En fait elle est defacto oneway pour la partie entre le 2 et 34 mais aucun panneau ! j'ai corrigé avec oneway:bicycle=no

Par contre cette partie : way/1238600634#map=19/50.834613/4.367249&layers=N n'est absolument pas oneway ! https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1500572814918818 , venant de la Rue de la Tulipe non plus : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1213056404333082

Soit c'est du fantaisy mapping soit c'est une situation projetée mais dans tout les cas, les modifications de ce changeset et ceux liés sont incorrect.

Bonjour,

Est-ce que les changements sont réellements effectif ou il s'agit d'une projection ? (on map la réalité sur OSM, on peut éventuellement ajouter proposed) mais j'ai de sérieux doute sur vos éditions :

Athénée venant de ch. d'Ixelles : on a une fin de zone de rencontre : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1206767828193655

On a bien un début de zone 20 ici https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1500572814918818 mais rien indiquant une zone de rencontre (ironiquement le panneau était présent au début des travaux, mais en version Française pas Belge ...)

Idem ici (croissement Sans Souci) : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1464092542040171 rien n'indique un début de zone de rencontre ou une fin ...

J'ai pas vérifié (filmé) le début venant de Malibran mais j'ai rien remarqué ce matin en passant par là. Je re-vérifierai la semaine prochaine, mais en attendant il serait opportun de répondre à nos intérogations afin que la carte reflète la réalité.

D'avance merci
Raphael

Hello,

Why do you deleted way/1408276212 ? Please look on history and detailed information on previous changesets. It's look like you armchair mapping with old imagery. Please do not recreate the deleted cycleway here we will fix this with correct reverting tools to preserve history.

Have a good day,
Raphaël

Parfait merci, j'ai restauré l'accès pour la partie avant la barrière menant à la table de pic nic et ajouté l'acces privé pour la partie du jardin collectif.

happy mapping.

Bonjour,

voici des photos de Juillet 2025 : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=23921911980808126

Je ne vois aucune restriction avant les jardins collectifs

Est-ce que la situation a changé depuis ?
La barrière est fermée ? Ou y a t il un panneau d'interdiction d'accès ?

Si c'est le cas (pour la barrière) alors il est utile de l'ajouter et de scinder le sentier en deux avec une partie = private (access=no est réservé pour des cas bien particulier (exemple tout utilisateurs sauf bus, ou terrain militaires)

D'avance merci pour le complément d'info.

Hello,

I have checked by usage in Brussels and both tagging scheme are in use but motor_vehicle:conditionnal is most used.

Other use case are marginal, we can of course add additional horse:conditional etc .. but main case are covered now.

Have a good day.

completely agree with bxl-forever. Before reverting can you also explain why in previous changeset you move the admin center "to the square as that is a more logical place for it "

You don't explain the logical behind that and the position was perfectly coherent (even it's subjective and this boundary administrative doesn't realy exist as such) the previous position was in the centroid it's more logical to me (centroid ==> center)

Hello,

May i ask you what was your source for the add of this landuse construction ?

I have added a v2 construction=residential based on your initial edit and compatible source (openpermit) but i miss the information that the permit is not delivered because i trusted your initial edit and thinking it was just an incoherence in the regional data.

The zone is not in construction at all , there is still people on temporary occupation there and there is also bike repair workshop every thursday in housenumber 23 and a festival end may 2025.

Situation as today : https://panoramax.openstreetmap.fr/#s=fp;s2;p2cd9165c-0be0-435e-be99-7523e8ddf951;c250.29/13.20/30;m17/50.80577/4.314758;bs

https://panoramax.openstreetmap.fr/#s=fp;s2;p8c1a50ff-60e8-4bab-9907-b13a2a2a6e4a;c269.13/6.76/31;m17/50.805636/4.313478;bs

Please stop adding guessed data in Osm, or use proposed:landuse instead (if the term of use of your source allow it).

Have a good day
Raphaël

Hello,

The combinaison is not very used even in use , personnaly i haven't a strong opinion about the scheme as it depend also of ground situation.

And that's also a point here ; it's look like you edit sometimes for your application instead of fixing what's is realy false.

It's clearly not a building passage , even not a pedestrian , yes it's indoor but it's a indoor footway , open when the amenites insides are open, and the layout is not like that.

The entrance south is under the roof : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1005940514380536 and if you look on aerial it's completly offsed.

