Hello,

What is the added value of adding extra name:* tags that are exact duplicates of the main name?

Adding translations is only useful when they are different from the name tag.

Hello,

It looks like you have been changing values of the traffic_sign tag on all these objects.

Mecanical edits are heavily discouraged on OSM. This one looks correct, though. If you want to do more stuff like this, please follow at least those two requirements:

1) Write a meaningful changeset description. Something like "Fixed invalid separator in the traffic_signal tag" might be better.

2) Do not do changes in several parts of the country at once. Do one small area, upload, and then move to the next place.

Hope this helps. Have a nice day.

I did not formally reply to this comment from 2020 but, as you guessed, I entirely agree with your suggestion. Thanks for the fix.

Hello,
I get your point and indeed, STIB/MIVB is the legal owner of all the walls here, this is true. They have a convention with the museum, which occupies about half of the building and runs the museum activities.
What worries me here is that pretending the depot is the entire building would be misleading, and would defeat the basic purpose of the map.
I’ll see what I can do here.

You’re welcome.

Uh… your answer is about a discussion we had 15 months ago. Things have changed here, and incidently I surveyed it a couple of times, even earlier this month, and the map has been updated to the latest situation.
But thanks for having replied, anyway.

Hello Telekijker:

Please read the comments I—or other mappers—have been leaving on your previous changesets.

I am sure you are acting in good faith and want to be helpful but all your recent changesets have required some clean-up by me or other mappers.

Again, please do not add source tag on buildings: buildings contain several information (their shape, their address, sometimes the name of a firm, and some physical characteristics of the buiding such as the roof shape or colour) → a single "source" tag will never be able to justify everything, that is why current practice is to source changesets, not objects individually.

For the record, there are some problems with the naming of your tags. I wish you could read this carefully to avoid doing the same mistake several times a week.

building:colour is okay but sometimes you type building:color (US spelling) or building;colour (semicolon separator), which are both invalid keys.
Sometimes, you want to type source and the autocorrect function writes surface (see version #2 of this object as an example: way/261191681/history)

node/10571511369 is an invalid object.

Just like every object in OSM, a vending machine must have a primary tag defining what it is (a shop, a house, an amenity…) → this is "amenity=vending_machine", and then you can add the "vending=parking_ticket" tag, describing in more details what it delivers.

Using the secondary tag without the primary tag is incoherent. It just makes the node useless because it will not be rendered (i.e. shown) on any map, and no app will ever find it.

Again, no source tag on individual objects, please, it just clutters the database for nothing. I see you started adding the source tag to your changesets now, this is fine, but please do NOT add a source tag to every object you create.

Hello,

Thanks for writing back.

Most examples on this page of the wiki are about roads or buildings.
For shops or businesses, disused:* and was:* tags are identical, it is mostly a matter of personal preference and both will achieve the same result, i.e. the place will no longer appear on the map while the information would be easily visible to anyone editing the map, preventing the accidental re-addition of those tags.

Hello,

When a shop or a place closes down, you can either use a lifecycle prefix (amenity=restaurant becomes was:amenity=restaurant) or remove the business-related tags, only leaving the address or other tags.
Tags like "disused=restaurant" are not recognised by the system and create problems.
Have a nice day.

Hello,

We had to do some cleanup here, I don’t know what happened here but even if you have good intentions, you are uploading lots of invalid data to the database, which takes more and more time to solve.

The "Sint-Andries" barriers are universally tagged as barrier=fence + fence_type=railing. There is no tag to define this more accurately. Do not use the "type" key, it has nothing to do with that (and no software will understand it), and please make sure you avoid typos, because I found almost 30 occurrences of "type=Ssint Andries" in your data.

Also, comments like "local survey and CIRB/CIBG imagery" must be typed only once upon uploading. Please do not write this tag to each object individually, it is just confusing. We also spotted some duplicates, where you wanted to type source but typed… shop, and it created several fake shops on the map. I might have finished cleaning everything now but I wanted to tell you.

Hope this helps. Have a nice day.

I updated the map to put all the bicycle-related services within the building.

There is no suitable tag for the starting point, especially if it not signposted. I kept it and the name is still in the search engine, but most versions of the map won’t show it.

Hello,

Thanks for having replied but this wouldn’t help. What you are showing here is the view from the *outside*: all entrances always show the name of the station, but that’s not what we are talking about.

The name of entrances is shown inside the station, there are green signs with the numbers of the various exits with their names. I had surveyed the station some time ago and put the proper name.

Don’t bother, I will fix the map.

Hello,

Not sure the whole area you drew qualifies as a legal car park, especially on the northern side
way/1132763920

What is your source for this changeset, please?

Hello,

Would you be so kind as to explain what this changeset—and all similar changeset you have been massively introducing in tne past hours—is about?

It looks like you are trying to get rid of the fixme tag as much as possible.

The fixme here is really clear: the building outline could not be established so far because the official government data (AIV Flanders GRB for this territory) was not yet available when the user drew the building:
way/985995287/history

I don't think redrawing a building in iD by using aerial imagery does any good to the building shape. It just makes it worse, in fact, because without this tag we can no longer query the database ourselves to find all buildings requiring a check. (We have an active community of mappers in Belgium, who regularly review such objects as soon as we get government data updates.)

Are we missing something here?

### REVERTED CHANGESET ###

Hello,

You changeset was incorrect.
"oneway=no" was already set for this street, it means the street is confirmed to be two-way for vehicles (oneway=yes means one-way, oneway=no means two-ways).

Your change removed the oneway=no tag entirely, leaving the situation as undecided. Having less information in the database is not desirable.

I suppose it’s a beginner’s mistake, you probably relied on the list of presets without looking at the real tags at the bottom of the screen.

We fixed it.

Hello,

I should have told you earlier but would you please be so kind as to add the "source" for your changes within the changeset itsel, and not on every object.

For instance, if there is a "source" tag for a building, we wouldn’t be able to determine what the source was used for. The shape of roof? The outline of the building? Its number?

It will probably save you time because I suppose you add them manually every time.

According to this user’s survey, this building is still there and still in use.
note/3521390

Hello,

Next time, please upload your changes *before* moving to another area.

You changed a house in Wemmel along with some other things in Auderghem/Oudergem. As a consequence, your change appear to cover a huge area, this is annoying for review. :-(

## REVERTED CHANGESET ##
If a shop closes down, just remove the tags about this shop and leave it as vacant.
Do NOT erase the node.
What you did here is completely removing number 59 from the database, as if this number no longer exists at all. We had to restore it from backups.
Have a nice day.