Bonjour,
Le bâtiment de la fontaine est plutôt de type `roof` que `hut`. Et n'hésitez pas à ajouter le tag `drinking_water=yes` sur la fontaine si l'eau est potable.

Y a-t-il réellement un pont à cet endroit ? (osm.org/way/684193747) Ça parait surprenant ...

Hi Arndt,

Thanks for pointing out. It is corrected

Best regards, Mathieu

Vous avez fait une erreur en modifiant cet objet : osm.org/way/51682777

Il s'agit bien d'une école (amenity=school est correct). Par contre, il ne fallait pas supprimer le tag "building", mais plutôt préciser building=school.

J'ai corrigé ce problème. Notez que j'ai également défini un périmètre pour l'école englobant le bâtiment et la cour.

No, it has not been removed. I was saying two things.

1. A playground is not an attraction. It should be tagged leisure=playground

2. You used outdated data for mapping. You should not do this. As it seems, maps.me is quite a poor mapping software.

Corrected in #58849240

What attraction ?

Seeing your note (aire de jeux (OSM data version: 2016-11-05T13:55:03Z) #mapsme), you mapped based on outdate (2 years) data. I don't think it is a good idea.

Don't map for the renderer, don't map for the router.

Do not confuse unconnected ways and ways connecting to a highway area (a pedestrian area in this case).

Routing applications are able to route through a highway area (squares, etc.).

If you think the ways should be connected to other ways directly, then do that. But in no case you should remove a physical feature that was correctly mapped.

Reverted in changeset #58678431

Why would you remove the path attribute of the bridges !?

Bridge does not tell you which is the underlying physical feature. You need a highway=* key-value pair.

"Passetto di Borgo" was more accurate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passetto_di_Borgo).
"Mura gianicolensi" corresponds to all the fortifications. Maybe this wall could be included in a "Mura gianicolensi" relation.

You should not merge crossing and traffic_signals. They are both high elements, corresponding to different physical features. Obviously, cars do not stop on the crossing but before it.

I have corrected some elements already.

You have severely misused the key-tag tourism=attraction.

Two examples :
* This node (osm.org/node/5318894223) is just a phone number. It provides no information on the item it relates to. You should either delete it or bind it to a physical feature. There is a proper key for phone in OSM.
* This node (osm.org/node/5318896521) is obviously an isolated farm and should be tagged as such.

Would you please correct the nodes you created?

Best regards

Hi ! The node you added lacks feature. What is it ? A bar, a shop, .. ?

Pourquoi avez-vous supprimé le bâtiment ? Il n'est plus affecté au vivarium, mais il existe encore physiquement.

Je me doute. N'hésitez pas à demander si vous avez besoin d'aide. Aussi, je vous conseille d'utiliser JOSM comme éditeur, plutôt que iD. La prise en main est un peu plus longue, mais il est beaucoup plus pratique et fluide.

Bien, mais pourquoi avez-vous déplacer ce nœud: osm.org/node/573250926 ? ;-)
Corrigé dans osm.org/changeset/50193995

This edit added the art centre Le Romandie (node osm.org/node/3832754057) to the public transport route relation of the metro line m2 (?). Additionally, some tags of this node were clearly erroneous. Everything is fixed in osm.org/changeset/48463364

Cool ! I just don't get why Chemin Louis-Buissonnet is a member of bus route 16 ... but that problem has a different origin I guess.

Maybe the changeset is a bit old now to be reverted. I would go for merging again the first portion of the Route de Berne and correcting the crossing Route de Berne - Chemin Louis-Boissonnet. You can give a look at http://map.lausanne.ch/ for update imagery.