Oh, sorry, my mistake. You can revert the changes.

All the paths around this area are “footway”s and the only path placed at this level before my edition yesterday was also a footway. I first put “pedestrian”, copying the esplanade of the VUB. I later realized that “pedestrian” is referenced by iD as a “pedestrian street” and indeed on the wiki: “in which some vehicle traffic may be authorized (e.g., emergency, cab, delivery, …)”. Since it's not a “street” and I don't think the forum roofs underneath are meant for vehicular traffic, I thought I was wrong and that it would be better to put “footway” as around. But feel free to change if pedestrian and better in this case.

I put "informal path" because it is really a path traced only by its frequent use. I have always seen it here for 20 years. But I did not put a "footway" because it was not created as such and is not maintained as such (and if I made a router for mobility impaired people, I wouldn't make them go through it).

I didn't take into account the default accesses of OSM. Since it's an informal path, there are no real world regulations, unless you consider that you can't cross the sidewalk on a bike (to reach it).
So my understanding is that either "bicycle=no" should be added to the path, or the path should be joined to the street "square de la croix-rouge". I would prefer the second solution in that I don't think anyone would find anything wrong with a cyclist using this informal path.

Indeed. I will fix it right now

Oh that's true. I forgot. Thks

I will check

The street is particularly narrow, that is why I point it out here.

Because it was not in osmand. Yes it should be removed. Thanks a lot for reviewing the changes.
We may add an "entrance" next to the node I added

Yes, I was puzzled too when I was looking for this commit to check for duplication (my map was not up to date this morning). Usually OSMAnd puts a full name, but there was a connection problem during the upload and he had to do it twice. Maybe that's where it came from.

I came to update it because the actual speed limits were not those given in OSM.
I changed to motorway accordingly to F5 signs present onsite.
Maybe this changed with the "Ville 30" 2021 project, whose the map is available on https://data.mobility.brussels/mobigis/fr/ and which is mostly up to date according to my comparison with actual signs.

Sorry, wasn't aware of any of that, tried to guess from other nodes and iD suggestions. Fixed now.

Nous l'avons tous été; et on l'est presque toujours à un certain niveau

Si c'est une piste cyclable, c'est plutôt un highway=cycleway
Bonne continuation!

Pour se faire une idée générale, on peut se dire qu'en renseignant un panneau comme un point en dehors de toute route, on s'intéresse au panneau en tant que élément extérieur et visible plus qu'à son sens sur la circulation routière.
Dans ce cas, `direction` n'étant pas lié à une route, on indique vers où "regarde" le panneau, en degré avec 0 pour le nord, 90 pour l'est... ou en points cardinaux NESW.
L'information pour la circulation doit être liée au chemin. Pour ce qui est des sens interdit, la façon (quasi-?)universelle est d'utiliser oneway=yes plutôt qu'un traffic_sign.
Sur ce, bon mapping! Et un grand merci pour le changeset #84101602.

Yes it is

You are absolutely right. I made a mistake when uploading.

Why do you remove oneway:bicycle=no while adding cycleway=opposite?
(I am just looking for advices and good ways to map)

I can't remember. I will ask on the object.