Hi VLD549! Don't worry, no offence taken. I was actually a bit perplexed too over the multi-language name of the board until I figured out that as they used a A to Z pattern, every language has different plant/vegetable at the end of its alphabetical list. I hope this clarifies.
Thanks for checking and have a nice mapping!

Hi bxl-forever,
Thanks for the explanation and for fixing it. I must have been tricked by the fact that the "access" tag appears as default in the iD editor, and I did not think about its implications, such as the overriding of other default parameters. Thanks for pointing that out, and apologies if that created problems.
Have a nice mapping !

Thanks for restoring it. Indeed I did not think about "building=pedestal" as a solution !

Hello,
Indeed modifying the "Promenade verte - Groene wandeling" hiking relation was not my intention. When detailing the cemetery entrance, I moved some footways/roads belonging to it in order to square the corners, but this should not be an issue.
The only change made was dividing the way/811279632, to create a crossing and then a second sidewalk, but I double-checked to be sure that these new ways would still be part of the relation.
And, when I checked the relation before approving my changes, it seemed to be connected, without any missing element.
I'm sorry if something went wrong, and let me know if there's something I can do to fix it.

Hello,
There is indeed a typo error on the French name (â instead of ê), while for the English one, I confirm that there is indeed a diaeresis and no circumflex accent on chateau.
It is not the first time I see wrong dates or unusual spelling in these green tourist boards. Do you think it's worth clarifying that this is indeed the name on the board in a note?

Thanks for the clarification and for fixing that up!

No, you were correct to specify. Given that it is a footpath, I would have assumed that other vehicles, such as cars, were excluded by default

Hello,
Thank you for the clarification, I will fix it. And now that I think about it, it might be also good to change their access= tag from private to destination, as it can be used to reach the Contretype. Wouldn't it be more appropriate?

Hello,
No, there are no D5 signals, so the cars coming from the right have priority. Thus I believe to have tagged it the correct way, but let me know if I am missing something!
Thanks

Hi,
You are right! I even took a picture of the road sign as a reminder, but I forgot to check it and to check whether the way was part of a relation I could impact... Thanks for fixing it!

Hi bxl-forever,
As always, thanks for the constructive remarks! In this case I actually knew the difference, so it was a somewhat silly mistake due to inattention. However I see from your changeset that you can put language-specific descriptions, so I learnt something new anyway.
Have a nice mapping!

Grazie a te per le spiegazioni. Per quanto riguarda il tag castle>palace mi sono fatto sviare dalla descrizione di wikiOSM "mostly built in a town or city" pensando che potesse essere applicato anche a residenze aristocratiche urbane.
Se vuoi mi puoi indicare quali erano le problematiche segnalate e posso provare a sistemarle io una volta changeset di reverse annullato.
Infine, visto che ci sono, ne approfitto anche per chiederti un'opinione: vedo che per il Palazzo dei Papi ci sono tre ways distinte, ogniuna con il tag castle>palace. Poiché si tratta di un'unico complesso, non sarebbe più opportuno avere una sola way per il palazzo, un punto di interesse turistico (o panoramico) per la loggia e un tag office=religion per la diocesi?
Grazie per il supporto

Buongiorno,
ho notato che nel correggere alcuni errori che posso aver commesso nel changeset/125484947 sono stati eliminati molti altri elementi dei quali sono sicuro della correttezza (localizzazione corretta del Museo del Colle del Duomo, pannelli informativi, area militare, busti/sculture/placche etc.). Vorrei capire se c'è una ragione particolare in modo da evitare errori nel futuro - grazie!

Ciao e grazie per le informazioni!
Per quanto riguarda le date, correggerò seguendo meglio le indicazioni riportate sulla pagine wiki, e lo stesso vale per i path (credevo fosse più idoneo a sentieri escursionistici, ma quindi non mi è ben chiaro in quali contesti vada utilizzato footaway).
Infine, per quanto riguarda invece lo scostamento Bing, sono conscio del problema ma non saprei come compensarlo. Potresti darmi indicazioni a riguardo?
Grazie!

Hi Thierry1030,
Thanks for the message.
As far as I remember, this is a velobox identical to the ones used by Cycloparking, but without any information on it, nor anything that can be found on the website of Cycloparking, as you also saw. My guess is that, therefore, this is a privately owned one.
On a side note, I saw a changeset by Bxl-forever suggesting that the operator should be parking.brussels, as Cycloparking is an initiative launched by them together with Bruxelles Mobilité and municipalities.
Hope this helped!

Hi bxl-forever,
Thanks for the advice. I tried to do as you suggested using the iD editor as with the UrbisAdm is pretty easy (although I know I should start getting more familiar with JOSM). If you want to check and give feedback, I did it on changeset #119807778

Hi bxl-forever,

Thanks, coming from you it is really appreciated.

And also thanks for the tip. Therefore I'll try to avoid "rounded" corners and tiny bits of sidewalks and go straightforward with L-shaped corners and crossings connecting directly to them.

On a side note, while using the UrbisAdm view, I noticed that the buildings at Avenue de Cortenbergh - Kortenberglaan 172-182 should be considered as the same one. However, they all seem to have specific ref:UrbIS numbers, thus I did not make any change to avoid causing issues (I am still not very familiar with UrbIS as I struggle to access their website). Could you please give me some guidance on what to do when facing similar situations?

Thanks!

Hi SekeRob,
I apologise if you had to fix such an issue. I have the impression that I had left no broken areas or other problematic elements (I saw you also made changes around Frascati cemetery, I hope this is not related), but it might be possible that I did it without realising it. My impression is that most of the changes were areas (scrubs) created and inserted as "inner" within the multipolygon (grass). What I do not get is the example you made, is it related to the inner ring with scrubs (x2) and bare rock within? I read the OSMwiki page on multipolygons and I have the feeling to have done things correctly (although it advises, for simplicity, to use a closed way as "inner" and then create the areas directly within). Could you tell me where I did wrong?
Thanks

Hi @bxl-forever,
I wanted to inform you that I have received a written response from cycloparking.brussels giving me permission to import the information present on their website.
I will therefore start to map regularly their boxes/sheds in order to cover the whole of the service offered.
Have a nice day!

Hi SHARCRASH,
Thank you for pointing out the problem. Indeed "tunnel=cave" was one of the proposals offered by the iD editor and initially seemed to make sense. After saving this initial change, I nevertheless did some research on the OSM wiki and saw that this value did not exist, so I made a later change with the value "tunnel=yes". However, I see from your comment that there are other values I could add, such as "location=underground", which I will add right away.