Hello,

Here is a more detailed explanation about the issue. (Sorry for not taking the time to explain in detail yesterday, I only had limited mapping time and rushed to restore the building because the changeset was creating issues.)

There are existing landuse areas in OSM. Most of Belgium is already covered with them.

Areas where most buildings are public administration, are typically marked as landuse=commercial. Here is the existing area:
way/30087343
This is the reason why using the same tags within an existing area is not appropriate. Don’t worry, OSM may be complicated at times and we all make mistakes.

Your changeset has been reverted.
You erased Berlaymont building and made it a landuse=commercial area… despite it is already inside such an area.

Your changeset has been reverted.
You created a hospital on top on the existing hospital, which was already on the map since its official opening in 2018. This is not correct.

Bonjour,

Attention : ne pas remplir le champ "Unit" dans l'éditeur iD ("addr:unit").
C'est réservé à la boîte postale, c'est très rare d'utiliser ceci.

Le tag correct pour dire qu'il y a 7 apartments est "building:flats".

Nous avons corrigé, mais je sentais utile de vous informer pour ne plus refaire l'erreur dans le futur.

Hello,

Even if they sell roofs, it is very unlikely their main building itself… is just a roof.
You changed the building into "building=roof", this is very probably a mistake.

If you want to add a business, please use a proper tag, such as shop=* or office=*.

Also, please use a real description for your changesets, not this promotional nonsense.

Hello,

This is a bit strange here: you said that the passage goes *through* the building but the codes you typed into the database are for a tunnel *under* the building. This looks like a mistake.

Also, it is very unlikely "passage through residentie botanique" is the official name of a path. Filling the name text box is only for official names of objects, not everything has a name. Leave the name blank instead.

Finally, you created a junction between your footpath and the river, here: node/10861143452
This node is connected to both. This is probably incorrect. A path is expected to connect the road, not the river underneath. If you do not fix it, the footpath will be completely useless for routing apps. Could you please inspect the area and fix accordingly.

Hello,

Thanks for adding a building.

You may have noticed that names of objects (roads, buildings) always start with capital letters on the map. It is advised to follow existing practice instead of typing everything in small letters ("residentie botanique").

Hello,

Do I understand that the following streets are now strictly oneway with NO exception for cyclists?
This is a rather uncommon situation in the Brussels-Capital Region. Are you sure? Armchair mapping or survey here?

way/150184229
way/35682620
way/28775917
way/19881057

Hello,

I am puzzled by your change about the following footway:
way/408941466/history

In version 1, a user wrote "steep=yes", which is an unknown key.
You made it "step=yes", which makes no sense either.

I don’t know this footway but I suspect the original author meant that it is very steep, i.e. probably a key like "incline" was intended.

What was the purpose of your edit, please (apart from getting rid of Osmose flags for the sake of it)? How can we help?

Hello,

Would you please tell us what is the source of the data you are using? You might want to know that most websites that list businesses have strong copyright restrictions against re-using their data on websites like ours.

Some parts of your edit raise a few questions.

Take this hotel in Berlin
node/295084271/history
The phone and website were properly set, as contact:phone and contact:website respectively. It looks like you have been adding "phone" and "website" tags duplicating those values. (Also, for the website, you should not just time the domain, but a valid URL including the https:// part)

Same for the hotel in Valencia (you added a second email address on top of the one that was already on the database).
node/825235775/history

Hello,

I don’t understand why changing the highway type is wanted here.

Ways inside an area with highway=pedestrian are usually mapped with the same type.

Would you mind giving more details about the "error" you claim to have fixed?

Bonjour, merci pour cette première édition, et bienvenue sur OSM.

J’ai regardé les changements, tout ceci a l'air correct. OK.

Thanks but "circumference" must be a numerical value, not an estimate. Use "note" or "description" tag for free text.

OK, fine.

Hello,

Do I understand that you are merely importing raw data into OSM without ground knowledge?

AFAIK, Burger King took over Quick restaurants some time ago, and I believe it should have been more appropriate to replace the existing node instead of adding a new one beside.

Do you mind having a second look here?

It’s probably one of those "magic fix" functions in iD that caused the issue.

Don’t worry, I inspected the relation and reordered it.

That would mostly depend how the router is built. I wouldn’t bet on this, as most of those I know will assume that, as soon as there is a node in common, people could walk from one to the other.

Don’t worry, it was easy to fix.

Hello,

Too good to be true, sadly.

There is a connector to enter the station, but it does not go immediately to the platform. The railway platforms are elevated: connecting them to the street would fool navigation software into believing there is a direct access.
I fixed this: navigation will still work fine but will follow the normal itinerary, i.e. through the station, and stairs to the platform.

Have a nice day.

Hello,

Your changeset claims to have been about the cemetery but it seems that, on top of that, you also did a major reshuffling of ways inside "Promenade verte - Groene wandeling" hiking relation.

I don’t believe the iD editor is suited to do this, it often corrupts route relations. Indeed, the relation is invalid now.

Is there anything special you wanted to do about it?

(Sorry, this comment was intended to be added to the note.)