Don’t worry about this one, I fixed it.
node/8130701080/history

Hello,
There is something strange about some trees you created.

For instance, this one:
node/8130701080

Trees should not have names.
Instead, you should fill the latin name as "species=".

Happy mapping.

Hello,
Your changeset creates multiple validation issues.
When a footway crosses a road, it must intersect it (i.e. it should have a node in common).
I see you are using iD, the simple online editor, I guess it lets you do that.
I will try to fix what I can.

Hello,

I only find out about this changeset now, even though it has been two years.
Yes, there is a great shared cycle/bus lane along this street. I use it often.
*** BUT ***
1) We had spent a long time refining the layout of the street to separate parts that had a shared cycle/bus/taxi lane from parts where cyclists have their own lane, or nothing.
2) There is no bus lane between Belliard and Schuman, which you tagged as share_busway.

I will try to fix the mess.

Incidently, you could consider using UrbIS imagery if you want to map in Brussels. The pictures have a better resolution than the AIV Flanders imagery you have apparently selected in your editor.

Don’t worry, it’s an old edit, everyone makes mistakes, I saw better stuff in your more recent edits. ;-)

Hello,
Do not fill the name tag for ordinary objects, such as benches or picnic tables.
A bench does not have a name, it has proper OSM tags such as amenity=bench and that is enough.
Please remove the names on the objects you uploaded here.
Thanks in advance.

Hello,

Thanks for your edits on cemeteries (this one and subsequent changesets). Yes, no need to get any "approval", your changes immediately go live. But be careful, with great power comes great responsibility.

Yes, marking service roads as bicycle=no is a good idea if cycling is disallowed there.
I think the problem arose because some of the paths were tagged as highway=service or highway=path; access rules for Belgium grant bicycle=yes by default on them.
Some of those ways were set more than 10 years ago, before those access rules were clarified.

An alternative would be to change the ways into highway=footway (i.e. only for pedestrians; this is to be used on footpaths exclusively, not for the ones with cars/hearses).

I never thought of changing those because it looks like a non-critical issue. Cemeteries only have one entrance, nobody will ever get riding directions across a cemetery. But if you have time and motivation to hunt for all those alleys and fix the tags, feel free. ;-)

Hello,
I fixed your edit.
If the road is private, access=private will make it private for everyone, and routing algorithms will no longer use it. No need for bicycle=private + horse=private and so on.

Ok, thanks for the feedback, this is really nice.
Let’s go with the idea that this path is gone forever and nature will take over. In that case, it is okay to remove it.

Hello,
If you add websites to places, please always enter the full URL (with "https://").
I’ve already fixed this one.

Hello,

Fixing access restrictions can be a good thing but you may want to have the following elements in mind.

1) Check this page first, for default access values
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Belgium
For instance, a way with highway=bridleway is accessible to horse riders but not to cyclists. Apps designed for cyclists would (and should) ignore this way. No need to add horse=yes or bicycle=no because those are the default values already.
But I see you also added foot=no (or access=no), which will remove them from all route finding algorithms aimed for people getting around on foot. Be sure this is in line with the legal situation, i.e. that walking along such trails is really prohibited.

2) This is based from a map from June 2016, be sure to check history of objects you change, to avoid rolling back more recent changes in the area.

3) Even though it comes from Bruxelles Environment/Leefmilieu Brussel, the map contains an ordinary copyright notice and, as such, cannot be legally used as a data source for OSM without prior written permission. Copying from copyrighted maps is prohibited.

Hello,

Why did you remove the path here?
way/875227863/history

It shows up on Lidar imagery, I can see it on Urbis 2015 aerial imagery (taken during a winter). I see you used AIV imagery in Flanders, maybe you couldn’t spot it because of the tree coverage.

Did you survey the place before removing data?
Thanks for replying.

You may be interested to check out those guidelines here. Swiss mappers use the name:* space for dialects, maybe that should be preferred.
osm.wiki/Switzerland/Map_Features#Dialects

Hello,
Are you sure filling duplicates values of loc_name into for loc_name:fr and loc_name:nl makes sense?
Sounds more like the name in a de facto extinct dialect than the name used by most locals to refer to this place.
What do you think?

/* This is a follow-up of your question on changeset/97169669 */

Hello,
I found it by accident, upon using Graphhopper to compute a route and I was puzzled to see it didn’t use the street I expected. Then, I found out the streets were not connected.
On top of that, we have several Q/A tools such as OSM Inspector—which incidently flagged this problem too. But don’t bother too much with those until you gain enough experience with OSM, because those tools also give false positives sometimes.
Happy mapping :-)

Please do not open multiple threads for the same discussion.

See discussion there:
changeset/97119240

Hello,
Thanks for this.
Something important in OSM: roads must *connect* each other, otherwise routing will be broken. Not just drawing nodes close to each other.
Don’t worry, I’ve fixed this already.

Hello,
Thanks for this but please be considerate of your fellow mappers by using a proper changeset description. ;-)
If you added parking spaces for people with disabilities, write it in the changeset comment. If you create 40 changesets named "aménagement rues" people will start thinking you try to hide what you are doing.
Many thanks.

Hello,
The sidewalk has highway=footway, and by default it implies foot=yes+bicycle=no. In such a case, there is no need to add bicycle=no specifically.
Did you really need it? Or did you find a routing app that uses OSM data and routes cyclists on this sidewalk?

Hello,
Why did you delete wikidata and wikipedia tags from the database?
They looked perfectly fine.
A new community decision?

We have a problem with way/634276524
and possibly others.

If you set foot=yes and bicycle=yes, they become routable.
Those tags should not be set while the way is still under construction. ;-)

(highway=construction + construction=* + bicycle=yes is something that can be used for instance when a road is being rebuilt but cyclists may still use it.)