Apologies for this large changeset.
This was supposed to be two independant changesets:
1) Intersection of Louise/Louiza and Vleurgat: some fixes in crossings and footway connectors (lower-left corner of the bbox).
2) Bouleaux/Berken stops in Woluwe (upper-right corner of the bbox).

Hello,
Why did you answer "lit=no" for STIB/MIVB 80 Haren stop? (node/5396193545)
I know this stop well, there are two large street lamps on top of it, this stop is supposed to have proper lighting.
Any thoughts?
Have a nice day.

Fixed by changeset/105802104

Hello,
Thanks for this.
Please be careful when splitting ways with the iD editor; your changeset broke two bus relations.

Hello,
Do you know the operator for this ticket machine? This one is for De Lijn, right?
osm.org
/node/8755203905

Hi,
Yes, that is a good idea. I followed your recommendation.

Hello,

I mean you can draw a new line to join several existing nodes and create the perimeter you want.
Then, you use this line in your new "boundary" relation.

It does not have to be one single line. It can be a collection of several lines if you prefer.
An example here, made with 7 lines: relation/7052716

This avoids destroying bus or cycle route relations every time you use the "split" function in the iD editor. (The online editor on the osm.org website is a rather basic tool aimed to be used for simple stuff and not suited for complicated structures, and it does not warn you about corrupted data.)

Hello,

Your latest changes are interesting.
Do I understand you are importing the same shapes as defined by Brussels Region? e.g. here: https://data.mobility.brussels/en/info/urbadm_md/
It might be nice to have those on the map.

Just one thing: if you want to draw the perimeter for your boundary, you can create a long line—or smaller lines—along existing roads instead of splitting existing ways to make it fit. (Splitting ways in iD, especially when there are existing relations on it, causes a lot of damage.)

Indeed, it looks like this info was already on the wiki in 2015 and was copied from an earlier proposal. It is definitely outdated.
I guess we should update both the wiki and your heritage:operator tag. I guess it should be "Patrimoine-brussels - Erfgoed.brussels" instead of "aatl". In case you have some knowledge about those departments and believe it should be another name, feel free to comment.

Hello,
You may want to know that "AATL" does not exist anymore. This department has been renamed several times in the last years and is now "Urban.brussels".
There is also "Patrimoine-brussels - Erfgoed.brussels" which I think is the one precisely in charge of maintaining the list of heritage buildings.

Hello,
Thanks but I had to clean up the access tags.
highway=cycleway automatically implies that it is open to cyclists and disallowed for motor vehicles. All routing apps will use it fine with this tag only. ;-) No need to repeat bicycle=yes and motor_vehicle=no, that just clutters the database.

Hello,
alt_name:nl=Karelskoning
I am not sure tongue in cheek pranks make suitable names that should appear in OSM. ;-)

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleroi
De zogezegd Nederlandse benaming Karelskoning is een neologisme, uitgevonden en geïntroduceerd door een Belgisch radioprogramma. In de praktijk wordt deze naam niet gebruikt. Vlamingen duiden de inwoners van Charleroi soms aan met Karolingers, maar met de Karolingen bestaat geen enkele historische relatie.

OK, thanks for this.

Ok, thanks.

Wrong link, sorry. This is the street I am talking about.
way/72524871

Hello,
Thanks for editing the map and welcome to OSM.
We might have a bit of an issue with some of your cycle lanes edits.
Example here: way/7252487
cycleway:lane=advisory looks incorrect.
AFAIK, last year they painted a new lane for cyclists using the street against traffic. Unlike UK law, cycle lanes in Belgium (those with = = =) are mandatory and exclusive of other vehicles. cycleway:*:lane=advisory is incorrect.
StreetComplete is a very nice app but maybe it would be wiser to turn off some of the quests in the app settings, because it writes incorrect values and forces us to delete and re-survey everything after you.
Thanks.

Hello,

GR126 route uses the following way, which you tagged as foot=no:
way/310910156/history

We could possibly draw this route along another itinerary. Did you by chance spot any signs for this hiking route? Otherwise, we’ll have a wild guess.

Yes, precisely.
Have a nice day.

Hello,
Thanks for this but it broke 6 route relations… because the you left the railway switch—formerly a stop position node—into them. Don’t worry, it’s fixed now. ;-)

Hello,
Oh, that’s interesting. I thought you might have moved the node by mistake because I found it in changeset/104433598 about something unrelated.
Indeed, the change must have been very recent, then. Latest Mapillary pictures have the former location. We’ll keep your change, then.