Hello, geoTD.

Could we please discuss this?

I fixed several faulty changesets here yesterday. You inadvertently added incorrect address data into OSM. And you created no less than 5 new universities here, which is very unlikely; there is only one university. Inner parts, such as named buildings must *not* be tagged as if they were full-scale universities on their own.

Please take a moment to read this message.

I am sorry but I will be forced to undo most of your changes again. We cannot let false data on the public map. I am willing to help you find a suitable ways to render additional details for this campus.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks for your next edit, which is a good fix. About phone number, yes the convention in OSM is that all phone numbers use the international format, so that they will work on every phone and from everywhere.

Hello,

Can you please have a second at this edit?

amenity=Binnenspeeltuin is a non-existing tag. Tags must be written in English.

+ The address should be entirely erased because it duplicates the existing address of the area + the phone number is invalid and should use the "+32" international format instead of local "0" prefix.

I suggest opting for either leisure=playground or amenity=schoolyard as the main tag here.

Thanks.

Hello, and welcome to OSM.

If a place is out of business, please do not erase the node. A vacant place can be retagged as vacant instead of destroying everything.

I fixed your edit.

Hello,

In theory, adding footways is useful. But can you please ensure to properly split them at the edge of roads. Urban footways are better tagged as either "footway=sidewalk" or "footway=crossing", so we’d rather split them instead of long lines going through several blocks.

Hello,

Shouldn’t the existing area for ZAVO be extended instead of creating a second school besides?
way/151382335

Hello, and welcome to OSM.

Interesting edit. I see you wanted a review.

When a path is shared between pedestrians and cyclists, it is always useful to add the "segregated" tag.

If you see a D9 roadsign (cyclists and pedestrians each have their own part), you can add "segregated=yes".

If you see a D10 roadsign (everyone shares the same area), we add "segregated=no".

Hello,

Please do not change information on existing address points (UrbIS data points for addresses and buildings).

Adding small businesses is fine but please:
1) Always add them as nodes.
2) Never write any address on them.

I will now fix your various edits.
Thanks in advance.

Hello,

Good point to have thought about this, but if you don’t mind I would like to explain a few things.

"oneway=yes" applies to all vehicles. There is no need for "oneway:foot=no" on ordinary roads, because pedestrians are always exempted from the one-way exception on reads.

"oneway:bicycle=no" is correct if you have M2 or M3 signs.

"oneway:moped=no" is incorrect. On OSM, "moped" means class B motorcycles (i.e. Vespas and similar). Those vehicles may never drive contraflow in Belgium.

M3 signs are fairly common in Flanders, i.e. bicycle + class A motorcycles (< 50 cm³ and < 25 km/u). On OSM, class A are "mofa".
In that case, we set "oneway:mofa=no".

I fixed the tags here. I hope this can help you for your future edits.

Have a nice day.

## REVERTED CHANGESET
Changed into old_name:fr=Cortenbergh

## REVERTED CHANGESET

Réthy is only the old name and was already tagged as "old_name:fr".

There is no dedicated French translation, it must stay as "Retie" in every language.

See official government decision here:
https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/arrete/1988/06/24/1988000115/justel

Hello, and welcome to OSM.

Since you present yourself as GIS professionals, you may be interested to know that, since OSM is a geographical database of the world, we do *not* repeat some information on every object of our database.

In particular the post code and the town name.

Every object within this area is automatically recognised as having post code 2275: relation/3363890

Every object within this area is automatically recognised as being inside Lille municipality: relation/1282972

This is the reason why we always abstain from repeating this data on every object. Experience shows that it inevitably leads to corrupted data.

Also, I observe some data integrity errors in this area now. Just one example: Ursulinenstraat 13 now returns several different buildings (way/377877874 + way/721633495 + way/1046688260) + many examples of unique keys which you have duplicated: some schools were properly mapped as polygons and now I see the same school information repeated on the main school building.

Thanks in advance.

The address for nbr 107 was properly mapped here, on the main door..
node/9212532022
This is the expected result.

In this changeset, you wrote the same address directly on the DG Office here: node/6736243682/history/9

Queries about this address would return two different values. We always try to avoid this.

Thanks.

Please do not comment changesets unless you want to report a mistake in what the mapper did. It looks like there was no mistake with my changeset.
If something changed recently in this area, you can either change it yourself or open a note.

Thanks for moving the POI to its new location but again, please do not create duplicate addresses on the map.

## REVERTED CHANGESET

Please do not add those elements to individual buildings or objects.

All the Belgian post codes and municipalities are already on OSM, as areas. Every point within this area (relation/4727668) is automatically recognised as having post code 1420, and every point within this area (relation/216218) is in Braine-l'Alleud.

If you want to continue using the iD online editor, please ignore the extra text boxes for addresses, we do not use them here.

Merci mais c'est mieux de créer des points pour y indiquer ces infos. Ne pas écrire directement sur le bâtiment, svp.

Refait ici : node/13295210649

The address was already on the map node/12064738244 and is already properly linked to the object.

Please do not duplicate addresses.
We fixed your edit.

Hello,

This edit contradicts the access permission for service vehicles, which had been explicitely set in the previous version.
Can you review the changeset title for version 12 here and confirm that the situation has really changed?
way/24581540/history/12

Also, please be aware that "designated" is meaningless as an access tag in Belgium. This is a problem with the iD editor, but "designated" only makes sense in the UK or Germany, not here. We use foot=yes and bicycle=yes, and not foot=designated or bicycle=designated.

If it is a cycleway, just add "highway=cycleway" and possibly add "foot=yes" if it is shared with pedestrians. Nothing more.

It is recommended to avoid piling access tags like "access=yes" (allow everyone) + motor_vehicle=no (disallow motor_vehicles). This approach always creates unwanted drawbacks for routing (it allows mopeds, horses…)

You may want to have a look at this table, to understand how many default access tags apply as long as you set it as a cycleway, footway or normal road.
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Belgium

Hello, and welcome to OSM.

Adding new restaurants or businesses to the map is welcome.

However, please make sure not to create addresses on them. The address for nbr 120 in this street was already on the map and you inadvertently created a duplicate.

I reviewed your 3 edits from today, to fix a few tagging issues.

Happy mapping, and don’t hesitate to add more places.