Reverted

This changeset is a detructive edit caused by a faulty tool named OnWheels.

You removed several valid tags here:

addr:unit=1
contact:[email protected]
contact:fax=+32 2 513 44 52
contact:phone=+32 2 383 06 40
contact:website=https://www.swecobelgium.be
full_name=Sweco Belgium nv - Sweco Belgium SA
full_name:fr=Sweco Belgium SA
full_name:nl=Sweco Belgium nv

It looks like account is massively dumping data onto OSM and removing data on dozens of POI in our city. Please stop with faulty edits immediately, you are destroying months of valuable work.

If you are part of the organized OnWheels mapping activity, please report this message to your supervisor immediately. They are aware of the problem with their software and know that it should *not* be used in production.

Thanks for the link. I think all the streets now have the correct maxspeed value and associated tags. People who use OSM data will now get the correct speed limits.

Hello,

This road used to be drawn as two separate parts, because the cycle infrastructure differs.
way/29059314
In this changeset you merged them into a single road, with "shared_lane" attributes. This does not seem to match the latest aerial imagery, where I still see a normal painted lane.
Has the situation changed here very recently or is this a mistake?

If you use the online editor the only way is to do everything manually.
I can try to perform the changes in one go, I’ll have a look later today.
Is there an official map somewhere? I’d rather have this as an official confirmation, not found so far on wemmel.be

Hello,

Are there F12 signs on the streets you changed?
https://www.wegcode.be/media/image/orig/2e642ae51c3fbc4b0adc54c012013014e236cecb.png

In that case, the correct way to do this in OSM is not just to change the maxspeed but also to change the road type. It must become highway=living_street. This is because this roadsign implies other rules, not just a lower speed.

Thanks.

Thanks for the reply. I don’t want to be overly critical because you have good intentions and want to do useful contributions, but there are more technical errors in the latest edits. You’ve just created a new college named "Bâtiment Chambon". This is incorrect.
A multipolygon is a relation that contains areas. I know Chambon building but I don’t know exactly which part of the building hosts IHECS. If you know that, the correct way to solve this is: either identify an existing area and add it to the multipolygon, or draw a new area with name=Bâtiment Chambon and add it to the multipolygon. Tags about being a college should only be written once, on the multipolygon relation.
(I know this is maybe technical language here but OSM has a fairly elaborate data model if we want to show complicated structures correctly.)

The problem is more severe. You actually deleted node/4418285604, which had amenity=college.

To put it otherwise, you told the map that there is no college at all, yet 3 buildings have "IHECS" in their name. If someone wants to list all the places offering higher education in Brussels, IHECS will *not* show up. That is a problem.

I created a multipolygon to restore IHECS, with the amenity=college tag, including those 3 buildings.

Have a nice day.

Adding a common operator tag is normally okay.
Deleting valid address point is not.

It is appreciated that you would abstain from editing address points or adding addresses to objects; this is a really complicated system. I suppose the problem comes from the iD editor – the online editor on osm.org, used by new users – which shows text boxes for addresses and encourages new users to add addresses where they shouldn’t.

I will try to fix this.

Hello,

Please do not add multiple wikipedia links. Linking is primarily achieved through the wikidata tag, which centralises links to all wikipedias.

I think this is caused by a problem in the iD online editor (the simple online editor for new users) which has those strange text boxes. Please ignore them.

Good job! Many thanks for this.

Hello,
If you want to add amenities, health practicioners, shops… please create a separate node. Do not steal existing address nodes, this is not how we map in Belgium.
We fixed your edit.
Thanks.

Thanks for this. After inspecting aerial imagery, it turns out this second building was added much later, probably owned by the same people who have the existing house. I moved the address to the gate, it will fix the problem.

OK, thanks for this. I’ve linked it to the door in Coenraets and removed duplicate tags (addresses should not be duplicated on objects).

Hello,
The object you created claims to have 72A as its address but was drawn inside building with housenumber 68. Sorry but this looks incorrect. Could you please check again.

Hello,

It was previously tagged as "highway=path". Such a tagging does not mean the common definition of "voetpad"; retagging it was not necessary to allow cyclists here.
In OSM, highway=path is a generic path which is open to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

Should it be solely for cyclists and pedestrians, it is okay to retag it as highway=cycleway + foot=yes is okay, but default access permissions are enough. No need to set access=no, horse=no, motor_vehicle=no… because that just makes data more complicated, adding exceptions for nothing.

Hope this helps.
Have a nice day.

Hello,

Please make sure that your changeset titles match what you are really doing on the map.

You added extra tags to a railway line—which incidently implies this very large bounding box. It must have been better to do this in a separate changeset, and with another title.

Have a nice day.

Hello,

This so-called "Info added" changeset did not add any information, despite its name.

It merely changed "Begraafplaats van Anderlecht" in the name:nl field into "Begraafplaats Anderlecht". But now, we have a validation issue because the NL part of the name tag does not match name:nl.

Same problem with your other changesets inside the Brussels Region today.

Is there a reason why you chose to break the sync between name and name:nl?

Thanks in advance.

Hello,

We had to do some fixes here.
Small parking spaces along the street are tagged as "parking=lane", not "street_side" which is another type.

Hello,

Could you please have a second look at this node?

+377 is the international calling code for Monaco, it is strange to see this on a POI in Belgium.

Also, you merely add nodes with names… but they won’t be searchable nor rendered unless they are properly tagged. A "wzc" is essentially amenity=social_facility + social_facility=group_home + social_facility:for=senior.
(Since you are a user with over 105,000 contributions to the map, I suppose you know this already… unless your account is used by several people.)

Also, please inspect prior objects before dropping nodes to the map; you seem to be a SEO agency wanting to fill data as fast as possible and show your clients that you did the job. I have been inspecting some of your other contributions and found several cases where you added data that was already in the database.