Absolutely great, very nice resources to have when mapping. Thanks again for the tip!

I did this because this is not how building:part should be used, it should always be contained within a building and used to describe said building part. This was the opposite.

Saying that, I am not sure if this is the best way to add the BAG reference that encompasses multiple buildings - so please let me know if there is a more common way of doing this.

Further clarification, this specifically relates to the part of Laan van Verzetsstrijders that is within the construction area as mapped!

Cheers, Jordan

Hey Lachgast, nice work!

Just one thing; I have noticed that Laan van Verzetsstrijders has been changed to no longer be under construction which isn't the case as per an on the ground survey I did 23/06. It is still very much not accessible to the public and is contained within the construction area.

I would guess the same goes for Greet Brinkhuispromenade, Gezusters Korverpromenade and Ru Parélaan but I do not have confirmation of this.

Many thanks, Jordan

Hey Lachgast,

I did not know about this actually, I've heard of BAG but didn't know I could get that and some better imagery in a nice set. Thanks for the heads up, I will check it out!

Jordan

Ik heb net een andere foto gevonden waar ze wel op staan, maar dan in de verte. Ze kloppen dus wel.

Hey, ik heb maar 5 van de 7 bakken kunnen vastleggen. Ik voeg toe wat ik nu kan en ga terug om nog een foto te maken.

Hey Sander, I see you never responded to my question about this subject in response to a comment that you made on one of my changesets (changeset/119400817), and instead have just reverted the changes. I would appreciate if you could explain why we shouldn't use separate paths for footways so I have a better understanding of the rationale behind this decision.

Sander, is there a reason for this? Generally I would follow OpenSidewalks (https://www.opensidewalks.com/) guidelines for footways as it allows adding far more detail, especially useful for accessibility purposes. But if this is a regional preference or some other reason I'm happy to change my update. I haven't had a lot of experience mapping in the Netherlands so some information would be helpful!

Sure and I definitely understand, generally we don't want incorrect data on the map.

In this instance though I think it would be worth adding too many stops rather than too little because it is painful to navigate this region via bus using OSM data currently. Having the stops ready to attach routes to would ease the effort of adding routes overall. In my opinion, a good thing.

Mapping this is something I am willing to (and able to) help with remotely, where I don't have access to road names for villages. Different mapping projects can also work in parallel.

If you strongly think adding bus stops is the wrong thing to do then I can stop, but after being there for a while I think this information is really needed.

Hello,

I can't say I 100% trust the data but based on the recency of the output (August 2021) I would say I'm 90%-95% sure of it's accuracy. I did also spend some time in Brindisi (and the wider area) and the general lack of public transport information was a real headache, I think adding more could be better in this instance.

The main reason I see for inputting this information is that it makes mapping bus routes far easier. Because there is a lack of bus route mapping in the region I think it's good to promote this. Incorrect bus stops aren't a huge issue as long as they aren't attached to routing in my opinion.

Interested to hear your thoughts on the matter though as you are clearly an expert in the region!

Thanks for reaching out,
Jordan