to the "AIV Flanders GRB" layer. Then, you see the real shape of buildings and you can trace on top of that.

I suppose it must also have "oneway=yes" in the correct direction, otherwise adding the exception for cyclists makes little sense.
In what direction does motor traffic run on this street?

Hello,
Please tag as tourism=gallery, this is not a museum.
Also, the name of the artist was not written properly.

Hello,
Thanks for adding this.
Just one thing: this is an art gallery, it should be tagged as such.
Not as a museum and adding "gallery" in the name, this is not how OSM works.

This is not a museum.
The building was wrong, you put it on number 5 whereas it should be 4A.
We fixed the issue.

Hello.
Takumi has been on the map for years. Please do not create duplicates.
Your change has been reverted.

I had a look at the details of some of your changes.

Adding the "source:website" tag might only be relevant if that website had actually been used to obtain the data put into the OSM database. In reality, our data was here before you added that source. Your contributions are complete nonsense, they only serve to put OSM in legal trouble!

I suggest you review all your previous edits one by one and remove the dubious links.

Hi there!

I see you are citing the peeringdb.com website as reference for your changes.

May I kindly remind you that OSM contributors are reminded never to add data from any copyrighted sources.

The website you are using is very clear about this:

https://www.peeringdb.com/aup
"Except for Internet operational purposes approved by PeeringDB, no part of the PeeringDB data may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of PeeringDB on behalf of the copyright holders. Any use of this material to target advertising or similar activities is explicitly forbidden and will be prosecuted. PeeringDB requests to be notified of any such activities or suspicions thereof. The PeeringDB data may not be passed on in bulk to any other person or organization unless approved by PeeringDB."

It is not allowed to take any data from PeeringDB and use it into OpenStreetMap. I suggest you remove any information you may have copied from them.

Have a nice day.

Hello,

OK for water drains and trees.
But not for bus stops

Let me explain: last week you created non-existing bus platforms at Wiener and Fauconnerie/Valkerij. They were flagged as incorrect and we had to delete them. And now you drew them again!

In general, we only draw bus platforms as separate ways or areas when a dedicated infrastructure has been built (those platforms with red bricks are fairly common in Brussels). But not here: there is just a stop post on the sidewalk. We have put a lot of care drawing each one of them accurately over the years.

Mapping public transport correctly in OSM is a highly specialised task, I recommend you concentrate on other, easier, actions, until you gain enough experience with the data model.

Have a nice day.

Well, they made an unusual traffic situation here but, no problem, then: the way you mapped it in OSM is correct, it is a regular oneway road. Well done!
Have a nice day.

Hello,

bpost (in lower case) is the operator.
Post offices have names, they are usually printed on the paper on the door along with the opening hours.

Don’t worry, I fixed this one.

Hello,

Beautiful drawings, congrats!

Just one point: did you see if there were D5 roadsigns here? way/1118475259

D5 is the blue sign making it legally a roundabout.
This gives a difference between being a roundabout (incoming vehicles must yield to those already in the circle) and a traffic circle (vehicles coming from the right come first) and OSM data cares about it (junction=roundabout vs. oneway=yes).

Thanks in advance.

You are talking about this one, right:
way/23329856
Adding cyclestreet=yes is fine, I had no problem with that. But since you used oneway=yes with no additional tags, it means that cycling is only allowed in the same direction as motor traffic, with NO contraflow (and no more cycle track on the side).
If cycling is allowed on the road in both directions, we must add oneway:bicycle=no.
I haven’t been in this area recently, I don’t know what road signs have been installed here. If you can describe it, we’ll know how to repair the map.

It would be appreciated if you would also answer the main part of my comment, about *other* roads you changed in the same upload. I provided you the direct links to some of the suspicious objects.

Thanks.

Your change has been reverted.

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Hello,

Private roads are perfectly legitimate on OSM, as long as they are properly tagged with access=private.

Your change has been reverted.

I think there is a problem with this building. way/1118312101

I don’t understand the address you mentioned.
addr:unit=1 is the postbox. Why did you create a postbox for this building? On another recent changeset I saw you also created postbox 13 on an address. I think there is some confusion, this field is not aimed at stating how many people/apartments are to be found in a building.

Also, addr:city=Ganshoren and addr:postcode=1083 should not be repeated on every building. This information is already computed automatically.

Also, how did you obtain the geometry of the new building? It looks like hand tracing on imagery from another region (the changeset reports it has been traced from Flanders imagery, which is not calibrated in Brussels).

I will try to fix it but I'd like to hear your thoughts first, especially if there is something unique about this building, that would require a special way for its address.

Thanks.

Hello,

Hello,

Nice first edit, thanks.

Just one thing: if you want to draw small objects like this, be sure to give them a proper shape. 3 of 4 of those swimming pools here are perfect rectangles on imagery, so it’s best to draw real rectangles instead of fuzzy shapes. In the online editor, you can right-click on a shape and use the "square" option to improve it.