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.

Hi @bxl-forever,
Thanks for the remark. I was showing a friend the very basic features of OSM by detailing a residential garden in its neighbourhood, inviting him to do the rest and I therefore forgot to check these details. Thanks for pointing them out, I'll fix it right away!

Hello @bxl-forever.

Thanks for flagging this issue.
As far as I recall, the only information entered that is not visible or readable from the boxes themselves is the annual subscription fee. Is this the piece of information violating their copyright?

As I wish to tag all the boxes/sheds provided by cycloparking.brussels, I will contact them as you suggested to request permission to use the data available on their website. In case of a negative response (or no response at all), I will erase this information from the two boxes concerned here, plus the two I have tagged near the Kraainem metro station.

More generally, thanks for pointing out the need to request permission before importing data. I read the guidelines when starting contributing to OSM but, at that time, I had no idea of the complexity of the project, and I think that now a refresh is well needed.

Have a nice day!

Hi,
Thanks to you for taking the time to explain. It helps me to improve as an OSM user and I'll avoid making this mistake again.

Hi,
Thank you for the useful tips!
Regarding the trash bins, I will try to fix similar mistakes I may have created.
Concerning the crossings, could you please give me more details on whether there is an issue in adding the tag "marked" to the crossings?

Hi bxl-forever,
You're right, I must have misspelt it. I'll fix it right away. Thanks for pointing that out!

Hi bxl-forever,
Thank you for correcting my mistake. I was actually convinced that by inserting a pedestrian zone, there was no longer any need for pedestrian roads to cross it. Having re-established the internal routes within it, do you think it is still worth modifying the area describing the pedestrian area by turning it into a way to be related to the green spaces, outdoor seating areas and the playground so as to create a multipolygon pedestrian area that can make the areas marked as "inner" visible?
Thank you and have a nice evening

Hi Anakil,
Thank you for the many tips! I started mapping not too long ago and I still have to learn a lot. In the case of the "Malaise", as I had no clue that a strat was passing under the city, and due to its name, I initially thought it was some sort of LLN-related joke.
Thanks again, elucci