Bonjour,

Attention, la database comprend uniquement l'anglais, ne pas écrire les valeurs des tags dans d'autres langues, sinon impossible que les apps comprennent comment l'utiliser. Ceci est incorrect : material=bois,_métal,_pierre

→ material=wood;metal;stone

Thanks.

Bonjour,

Nous avons corrigé.
Pour un SUL : ne pas dessiner de voie séparée. Simplement ajouter le tag "oneway:bicycle=no" sur la rue.
way/35579503

Hello,

Could we please advise to upload changes separately instead of performing unrelated changes on various parts of the map all together. This will make easier for your fellow mappers to review what you are doing.
osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

I see you changed some tags on a department store (Trafic), moved a road in Maffle, clicked on "suggestions" offered by the name-suggestion-index function to change TGV InOui into a mere "TGV", or changed a lock into waterway=canal+lock=yes. All such changes would have been better done as separate changesets and with a clearer explanation.

Have a nice day.

OK, I found one such roadsign on one of our Mapillary pictures.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=675070934650204

I fixed the situation. Thanks for spotting the error about one-way roads, routing will now work fine now.

OK, thanks for the information. I assume that you checked this with your own eyes and not solely from Google Street View, of course.

I will fix the tags. It is perfectly fine to prevent cars from cruising through those roads—this is precisely what the municipality expected by placing such signs—but the "access" tag means "all users", therefore also pedestrians or cyclists, despite the law says otherwise. Don’t worry, I will fix the tags.

Hello,

Thanks for this but this changeset raised a few eyebrows here.

Did they remove all the C1 road signs in this area? Really?

Also, access=destination has undesired side effects for routing, we almost never use it alone. What is the situation of roads signs here please? If there are C3 signs with an additional "exception destination traffic" sign we use other tags, because of some peculiarities in Belgian law.

Thank in advance for your reply. Have a nice day.

Hello,

Oops, we’ve run into a problem here.
I think you created a duplicate node of this one: node/11296284968/history

The reason is that OsmAnd always uses an offline map stored on your device, it may lack recent objects unless you run the local update function regularly.

Hello,

Sorry but I had to revert this.

Adding an ATM is fine.
Fixing the geometry of about 100 buildings is different, especially here because those geometries are the official UrbIS reference (provided by the authorities which offer them under a compatible licence). Some buildings in this area have a fuzzy shape, that is true, but that was not a mistake, this is really how they look.

Have a nice day.

Hi,

Next time, please ignore suggestions by iD about "fixing" or "upgrading" tags for bus routes. This is because you apparently agreed to change the tags for a long bus route, and then your changeset still says you were adding sidewalks but it spans over a large area.

Hello and welcome to OSM.

The buildings look okay to me, so if you want to continue adding more of them, feel free to do so.
(And you won’t have to write "for exercice only" anymore, because that sentence creates a bit of confusion for people who are reviewing changes.)

Happy mapping!

This changeset should be independently reviewed.
* Ways 474881773, 757324843, and 554687736 look normal on the map, I don’t see why they were deleted.
* Deletion of building 842392414 near Kortrijk Airport is okay.
* Problem with the shops in Middelkerke: they should not have been deleted from the database. We undeleted nodes and retagged them as shop=vacant.

Hello,

Thanks for adding more data. Sadly, this mural no longer exists, it was ravaged by fire earlier this year.

(Incidently, OSM got in trouble a few years ago by the lawyers of the parcoursstreetart website because they do not allow their content to be copied to other websites—even if we feel it’s a shame that a public authority would refuse to share this—so we have to be careful about data sources, because if they see that someone added a non-existing mural on OSM in November, it shows evidence that it was not obtained through a survey.)

Have a nice day.

Hello,

We always appreciate contributions in OSM.

However, I would like to share this comment with you. OSM is used by many people and our data is used in third-party apps, to build maps or feed navigation software. Therefore, we care a lot about data correctness and it is quite saddening to see new users—certainly acting in good faith—single-handedly changing the map and going against standards that we have carefully built up over the years.

When a cycle lane is just a dashed line of paint, we tag it as attributes on the road (way/291878363). It is not recommended to draw it as a separate way, and certainly not while keeping the tags on the road because that would just tell the map that there are… two cycle lanes next to each other.

We had to undo your change here.

Hello and welcome to OSM. Thanks for adding more details to the map.

Just one thing: Brussels is a bliingual city and some name must be written in our two official languages.

The name of the operator of those devices is "Bruxelles-Propreté - Net Brussel" in OSM. Don’t worry, I’ve already fixed it.

Happy mapping.

If anyone wonders why a changeset that seemingly was about a small roundabout in France created such a huge bounding box, here is the explanation.

The user created a bus route relation here
relation/16667112/history and probably used a script to add all the stops by providing their id numbers.

It turns out that two bus stops are mapped as ways but the relation calls them as nodes. This creates an unwanted situation where this local bus route in France includes one node in Buffalo (node/1219945864) and one near Copenhagen (node/1214138688)

This explains why both changesets about this bus route are particularly huge. Kind regards to @mga_geo, those things happen once in a while even for experienced mappers. 🤞

OK, merci.

Hi.

Nice work! But can you have a second look at the phone number of this one.
way/1051452519/history

Bonjour et merci pour l'info.

Le sentier doit rester sur la carte car il est visible sur les photos aériennes, et sinon d’autres mappers vont le rajouter à chaque fois. Mais nous l’avons passé en accès privé. Ainsi il sera affiché comme non accessible et les applications de randonnée ne proposeront plus de passer par là.

osm.wiki/FR:Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Hello,

Thanks for reviewing existing Mapillary pictures.

Some tagging issues, though:

node/6399271304
private=yes → Shouldn’t it be access=private instead?

Also, "survey:date": some devices have been surveyed recently (which did not necessarily imply that something was changed, typically if all the tags were correct). I guess this value reflects the date of the corresponding Mapillary image instead. For clarity, how about using another tag to put this date?

Hello,

A school within a school?
6 objects with the same name?
The school perimeter with a building tag as it if was a giant building overlapping all the existing buildings: way/1220468345

Are you sure you know what you are doing?

We are inclined to erase your latest changes. I spent 20 minutes cleaning up the mess you did for a school in Forest but this one is probably even worse.

Please learn a bit about how OSM works, there are plenty of tutorials around, we have a lot of documentation on our wiki, or simply look at how the school on the same street is mapped: one single area, they do not repeat the school name on every possible building, no need to force postcodes on every building…