Hello,

Do not forget to always add construction=* with the expected road type (in this case, "unclassified"), it makes it much easier to restore the situation when the works are complete. (For instance with StreetComplete.)

highway=construction

For a short-term closure (only a couple of months), leaving highway=* unchanged and adding construction=minor may be better, especially if there are bus routes using a street, to avoid unnecessary warnings about bus routes becoming invalid.

Hello,

I also saw that note and the Bruzz article but was doubtful the speed limit would apply to all parts of the street, and thought it should be investigated first.

Did you have the opportunity to check?

Hello,
Thanks for replying.
Just to be sure: even if we labelled it as a tunnel, your GPS won’t work better, will it?
The reason we don’t use tunnel tags in OSM here is that the level difference between the road and the railway is already solved by having the railway infrastructure tagged as bridge with a higher layer tag.
Furthermore, putting negative layer values on the road here will make it virtually "collide" with the metro station underneath and will create lots of adverse side effets with footways coming from the railway station, which are on layer 0.
This is not a personal choice, this is how the data model works, and this kind of situation has been thought over and over for more than 10 years.
I wish we can help in another way. Please tell us what kind of problem you want to solve exactly. Do I understand you are trying to fill a map of all streets where you have cycled and repeatedly see this one as unfilled?
Have a nice day.

Thanks.
Just one thing: beware of the correct spelling for node/9391972947/history

Hello,

I surveyed the park on Oct. 24 and updated stuff here on that day (see changeset/112899142 and others).

I am curious about this node here:
node/9482989200 as amenity=stage.

How did you guess from aerial imagery that this was intended to be this?

During my last survey it wasn’t built yet, and aerial imagery cannot show it, as it is older.

The only source that mentions this information is the architects’ plans (2dvw.eu), which may not be copied from. In case you did that by mistake, please remove it immediately, because that would be evidence against you. We may not use copyrighted information to build OSM.

Have a nice day.

Hello,

Please do not delete roads without making at least some research about why they were on the map.

You could easily see the history of the object: version #1 clearly stated this was a future road (either at planning stage or already under construction).
way/967567784/history

We restored it.

Hello,

I had to undo your changes.
The railway tracks are already on a bridge.
The roads underneath the bridge are normal roads. They are very dark because they are covered by a large structure, but this has nothing to do with a "tunnel". A tunnel would be appropriate if something would have been dug under ground level. If you go there, you will quickly find out this is not a tunnel: all those roads are on the same level as all the normal roads outside.

On their website they explicitely say 258-260 as the address.
That is why we had created an extra node for this. Somebody left a note asking for this.
https://janine.brussels/index.php/contact-janine/

I saw you deleted the node and changed the address. Why?

Hello,

Sorry but this is incorrect.

This is a living street (zone de rencontre/woonerf). Access is granted to all vehicles by default, no need to add extra tags here.

I also added oneway:bicycle=no against your change as a one-way street (SUL/BEV here).

Happy mapping.

Hello,

Thanks for this.
In case you want to re-use your tagging scheme, do know that swimming_pool=outdoor is a deprecated tag. location=outdoor is just perfect for that.

(Funny to see people calling our aerial imagery "sat view"; this must be a GMaps-thing; in reality, photos of Brussels are taken from planes flying at a low altitude. ;-))

Hello,

building=apartments here, seriously?
way/260451453

It looks like a shed at the back of a private garden.

Hello,

You added kerb=raised here.
I am afraid this is wrong.

On the picture here we can clearly see this kerb was lowered to ease access to the pedestrian crossing.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=150760897009125

Please be extremely careful with StreetComplete, we are dealing with real data; I am currently working with people in wheelchairs and getting this information right makes a true difference for them.

I fixed this one.

Have a nive day.

Hello,

Why do you need to add emergency=yes on tram tracks on places where you already have proper service roads doing the same?

For instance here in Flagey (way/29063063), on Fonsny (way/308868891).

If you are building a routing engine for emergency vehicles, on those places it can use the service road for buses.

Hello,

Thanks for your first contribution on the map.

Sadly, we had to undo your changes here, because another mapper who leaves nearby flagged this building as demolished, a couple of months ago. It looks very unlikely a new building as already there.

It seems you drew the same building on top of it.

Aerial imagery is sometimes outdated, we feel it should not be trusted all the time.

I will be happy to fix this if you can just confirm that: (1) You have really been there, and (2) There is a new building.

Thanks for this.

Hello,
"access:delivery=yes" looks like a rather uncommon tag.
Wouldn’t "vehicle=delivery" be more appropriate instead?

Fixed by changeset/117002807

Nice try but… there is no sidewalks in OSM so far, therefore putting sidewalk=separate would merely exclude this street entirely from all pedestrian navigation and break routing. :-(

If you do not understand what this is about, I suggest to go to the options of StreetComplete and turn off the quest about sidewalks.

Thanks.
I fixed the tags because barrier=bollard, which is the main tag required by routers, was missing.

Hello,

Thanks for updating the map.

I had to undo part of your changes because you erased a street. I suppose this is not just empty space now, therefore I undeleted the former road and tagged it as highway=pedestrian. It will show up for pedestrian routing and no more for vehicle routing.
If that is wrong, I will gladly hear about it.

I also fixed the bus route because your changes broke it too.

Have a nice day.

Hello,

I wish to inform you that your changes broke several bus route relations here. Please make sure they are still ordered properly after you change roads. It is probably because you use the iD online editor and split roads that are part of route relations. That is a very bad idea.

Have a nice day.

Voor de locomotief mag jij dit proberen:
historic=locomotive