Hello,

For small local associations (typically asbl/vzw), it’s better to use office=association.

NGO is for large organisations such as Doctors without borders, Red Cross and more. ;-)

Changes have been reverted in #130146557 (Midi/Zuid) and #130146733 (Nord/Noord).

Hello,

Please stop these railway edits immediately, you are adding incorrect data to the map.

First, names in Brussels must be bilingual.
Also, railway tracks do not have _names_. Platforms do have numbers but those numbers have already been on the map for more than 10 years. (There are several other layers that show this information, such as the Transport Layer, ÖPNVKarte or openrailwaymap.)

Hello,

Thanks for relocating the node to the new address.

No need to write the website and phone number in the preset boxes in the baby editor: those values were already set for this object – see version #2 below, it’s a bit strange to see a duplicate: node/9675723096/history

The address is not necessary either, because it is automatically obtained from the building. That’s the beauty of having a vectorised map. In case you really want an address on an object, just the street name and housenumber are used. Always good to know to improve your further edits.

Don’t worry, we fixed this one.

Hello,

We might have a tiny little bit of a issue, here.

Using crossing:markings=zebra and crossing_ref=zebra together and not cleaning up… We may have a problem if there are multiple competing tagging schemes in the same area.

Is this a mechanical edit? Are you applying some kind of template for all those crossings?

Hello,

Your changeset has no title, therefore we’ll have to guess what you wanted to do.

You added the name Libburo to the building.

I don’t think this is the _name_ of the building. Libburo is a company, right? It’s probably better to tag it as a simple node within this building, and use a proper office:* tag.

I can do it if you want. What kind of company is that? Is there a website we can link to, or any relevant contact details?

OK, good point, I will update it.

Hello,

Thanks for adding details.
Just one reminder, please.

1) Addresses = only street and housenumber. In Belgium, we should never fill postcode and city names, because they are automatically generated during queries.

2) Phone number: international format required, e.g. +32 2 735 05 74 instead of 02 735 05 74.

Apart from that, your edits for this point are good.

The fact is that defaulting to bicycle=yes is a long-standing decision.
Indeed, if a path is not accessible by bicycle, then adding "bicycle=no" explicitely makes sense. Adding "bicycle=yes" never does.
And I will agree with you that there are potentially tons of paths with incorrect tags today, that’s part of the patient cleaning work we are trying to do.

Hello,

Welcome on OSM and thanks for this.

We are somehow puzzled about the description of your changeset. You state: "Passage à 2 bandes + 1 voie de bus entre Blvd du Roi Albert II et Chaussée d'Anvers" but it seems your changeset did not touch any relevant objects. If you mean this: way/694844740 then the number of lanes was already properly set.

I’ll try to have a secondary check for this bus platform, which you erased from the map entirely: way/598777058/history

Any thoughts, please?

Indeed.

More precisely, foot=destination, then.
Because "access=destination" means "any vehicle (also cars) can come here if it’s their destination", but I suppose you know this already.

Hello,

Thanks for this. But one thing here: unnamed footpaths should not go to associatedStreet relations.
* way/1120980050
* way/1120980051

Those relations are only used to match named highways and houses with addr:* tags

It’s mostly a filtering issue here. (It can also be useful to warn StreetComplete newbies that the platform is not on the surface, to avoid the "There is no station here" notes.)

I cannot immediately find the reference of the discussion about it, but I seem to recall a discussion for cases like this (partly covered/partly visible) to settle that tunnel=yes or location=underground was accepted.

I don’t mind removing it but do you know of a situation where this tag would cause problems?

Hello,
Please do not draw building outlines according to aerial imagery.
Use AIV Flanders GRB exclusively for building shapes, it will save us hours of painful work having to redo everything after you.
Thanks in advance.

Hello,

I think you modified the data too early.

AFAIK, the change will only be effective by Sunday.

Also, please be considerate of existing tags. You changed the name without checking the existence of the proposed:* tags for this object. Also, the associated route relations do not match, which creates tons of validation warnings now.

Don’t bother, we fixed it. According to the last pictures we took in this area, motor traffic is eastbound (towards Drève de Lorraine/Lorreinendreef).

Hello,

Steenstraat is not here.
If the clinic has been relocated, move its node to the desired location.

Hello,

Good to know but why would you manually want to add "foot=yes" and "bicycle=yes" on a path?

Any way with "highway=path" in Belgium is automatically granted access for those users and it’s bad practice to repeat implicit tags on individual objects.
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Belgium

On this Mapillary picture from 2019 the motorway sign is there.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=480180583309075

There is no recent mapillary coverage but if you look at a famous competitor starting with G* which has pictures from May 2022, it looks like this sign was removed or stolen whereas the sign in the other direction—when leaving the motorway—is still there: this seems to confirm that the authorities still consider it to be a true motorway, it’s just that a couple of signs are missing at the moment. If you’ve been there recently and know on what date you saw no road signs there, please write to them. (Public works departments are often understaffed and frequently rely on users to know what is going wrong somewhere.) ;-)

Hello,

I get your point that it’s technically possible to enter this road without encountering any traffic sign stating that cycling is prohibited.

The most logical course of action would be to report this dangerous situation to the authorities and ask them to review the situation and add the missing signs.

A couple of years ago, a mapper changed the highway type from motorway to trunk. But in Belgium, access tags are identical for both
and the default speed limit is 120 kph (art. 11.2 1°b), less if there are signs.

There are dozens of situations where signs are missing, yet we do not blindly update OSM to reflect such mistakes "because ground truth says so". Cycle routers are now starting to advise cyclists to ride on this road, it’s clearly not a smart thing to do.

Would you consider undoing your change?