FYI :
https://www.arau.org/content/uploads/2019/02/Analyse-KBC-av.-du-Port-12-14.pdf

https://molenbeekadm.irisnet.be/fr/fichiers/urbanisme/avis-commission-de-concertation/07-07.2020/24-pu-37-338-av-du-port-12-14.pdf

Hello, it's based on a ground survey and it's indicated here : osm.org/note/3521390#map=18/50.86154/4.34941 and on my changeset desciption (link to the permit). That was notified to you on this changeset comment also : 131341836.
If they demolished this part will be a legality problem and also a practical problem : the general direction of "enseignement" use the 16 (and a lot of vzw) and have a long term contrat of leasing until 2036).

On what source you affirm this building will be demolished ?

Ok thanks ; let's be simple and keep the landuse like this (will be still a industrial in the futur).

Fix also the MP on the landuse : osm.org/changeset/131767008

@Jhowie_Nitnek : on what source or document you have use to make the outline of the Brouwerij ? Asking because the part near Breeveld (a91g parcel) is now a brownfield with rest of previous building and the old building was never connected to the existing one (fence are still in the same place) ; as industrial efficiencies it's a little strange not connecting together.

Hello,

You indicate Bing as source, but this source clearly show a two way street. Recent street level imagery and Urbis show also a two way. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1624203131249426

Do you have more accurate up to date ground information ?
Otherwise : Can you kindly reverse this edit ?

Please : read the history of the road and use up to date source imagery. This small part is especialy 2 way in order to permit some entrance on the gouvernement parking building. Have to reverse your edit.

Bonjour,

Le chemin est bien indiqué en privé ; ainsi qu'une barrière (s'il y en a d'autres vous pouvez les ajouter).

Voici pourquoi la route ne sera pas supprimée de la carte : osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

L'information peut être utile pour les services de secours et ça évitera que qu'un qui ne connait pas la situation ré-ajoute le chemin.

Reverted in : osm.org/changeset/131601229

Has been fixed here : osm.org/changeset/131155352

To be a cycleway it must have a signs D7, D9 or two parallel dashed lines of white color (Art 74 of Traffic Laws). That's (unfortunaly) not the case here.

Hello,

The path exist on imagery , it's not because you think it s lead to nowhere that the way must be deleted.

Best regards.

review_requested :

Pour les bâtiments, c'est mieux d'utiliser l'imagerie numérique SPW(allonie) PICC qui corrige les déformations de la vue aérienne et donne l'emprise au sol. (tout en continuant à utiliser la vue aérienne pour identifier les bâtiments).

Une belle journée de mapping sur OSM ;-)

Thanks fot the links but that doesn't make a official name at all.

On the french re-edition of the brochure in 2017 they removed the name from the text description for entrance of the park "Adresses des entrées :
Boulevard de Waterloo (passage de Milan),
au pied de "The Hotel" ; rue du Grand
Cerf ; rue aux Laines (passage Marguerite
Yourcenar)" https://www.bruxelles.be/sites/default/files/bxl/2017_08_28_BXL_Egmont_FR_site_web.pdf

It's only writen on the old map image they used. (same as screen brussels was using).

There is no signs at all on the service road, and offical signs in the park don't mention it as the other entrance are signed : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hxvBaJokXf_PkKujH_oq4mOt61BAEW3r/view

Also there is a law in Belgium to control and accept street name :
https://www.toponymie-dialectologie.be/fr/decrets-noms-de-rues/
"Le Conseil communal, sur proposition du Collège communal, est seul habilité à décider de la dénomination des voies publiques, que ce soit pour donner un nom à une rue qui n’en a pas encore ou pour changer un nom existant."

The commission will never accept a name comming from a commercial denomination , subjet to change (like here Hilton ==> The Hotel).

So according to this ; the name failed to the Verifiability criteria of OSM : osm.wiki/Verifiability

The only verifiable think here (on the place or in legal decision of the concyl) is that's this name does'nt exist. So can you remove it (entierly or just keeping alt name as compromise like the previous changeset) ?

Hello,

Can you give the source or reference to document you mention in your changeset ? Because the only official document referencing "Passage Hilton" is this document : https://www.brussels.be/sites/default/files/Seance_publique_-_SUP_-_25-09-2017.pdf and the situation they indicate is "is Carrefour de l'Europe 3"

Bonjour,

Pour mapper les buildings c'est indispensable d'utiliser l'imagerie "Imagerie numérique SPW(allonie) PICC " plutôt que l'imagerie aérienne qui est déformée par l'angle de prise de vue.

Hello,

You remove important data here :
source:geometry:ref source:geometry:version
And so all the osm history of the building parts by deleting it. It's one building yes but with 2 symmetrics part as indicated in the source you (i presume) used for the name. And clearly visible on the "ridge" seperation on the roof.

Where do you see name in tracks @Jhowie ? The name is on the relation as "meta" information , you can see signs with L161 when you take the line but no signs with "ligne du Luxembourg" at all. This changeset is correct.

Hello,

The pedestrian zone don't go on the private propriety of former Hostel. Can you fix that please ?

Also on your changeset description : you don't only added a pedestrian area , you add leisure (that doesn't exist anymore) and modify some building (that's good no problem with that) but please indicate it as it was already requested by other contributor.

Have a good day.

Bonjour , Quel est la source du nom du bâtiment svp ?

Bien sûr par définition une maison est aussi privée donc pas besoin de l'indiquer.

Bonjour,

Pour mapper des maisons et autres bâtiments c'est mieux d'utiliser Imagerie numérique SPW(allonie) PICC qui prend en compte l'encrage au sol et corrige les déformations de l'imagerie aérienne.

Pour indiquer qu'un chemin ou un n'importe quel objet est privé il faut ajouter access=private et pas l'indiquer en temps que "name" (name are not a description).

Bonne journée.