Hello,

There is some problem in your changeset :

- https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/246311636 you move the outline of the building.
- way/993055808 : you add generator to all the building, that is not the case , area =yes on building make also warning in validator, and even it's not necessery in other case : way/1151355748 you can remove it to fix the typo. (set area is not a error but as your way are closed you don't realy need it).

way/263981303/history also it's not all the building with generator, and as you can see it's on a construction zone, a part of the building doesn't exist anymore.

Can you fix the issues please ?

Hope that can help.
Have a good day.

Hello,

Why do you have removed network and operator info ? https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/2571061754

Also please : osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Bonjour,

Ils n'occupent pas tout le building n'est-ce pas ? Pouvez-vous corriger le tir svp ?

par ailleurs : osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hello,

Please read : osm.wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Railways

That clearly stipulate that railway tracks don't have a name.

Hello,

Your edit remove a small part of "Rue de Kleinbettingen". https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/167273741

Can you fix this ?

Hello,

My concern was to correct the retaining_wall set on V1. (as it's planter) As a another mapper change "garden" to "village green" in v2 , i didn't change it. But you are right shrubbery is more appropriate.

Changed in : changeset/132705166

Have a good day.

Hello,
You can use this tag instead : ref:vatin=*

Hello,

This changeset seam to be (for fuel) more notes than real fuel station, can you please check the POI you create and fix this ?

Best regards,

Hello,

Can you please check changeset history before making armchair mapping : changeset/131637654

Your change has bee reverted.

On what source you affirm this building will be demolished ?

FYI :
https://www.arau.org/content/uploads/2019/02/Analyse-KBC-av.-du-Port-12-14.pdf

https://molenbeekadm.irisnet.be/fr/fichiers/urbanisme/avis-commission-de-concertation/07-07.2020/24-pu-37-338-av-du-port-12-14.pdf

Hello, it's based on a ground survey and it's indicated here : note/3521390#map=18/50.86154/4.34941 and on my changeset desciption (link to the permit). That was notified to you on this changeset comment also : 131341836.
If they demolished this part will be a legality problem and also a practical problem : the general direction of "enseignement" use the 16 (and a lot of vzw) and have a long term contrat of leasing until 2036).

On what source you affirm this building will be demolished ?

Ok thanks ; let's be simple and keep the landuse like this (will be still a industrial in the futur).

Fix also the MP on the landuse : changeset/131767008

@Jhowie_Nitnek : on what source or document you have use to make the outline of the Brouwerij ? Asking because the part near Breeveld (a91g parcel) is now a brownfield with rest of previous building and the old building was never connected to the existing one (fence are still in the same place) ; as industrial efficiencies it's a little strange not connecting together.

Hello,

You indicate Bing as source, but this source clearly show a two way street. Recent street level imagery and Urbis show also a two way. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1624203131249426

Do you have more accurate up to date ground information ?
Otherwise : Can you kindly reverse this edit ?

Please : read the history of the road and use up to date source imagery. This small part is especialy 2 way in order to permit some entrance on the gouvernement parking building. Have to reverse your edit.

Bonjour,

Le chemin est bien indiqué en privé ; ainsi qu'une barrière (s'il y en a d'autres vous pouvez les ajouter).

Voici pourquoi la route ne sera pas supprimée de la carte : osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

L'information peut être utile pour les services de secours et ça évitera que qu'un qui ne connait pas la situation ré-ajoute le chemin.

Reverted in : changeset/131601229

Has been fixed here : changeset/131155352

To be a cycleway it must have a signs D7, D9 or two parallel dashed lines of white color (Art 74 of Traffic Laws). That's (unfortunaly) not the case here.

Hello,

The path exist on imagery , it's not because you think it s lead to nowhere that the way must be deleted.

Best regards.