I agree with @RaphaelPasloin: we should always make the effort to keep existing data as much as possible.

I restored one of the two former buildings and reused existing data and nodes + other minor fixes to this changeset.

@ghia: Thanks for spotting this, I took care of fixing the LEZ which shouldn’t connect railway tracks, indeed.

As for your other point, AFAIK Harrasdreef is explicitely outside the low-emission zone, and this is confirmed by the map published by the Brussels Region. This was done to allow short trips from Flanders to Flanders like this one:
osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=50.7606%2C4.3840%3B50.7653%2C4.4297

OSM data matches official data here. I couldn’t find the LEZ traffic sign on recent Mapillary picture; please get back to me or leave a note on the map if you are sure there is such a sign, because that would be a game changer.

Don’t bother, we’ve fixed it by now.

Hello,

Thanks for sharing thoughts here. The change into a cycleway was in v2 of the object, not in my changeset.

That being said, I see a D10 sign here, which makes it legal to use this path, and intended as such by the local authorities.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=115889621114934
highway=cycleway + foot=yes + segregated=no seems to be a good set of tags in such a case.
(highway=footway + bicycle=yes + segregated=no is a synonym, it’s just a choice if we want to see it primarily as a cycle track or as a sidewalk; in this case I agree with highway=cycleway)

I don’t know this cycle track in great detail, it seems to be narrower on other places and probably impossible to use near the railway bridge:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=447370653824984

So, if you had planned to examine this, maybe you could inspect if there are different parts of it that should be treated differently. In that case, split the cycleway and connect it to the main road if necessary. Cycle routing seems broken on this point: node/7890527540

If you were planning to survey here or spend some time fixing the map, your help would be appreciated.

One last thing: highway=path is a generic category that broadly says "something for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, and not for cars", typically version 1 of most objects, traced very roughly in the early days. Then, when we bring more knowledge into the map, we usually change paths into something more detailed.

Happy mapping.

Hello,

Please use established tags, otherwise:
* The statue will not be rendered on the map.
* The statue will be ignored by searches

tourism=artwork
artwork_type=statue

Hello,

It is always a good idea to read the history of objects before changing them.

In the previous changeset, a user wanted to reflect the fact that the bridge is temporarily closed to all traffic, after a collision with a boat.
changeset/130825191

I admit this is a debatable point, because a short term closure should probably not be put on OSM, but let’s assume we want to honour the user’s suggestion of entirely removing this bridge from routing until is open again, hopefully in a few days or weeks.

I don’t know what "correction of tagging to the paths" you tried to make here. It looks like you are using the iD presets, which generate those silly "designated" values for foot and bicycle. As a consequence, the bridge is said to be closed to motor traffic (the main road) and open to cyclists and pedestrians (the cycleways, because access=no is parsed first, then foot=designated and bicycle=designated act as "yes"). This creates a non-justified inconsistency.

Sydney Opera House is already on the map.
relation/9596872

What is the point of creating a node named "Opéra de Sydney (Alex T.)"?

Please remove your node immediately, this is vandalism.

This changeset is vandalism.
Please remove your fake stone immediately!

Hello,

No problem about the broken bench, but you seem to have inadvertently moved a boundary between two municipalities within Brussels. This part was reverted.

Hello,

Thanks for your recent edits.
Although it is often a good idea to use OSM tag names to describe changesets, please do not go to the point where changeset titles become cryptically hard to understand.

The "natural" key is used for several types of objects in OSM, such as trees, but also stones, shrubs, woods and many more.

I suggest speaking about "trees" instead of "naturals". It will make it easier for other mappers to check what is going on on the map.

Have a nice day.

Hello,

If you want to do some micromapping activities in the Brussels Region, to relocate items or small paths, please use existing Brussels imagery: it has a higher resolution and has been correctly calibrated over UrbIS reference data. Please avoid making small changes by relying on uncalibrated AIV Flanders imagery because very often you are moving good points away from their real location.

In the iD online editor, you will find it in the Background menu on the right of your screen, scroll up to "CIRB/CIBG most recent imagery".

I reverted your edit after surveying the place myself: La Clave is a separate amenity within the building, it was not meant to replace the dancing school, which is still there.

Hello,

way/1126375955 and way/1126375954 do not really qualify as bicycle_parking amenities.

They are two small lines of docks for the Villo! station. The Villo! station is already on the map, we should not add areas along with it. Otherwise, we are creating a misleading map: OSM tells me there is a place where I can park my bicycle… and when I come there I find out it’s exclusively for Villo! bicycles.

OK, done.

Hello,

Thanks for adding more details about trees.

Judging by this set of recent Mapillary pictures (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=146199951203627), those two trees—along the outer side
of the tram tracks in the curve—do not seem to exist at all, and I cannot find those two on available aerial imagery either:
* node/3116848128
* node/3116848102

You changed some tags to provide details about those trees. Did you see them yourself?

Also, it seems that you are moving some trees away from their original location. And you are doing that… in the iD online editor, using uncalibrated "AIV Flanders" imagery, which is slightly distorted within the Brussels-Capital Region, contrary to UrbIS layers.
Can you please explain what you are trying to achieve here. Is there something we should know?

Hello,
Please no "area=yes" tags on landuse objects, they are _always_ areas.

Hello,

Can you please provide an example of a forest path where the current tagging made it unclear.

This changeset did not change current access values, it only removed duplicate values. For instance, in OSM we do not say "this is a motorway and I tell you that cars mays use it and that bicycles may not", we just say "this is a motorway", when default rules apply.

The standard for Belgium is here:
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Belgium
Most routing apps (OsmAnd, GraphHopper, brouter) honour these default access values, and the main map will render paths normally.

Very importantly: this changeset did not modify anything about paths where some modes of transport would be prohibited. If a path was already tagged as private or just forbidden, I did not change that, in the same way that I kept *restrictions* when they existed (for instance if a highway=path is forbidden to horse riders, I kept horse=no).

Were it to be an issue here, i.e. that I granted access by mistake, I would gladly fix it. But please provide an example, if any.

Hello, Jakka,

I had carefully arranged to use lifecycle prefixes (was:shop)=* to make sure this shop would no longer be visible on the map, while keeping the object and ensuring it could be reused later, when a new business starts operating here.

Deleting the node entirely seems to go against this principle.
osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Am I missing something here?

Hello,

If I understand correctly, the purpose of this changeset is to add a turn-right-only relation (relation/15051284)

Would you please be so kind as to write changeset comments for your next contributions. It will make peer reviewing much faster and avoid getting your work reverted. ("No comment" changesets are frequently regarded as suspicious.)

Thanks in advance.

Hello,

Your "no comment" changeset is very disturbing.

There is already a nightclub in this building named Nostalgia, on level -1 (node/4539678381).

Yet, you changed the dance school into a nightclub, and forced a name:en tag on it (which would have no connection with the original school).

I bet this is a mistake and I bet it should be reverted.

Did you survey this place? Is the dance gone? Really?

Thanks in advance.