Hello,

You retagged this small laundry shop into this: amenity=lavoir

IMHO, it is very unlikely that such an infrastructure is found in such an urban area.

It looks like a false friend, presumably bycause the "salon lavoir" expression only exists in French-speaking Belgium, whereas the proper OSM tag for this is shop=laundry.

Do you mind having a second look here?

Thanks.

Hello, and welcome to OSM.
Thanks for adding new shops to the map.
However, please do not type addresses onto them. All the addresses in Brussels are already correctly mapped, we don’t want duplicates if people start repeating them on shops. Ignore all address-related data in CoMaps if you want to edit: just create new points with a name, category, phone number and/or website and that will be fine.
Also, phone numbers on OSM are always in the international format (+32 2…, not 02…)
Thanks.

Hello, and welcome to OSM.
Thanks for spotting a missing house here
We unfortunately had to redo your edit here. (It looks like you traced on aerial photos instead of using the official government footprint.) The page on our wiki explains how it works.
osm.wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Buildings

Thanks for the "Add"
A point with just a name will not be rendered.
We changed it into a shop that sells car accessories.
Also, in Belgium we do not repeat addresses on businesses, all the addresses are already on the map, duplicates (or personal versions of bilingual names) are not useful.
We fixed your edit.

Hello.
Please do not trace buildings from aerial images. Second notice.
osm.wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Buildings
You also traced some buildings without attaching them properly to their neighbours, and you apparently failed to see that we use relations to group objects of the same street.
I am currently trying to fix this edit.

Reverted, thanks.

## REVERTED CHANGESET
osm.wiki/NL:Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Hello, utopiah,

Adding Ludeo is a good idea but please do NOT map it by adding a name to an existing building. The name field for a building is, of course, when a building really has a name, this is not meant to tag the name of a business or administration currently using it.

The recommended method to add a place to OSM is to create a floating point inside the building. Also, just adding a name is pointless, if you do not add a suitable category, people will be unable to find it properly.

We redid your edit here.
node/13901212356

*autocorrect fix, sorry:
"La taverne de Zhao" is the correct name of the restaurant
+ Fresh data is required, but I am afraid this is not possible with CoMaps. This is the reason why we prefer that people do not use CoMaps to _edit_ OpenStreetMap, it is just too risky.
Thanks.

Hello,

I wish there was a nicer way to welcome you but this message is to inform you that this changeset has been reverted.

This restaurant you added here (La taverne de Zorro) is already in the database here: node/2451989333

It was added several days ago but it looks like your "CoMaps" app is using outdated data. Please only edit against french data to avoid doing such mistakes.

You also added an address point for house number 34 (or you wanted to add an address to the restaurant); also, the address here is already on the map. Please make sure to never add duplicate information, it is not a good idea, we work hard to keep a clean dataset.

Thanks.

Hello, and welcome to OSM.

Changing the access tags on existing footpaths to confirm if other modes of transport are accepted is generally a good idea.

But there are a few suggestions here to improve your future contributions.

1) Please only edit one place at a time and finish the upload *before* moving to another part of the map. You edit 4 remote places (Ternat, Dilbeek, Koekelberg and Brussels-Rogier area), that should have been 4 separate edits and not one bulk change.

2) Setting highway=path on OSM is usually discouraged. This is an ambiguous category, which is open by default to a lot of users, and which requires to set permissions individually. Modern tagging practice favours specialised types, such as highway=footway (only for pedestrians, but other modes can be added) or highway=cycleway (only for cyclists, but other modes can be added).

Here is an example here:
way/120135352/history

You changed it into highway=path. Yes, routing engines for cyclists will now start using it… but it is now also open to horse riders and mopeds. This is probably not what you wanted to do.

Instead, keeping it as a footway and adding "bicycle=yes" would have worked better.

I hope you will not be intimidated by this long comment and technical explanation, but, since many of us are really keen on OSM being a reliable source of information, making sure that every contributor makes good contributions to the map is important.

Thanks.

OK, thanks for the explanation.
I’ll fix the source:maxspeed tag and I’ll also notify the Brussels Region about the fact that this speed limit has been around for some time now and their reference map is outdated.
Thanks.

Hello,

On ville30.brussels, this part of the boulevard is still listed with a 50 km/h speed regime.

That might be a recent change, then.

In this edit you changed the maxspeed tag without adapting the source:maxspeed tag, and we now have a situation that says that 30 km/h is enforced by road signs (typically C43 signs).
way/1524546626
This combination of tags is probably a mistake and I would like to fix it.

Can you please describe the kind of signage they have here. Are there really C43 signs saying a 30 km/h speed limit, or did they just end the previous limit, i.e., back to the 30 km/h default speed regime?

Thanks.

Hello,
Thanks for this.
In this edit, you added an old name to this building, which is fine.
There is no shame in explaining what you *really* do on the map. We would be grateful if can please use better changeset descriptions for your edits, instead of "added details".
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Thanks.

I commented on this changeset because this is the one which introduced the mistake. I gave you the explanation above: oneway:bicycle=no should be added.

Don’t bother, I’ll do it myself, then.

Sure. I am happy with whichever option, it is purely conventional.
I retagged all the known objects to use the underscore.

Hello,

Just a reminder: if cycling is allowed in both directions, then oneway:bicycle=no is required.

Just having cycleway:left and cycleway:right isn’t enough. A fully one-way street with left and right cycleway tags will be understood as if there are lanes on both sides but in the same direction as traffic. This is probably not what you meant.
(There has been a time in the past where people used cycleway:* tags to add contraflows but we no longer do this.)

Hope this helps.

Hello,

I came across your profile when repairing a few edits that have the same problem. I felt I had to tell you, to give you a chance to improve.

Drawing parking areas is a good idea. But please do not glue them on existing roads. Instead, try to draw the area as accurately as possible, which should stay away from the existing roads. Cleaning such mistakes is a considerable time-waster for others, so it’s better to learn to do it correctly from the first time.

Thanks in advance.

You are right. I saw an article in a newspaper today announcing that more than 80% of the retail space of all the 7 former malls has been reallocated, and promising that more shops are coming over the next months along with a renovation of those spaces.
I think it will be worth retagging it as a shop=mall, with no obvious name for the moment. And plan a survey to update shop information here.

Oh, you are are totally right, what a silly mistake. Fixed now, thanks.