On the north it's looks correct
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2099569227222502

Of course you don't have introduce the initial mistake but please ; if there is something wrong add a note with some pictures instead of just add a tag for Wandrer.

Have a good day,
Raphaël

Hello,

Indeed , it's probably better to respond to the changeset comments changeset/164326792 rather than this one witch is correct ;-)

Nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the placement of the trees you have made is very good.

Have a good day,
Raphaël

Hello,

No this "path" was not just the building garden. Before your edit there is certainly somme adjustement/correction to do here but certainly not deleting the way and recreate a new path for theses reasons :

- Principe of good pratice : see osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

- On the west part of the path you deleted there is in fact a footway that allow entrance to the building : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1122943351924628 , this footway connect also the Street with steps (not yet mapped) : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=513273780630861

- On south the path was faulty (crossing the coursive wall) : but you recreate it on the same position, the existing one next to the pound is enough here.

- On east : there is a gate with a sign for no parking next to it and we can see that grass has different texture following a line of something that looks like "klinkers" : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=6404652808119672022 It's also well visible in Urbis Orthophoto
2022 NS So for sure there is a path with private access and probably a good reason for this (maybe Siamu, maybe technical for Foyer Laekenois) but in any case the path exist and should not be deleted.

I m affraid we need to reverse your changeset and make the correction but before that can you say if there is a connection on the north or a gate , or just a bollard ?

Have a good day,
Raphaël

-

Hello,

Last visible shelter on aerial is from 2019 where we can view a bus stop on the south. Since, there is no more shelter here : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=239960635583628

Not sure if we can delete it or add a lifecycle prefix as it's inhabitual to draw this kind of equipment with only RGB.

Have a good day,
Raphaël

Il y a un stuut au delà de la partie bilingue : ce panneau d'information ne parle absolument pas du Palais Royal : c'est un panneau d'information qui décrit les différentes statues/œuvres d'art qui sont situé à côté. Il y a aussi des flèches de directions pour le palais royal ou le kiosque mais ce n'est pas le thème principal du panneau :

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=941829718036576

Bonjour,

ça en fait des changements de noms en 29 jours ...

Agence Immobilière Uccle donc , si on était sur un moteur de recherche type "Gafam" on pourrait appeler ça du spam indexing, mais bon on est sur OpenStreetMap et on va se contenter des faits :

Dans votre V1 vous indiquez Victoire x Junot | Agence Immobilière Uccle passons sur le mauvais séparateur corrigé par un contributeur local et expérimenté. Le problème : ce n'est absolument pas ce qui est indiqué sur le terrain : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=531784462531990 Ni même dans le registre légal des entreprises Belges : https://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/toonvestigingps.html?vestigingsnummer=2318635342

Victoire en tant que nom ou Victoire Properties en tant que official name est correct mais vous y ajouter :

Junot : qui est le nom du groupe ayant acheté la société (je simplifie car ils ont d'abord créé une autre société pour ce faire).

Mais ça ne veut pas dire que ça fait partie du nom (il n'y a pas eut de fusion acquisition ni changement au niveau marketing ou enseigne ni à la BCE)

Dans la V4 vous ré-introduisez le mauvais séparateur pour au final dans la V5 complètement retiré le nom de la marque.

Vous avouerez que ça ne fait pas sérieux.

Par ailleurs dans votre page osm.wiki/France/votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale

Vous indiquez faire vos modification avec JOSM ce qui ne semble pas le cas , pouvez-vous svp corriger ou expliquer ce qu'il en est.

D'avance merci
Une belle journée,
Raphaël

Hello,

It's look like you are doing mechanical edit with a tools made for surveying on the ground.

Even there is no mistake in sence if the information is not previously set you just add sidewalk:side = separate without completing the other part but it's useless as the quest will be asked again for next ground mappers.

The concern here is also that your edit is missleading as you indicated source=survey and it's clearly not the case. If there is a mistake on the data you will not notice it. If the ground situation has changed or there is work ongoing you add incorrect data , for exemple : way/30335644 this way has access=no and there is a landuse=construction but you add information on the way (one of the double carriage will be removed soon) that's doesn't help local mappers at all and introduce confusion.

I ask you to stop this kind of edit with a tools that's not made for this.

