hey, thanks for looking into that. If you decide that it's not a cycle track after all, maybe it would be good to add a note tag?

According to the Brussels Mobility dataset, cycle tracks on both sides are still in use: https://opendata.brussels.be/explore/dataset/amenagements-cyclables-par-type-rencenses-par-bruxelles-mobilite/map/?disjunctive.type_fr&disjunctive.nom_commune&disjunctive.status_fr&disjunctive.width&location=19,50.84378,4.38109&basemap=jawg.sunny

hello. thanks for the quality control. Indeed there is no sign from the roundabout side, but signage in Brussels is generally spotty, so I assumed that it's more of a case of a missing sign than deliberate decomissioning. The 3 pedestrian crossings across the "decomissioned" track have recently been repainted and the part next to the Charlemagne building has been rebuilt with preserved separation of pedestrian and cycling track.

You were there more recent than I was, so you have a better memory and understanding of the current surface quality. If it's good enough for road bikes, but problematic for rollerblades, there's also smoothness=good between excellent and intermediate.

Hey, it was quite a long time ago (April 2024), but I'm pretty sure that I've cycled these roads. The changeset was added with StreetComplete, so the data was entered directly in the field. It's possible that the surface quality deteriorated since then, so you're very welcome to update the smoothness tag with the current state. However, looking at your pictures, I think you might be a bit too critical in your assessment. The main purpose of the tag is not to count the cracks, but to determine the rideability of the road for different vehicles. On a road bike, would you really take a long detour to avoid this section?

In particular, the wiki states "Roads can also vary in smoothness along their width. Such a road should be tagged with the quality of its best passable part." The bigger surface damages visible on Mapillary seem to be easily avoidable on a bike.

If you look at the examples of smoothness=intermediate from the wiki (e.g. osm.wiki/File:20201129_114019_(2).jpg), they look MUCH worse than what you documented.

Obok ostrzeżeń o spadających konarach są znaki zakazu wstępu, zobacz np. tutaj: https://streetcomplete.app/p/307340.jpg Wyglądają na permanentne, a nie coś tymczasowego. Na paru były też namalowane znaki na drzewach (przekreślony ludzik + przekreślony rower) albo fizycznie przegrodzony dostęp. Podejrzewam, że zarządca parku chce skanalizować ruch odwiedzających na paru ścieżkach, a nie żeby wszędzie przeszkadzali zwierzakom.

No właśnie - mapujemy to co jest w terenie, a nie to "co powinno być". Jeśli od strony południowej jest znak, to równie dobrze osoby jadące jezdnią (przynajmniej z tamtej strony) mogą dostać mandat za niezastosowanie się do znaku C-13. Dlatego zaproponowałem otagowanie jako CPR jednokierunkowy dla rowerów (w kierunku północnym). Nie jest to specjalnie logiczne, ale tak IMHO wynika z aktualnie wiszących znaków.

Sam w note/4976388 wrzuciłeś zdjęcie, że od strony południowej jest znak CPR. Może wrócić do wersji way/282757936/history/27 i dodać oneway:bicycle=yes?

Right, thanks. I didn't notice that each of the containers is a separate POI. Deleted with: changeset/171878516

Bonjour, thank you for checking the edits.

I don't think any of the changes I made here removed the bicycle=designated tag. I agree that "voie verte" should be tagged as you described.

If you look at the history of the ways from the changeset, you'll see that the tag was removed by "David Crochet" with changeset/168930076 after my edits (surface, smoothness). Compare for example way/244159077/history/12 (after my edit) and way/244159077/history/13 (after David Crochet).

The same changeset also removed abandoned:railway=rail from the voie verte, maybe that's also worth checking?

Hi, thanks for pointing this out. I'll try to be very careful with the surface layer in the Netherlands. However, in this case, the surface tag was also incorrect before I started editing (surface=paving_stones, maybe from before reconstruction) and the smoothness tag that SC removed was also my edit.

Is it safe to use surface layer for carriageway surfaces?

ok, dzięki za linka, poprawione.

Here's some info about the move: https://www.facebook.com/pharmacieplasky/posts/pfbid02WQ8D7ooRbMzbcS8BTbHVtUakZxhbVgRvj6NaA55HAEey3TfCWHgtfMUTRcuRHepfl

For sure the entry to the farmacy I used was from the square, not on the corner. The pharmacy might have expanded (they seemed to be in the middle of unpacking) or might have a separate entrance for night service - iirc I saw a sign with pharmacy 24h on the corner, that's why I didn't move the other pharmacy POI.

Are horses really allowed here? IIRC there is a cycle and pedestrian track sign from the Brussels side, and a cycle track sign from the Flemish (Vier Armen) side. I haven't seen any horses on it, and they would be bad for the compacted surface. It's also not included as a bridlepath on the map (https://sonianforest.be/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BIM_ZONIENWOUD-V2020-WEB-copy.pdf).

I don't think cycleway:lane:*=x is understood, it's very rare. I replaced it with cycleway:both:*

Correct, cycleway (and also sidewalk) tag was leftover from before splitting the highway. Fixed now: changeset/156633850

Ik vraag me af, zou access=members hier niet beter zijn? amenity=bicycle_parking#Access_tags

oke: changeset/149980319

I meant "I didn't follow it all the way to 43". See note/4156519 for continuation.