Het is een eindje geleden dat ik nog in centrum WRB geweest ben. Is het pad achter Westvlees verdwenen?

Zie osm.org/way/172510889 http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/dNA

Hi, I'm sorry but I can't speak Spanish, so I hope you can understand English.

First of all, I should thank you for helping with our project.

But you should watch out when editing coastline data. For coastline ways, the land should always be on the left side of the coastline.

For some reason, you changed the direction of the coastline (probably selected the wrong way in the editor). But this caused the entire coastline of the Eurasian landmass to become invalid.

See osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline for documentation.

Thanks again for helping with our project.

You're right, I should look into closing my changesets more often.

I noticed this issue thanks to the coastline checking tool: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=coastline (I also tried to solve most other problems).

A lake with only some 130 members isn't really that big anyway. In Africa, I've been working on lakes with 300 and more members, while they were only tagged as a multipolygon.

Coastline should not be used on lakes (even not if they're big).

See osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline

I'll now remove these coastline tags again.

Where was this import discussed?
Why did you use type=lake instead of the accepted water=lake tag on some waterbodies?

Please do not map for the renderer: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

In short: woodland is not a park (a park has benches, and is used as a quiet place to walk in an urban area).

Also, the name tag should only be used for features with a name (like a shop, a pub, a street, ...) but never as a description.

Thanks

Nog 1 vergeten:

osm.org/way/386822671

Gehuchten als Wijnendale en Sint-Christoffel zijn geen deelgemeenten, en hebben dus geen grens.

Ik heb de oude grenzen hersteld (zodat ze terug gesloten zijn, en gebruikt kunnen worden door de zoekfunctie), maar de nieuwe wegen heb ik niet verwijderd omdat ik niet weet wat je er juist mee bedoeld (welk type grens is dit, waar komt de info vandaan, ...?)

osm.org/way/386821195
osm.org/way/386798754
osm.org/way/386827244
osm.org/way/386795768
osm.org/way/386835878

Not yet, works on the cycle infrastructure haven't finished yet (at least not since I last went there), and I don't know how they plan the cycle infrastructure. Either they will limit it to one side of the road directly after the roundabout, or they'll add a possibility to cross the street somewhere between the tunnel and the roundabout.

Note that the cycle lane will also be connected to the south (along the railway). I don't know how far their progress is with that.

Bedankt voor de update ;)

Could you please watch out with deleting important information? I did my best collecting information and I do NOT APPRECIATE it being deleted osm.org/way/174891110/history

This is an issue I discovered because it's hardly a few kms from my front door. I dare not to imagine what else you have destroyed.

I don't know what you wanted to achieve with this, but it's obviously wrong. Could you please watch out with such edits in the future?

Bij mijn weten valt de ABW nog steeds onder volledig copyright, en is het dus verboden die namen in OSM te importeren.

Heb jij andere informatie?

Hoe kom je aan die namen van Chemin 41 of Sentier 41?

Bij mijn weten zijn daar geen namen te zien?

In ieder geval wel bedankt voor het toevoegen van landwegen.

Ook de stad spreekt over een tunnel, en niet over een brug:

http://www.roeselarebereikbaar.be/werken-koning-leopold-iii-laan/

Aangezien ik de site al verschillende keren bezocht heb kan ik wel vaststellen dat het om een tunnel gaat. De spoorweg is niet zichtbaar verhoogd, terwijl de weg wel zichtbaar verlaagd is. Daarenboven is het spoorwegcomplex ook breder dan het wegcomplex, wat een ander criterium is voor het gebruik van tunnels vs bruggen.

Bij deze is de wijziging dus teruggedraaid.

Is there a reason why you put a space inside the ref? AFAIK, it's a habit to not use spaces there, so E403 and not E 403.

Also, whenever an international ref is known, we use it as ref (and nat_ref for the old national refs). So destination:ref=E403 would be recognisable than only destination:int_ref=E403 (though both tags together would be idea).

I admit I used the "name" tag wrongly (due to ignorance), but the tag did contain the destinations marked when you wanted to take the junction. (a bit like the exit_to tag)

Discussion test