Have a good day.
Raphaël

Hello,
I noticed that in this changeset, you removed the wikipedia=* tag. Over the past six months, I've observed that you sometimes remove this tag when adding a wikidata=* or wikimedia_commons=* tag.

The wikipedia key is utilized in various ways:
• Overpass Turbo queries to find relevant articles, scripts to find wikipedia article in 404,
• Mobile app users (like OsmAnd) that display the link in a mobile-friendly style or directly show the article in the paid version.
• Mappers in JOSM benefit from quick access to the article while editing.
• Various websites and apps consume this data to create custom maps, among other uses.

Some metrics:
• If there is a wikidata tag on OSM, 52% of the time there is also a wikipedia tag.
• Conversely, when there is a wikipedia tag, 91% of the time there is an associated wikidata tag.

This correlation is likely to increase as mappers continue to add this information. For example, see this MapRoulette challenge: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/49374.

Removing the wikipedia tag can lead to a loss of valuable data that is known to be correct. It would be beneficial to retain this tag to maintain data integrity.

Additionally, could you please ensure that your changeset descriptions are clear and accurate? Describing the addition of data when tags are being removed can be misleading.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
Have a good day.

Thanks for responding, you obviously don't read the sources i provided before you make the changeset.

It's a little ironic you say trusted more a official gov site when you cited as source justification for the name in French in this changeset comments : changeset/158914049

Because the notice of Urban Brussels don't talk about "La Marolle" and just describe what Rue de Montserrat is and the delimatation. Even in NL it's not clear that they talking about the delimitation of "De Marolle"

In the documents i provided from "cercle d'histoire" , ARAU or Arhiviris , if you know the neightbourout and make a minimum of overlapp/comparaison with local knowledge my move is correct and just moving it with one source that clearly one word guessing with one source for the notice is a lack of critical thinking in your changeset.
(it's not because it's on a offial website that it exist , for exemple http://sites.heritage.brussels/fr/trees/6886 )

The first adding of the node already warm up attention of another mappers, i haven't react on that time as i knowing the name for decade and i have choosen not to add it personnaly as i consider it as a historical denomination more an actual usage. You put it anyway i respect your choose but if i make correction please don't just move this with one source and not reading sources i provided.

Also even permiters of "les Marolles" has some contestation (see "Les rues disparues de Bruxelles" aux éditions Rossel, 1979) not sure adding more confusion on the map by placing the node on limit is a good think.

I again ask you to reconsider this edit and at least moving the node on the location i placed in my previous changeset or consider that ground verifiability is not possible and delete it.

=> moment of appellation i mean when historicaly the denomination start to exist and before the first expropriation for the construction of the courthouse, reason i mentionned as a historical neightbourouht when i corrected the place.

Hello,

Do you read and show (tv) the source i cited in my previous changeset ?

The document you mentionned show the Rue de Montserrat and mention "Slag van de Marol" in Montserratsaat. Also in French the document you mention talk abou "bataille des Marolles" no "de".

I make also a historical comparaison where the covent was , the centroid you placed simply doesn"t exist at the moment of the appellation.

So moving in Rue aux Laines when you cited a article about Montseratstraat is realy strange and i ask you to read and watch all source i cited and roll back the position i placed.

Thanks in advance,
have a good day.

Bonjour,

Il y a quelques soucis avec cette édition :

- Vous avez supprimé le passage piéton (footway=crossing) qui reliait les trottoirs à la Rue du Merlo way/766629167 ce n'est pas une correction mais une régression dans le graph de routing.

Idem avec le connecteur Rue Jean d'Osta : https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/523419097

- Vous avez supprimé deux petits "bâtiments" comme celui ci way/237005496/history qui sont probablement une ventilation "haute" de la dalle de parking, on peut considérer qu'ils n'ont pas leur place dans OSM en tant que building mais ceux ci ont une ref:UrbIS et sont bien présent dans l'imagerie numérique ; merci de ne jamais effacer de tels objects, ont peut leur indiquer un status spécial comme : not:building=yes mais certainement pas les supprimer.

- Le nom du bâtiment est incorrect et pris d'une source non autorisé osm.wiki/Google ce qui est clairement une violation du droit d’auteur et par ailleurs factuellement faux ( j'ai entre-temps fait retiré l'entrée par la Gafam). Merci d'utiliser des sources fiables et autorisées à l'avenir.

Une belle journée,
Raphaël