Hello,
You are right; this changeset was followed by another one a few days later where we took care of removing extra nodes, but while preserving the correct outline of those buildings.
Have a nice day.

I realize I never replied on this one. Good suggestion, of course.

I have always wondered why the user left changeset comments here…

Hello,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I had a look at your edit. We had to change a few things, as we’d rather not mix it with the building, and data like the postcode or full address does not have to be repeated on every single object. The restaurant is here:
node/11884628043

Hello @VLD549.

User Tom Ameye already replied to the same question here: changeset/145802282
You replied on April 4, therefore we shall assume that you read his reply.

It is not useful asking the same question repeatedly. Bullying users through changeset comments is not accepted. If you believe there is a general tagging issue, please discuss it on the OSM wiki or OSM community forum. And please mention the source you are using to back up your claim, not just an unnamed "mapping colleague"; how are we supposed to know whether this mysterious "mapping colleague" is someone we know and whose judgement in setting tagging guidelines can be trusted?

Have a nice day.

Fixed by changeset/150844943

Hello,

There is a cycle lane (with dashed lines) going downhill, but cyclists riding uphill here have bicycle logos and V-signs all along this road.

The correct value for cycleway:right is shared_lane.

I don’t understand why you changed that into cycleway:right=no. Probably a mistake when using the StreetComplete app.

Your edit has been reverted.

Hello,

The sidewalks here were already correctly mapped as separate ways. In that case, leave "sidewalk=separate" in the database, do not fill anything that says "sidewalk=both", because that creates unwanted duplicates here.

Your edit has been reverted.

Hello,
Zandvoordedorpstraat 95 is already the address of the container building here: way/608089140
Information such as postcode 8400 and city=Oostende are automatically calculated by the database.
Please do not type addresses on restaurants, shops or amenities, this is not necessary. All the address points in Belgium are normally already mapped.

Bonjour,

OK pour le changement.

Pour éviter les confusions, c’est toujours une bonne pratique de fournir une source vérifiable. Car quand une première contribution change un nom de rue, nous savons que dans 95 % des cas c'est pour vandaliser. Pour ici, j’ai trouvé la source sur le site de Gemeinde Bütgenbach et c’est OK, même si la décision ne précise pas à quelle date le changement est effectif. Nous adaptons aussi les adresses des bâtiments, qui changent également.

No problem, I finally found them on existing Mapillary pictures. The clothes-recycling container is yellow, therefore run by Les Petits Riens - Spullenhulp. Fixed, thanks.

Hello,

I fear there is a mistake here.
StreetComplete asked about the container with operator=Bruxelles-Propreté - Net Brussel
They only collect glass bottles.

You answered that their container also accepts cooking oil and clothes. We should map that on separate nodes. I can fix it. For cooking oil, I presume this is an Oliobox. Do you know who operates the clothes-recycling container you saw? (Petits Riens? Terre? Other?)

Thanks.

Hello,

The reason for the messages you get is because you edited Twigworth Green in Gloucester as well as amenities in Nairobi… but uploaded them in the same changeset. Next time, please finish working on one area (and upload) *before* moving on to the other.

Hello,

Naming objects in OSM in all-caps goes against established practice. We use ordinary capitalisation rules, i.e. The Cross instead of THE CROSS.

Have a nice day.

Hello,
Some advice here: surface:* tags make more sense on ways than on nodes.
When there is a very basic mapping scheme with crossings only as nodes, it is okay to use the tag on those nodes. But in Brussels we try to map footways accurately, and in that case perhaps it’d be better that the information about the rainbow colour goes to the way. That can be combined with surface=asphalt and other tags. ;-)

Hello,

I am afraid this edit is not correct.

The shape of those two buildings was correct, it was imported on the official building outline matching government data. The "spike" really exist, it was not a mistake. The correct outline can be found on Digitaal Vlaanderen GRB imagery, which is the official source for this part of Belgium.
way/513036904
way/513036905

This MapRoulette quest is apparently encouraging users to blindly "fix" buildings everywhere, even when there is no need. Please make sure to inspect source data correctly, and mark them as false positives in MapRoulette in cases like this.

Hello,

You seem desirous to complete as many MapRoulette quests as possible, yet some of your edits have raised some questions.

Just for this changeset, if I inspect the official building outline of those against PICC numerical imagery, which is the official reference for building outlines in this part of Belgium, I see no reason to "fix" them and square them up.
way/628549393
way/1221845632

Lots of buildings in Belgium, especially old building inside cities, have shapes that may seem funny to you but are not incorrect. This new quest about "fixing spikes" seem to produce a lot of false positives. This message is to insist that you always check building outlines against official numerical imagery—do not rely on aerial imagery for buildings—otherwise you will unfortunately damage correct shapes.

Have a nice day.

Hello,

Sorry but Bing is not a reliable source to "fix" buildings. The shape of the buildings you changed was by no means incorrect. Shapes in Brussels are obtained from accurate government data. I had to restore the original shape.

Hello,
Next time, please do not erase buildings that have a ref:UrbIS tag.
If there is a situation where you want to create an object that spans over a larger area, just create a container area and make this area the main building. But do not erase the smaller buildings, just retag them as building:part=yes and keep the ref:UrbIS tag. This is the unique identifier of every building in Brussels.
Thanks.
I fixed this one.

Hello,

We work with SIAMU/DBDMH (firefighting and emergency medical assistance service in the Brussels-Capital Region) and they have set emergency=* tags for service roads they consider to be needed to route their vehicles.

The standard tag we use is "emergency=*" (yes or no).

"access:emergency=yes" does not seem to be used anymore. Could you please tell me why such a value would be wanted? Who will use that?

I recommend removing this tag but I prefer asking your first.

Thanks in advance.