Bonjour, thank you for checking the edits.

I don't think any of the changes I made here removed the bicycle=designated tag. I agree that "voie verte" should be tagged as you described.

If you look at the history of the ways from the changeset, you'll see that the tag was removed by "David Crochet" with osm.org/changeset/168930076 after my edits (surface, smoothness). Compare for example osm.org/way/244159077/history/12 (after my edit) and osm.org/way/244159077/history/13 (after David Crochet).

The same changeset also removed abandoned:railway=rail from the voie verte, maybe that's also worth checking?

Hi, thanks for pointing this out. I'll try to be very careful with the surface layer in the Netherlands. However, in this case, the surface tag was also incorrect before I started editing (surface=paving_stones, maybe from before reconstruction) and the smoothness tag that SC removed was also my edit.

Is it safe to use surface layer for carriageway surfaces?

ok, dzięki za linka, poprawione.

Here's some info about the move: https://www.facebook.com/pharmacieplasky/posts/pfbid02WQ8D7ooRbMzbcS8BTbHVtUakZxhbVgRvj6NaA55HAEey3TfCWHgtfMUTRcuRHepfl

For sure the entry to the farmacy I used was from the square, not on the corner. The pharmacy might have expanded (they seemed to be in the middle of unpacking) or might have a separate entrance for night service - iirc I saw a sign with pharmacy 24h on the corner, that's why I didn't move the other pharmacy POI.

Are horses really allowed here? IIRC there is a cycle and pedestrian track sign from the Brussels side, and a cycle track sign from the Flemish (Vier Armen) side. I haven't seen any horses on it, and they would be bad for the compacted surface. It's also not included as a bridlepath on the map (https://sonianforest.be/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BIM_ZONIENWOUD-V2020-WEB-copy.pdf).

I don't think cycleway:lane:*=x is understood, it's very rare. I replaced it with cycleway:both:*

Correct, cycleway (and also sidewalk) tag was leftover from before splitting the highway. Fixed now: osm.org/changeset/156633850

Ik vraag me af, zou access=members hier niet beter zijn? osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbicycle_parking#Access_tags

oke: osm.org/changeset/149980319

I meant "I didn't follow it all the way to 43". See osm.org/note/4156519 for continuation.

No, I remember I had a brief look for the address to double-check if it's really the same building, but I didn't see it, so I trusted the website. Probably UrbIS is more trustworthy. I'll change it back.

Corrections - they had both already been mapped, but one didn't show up on my map (too close to the other?) My bad, deleted.

My question for a good tool for mapping cycle parkings in the field remains open.

Hey, I usually try to correct the position and add some details after returning home, must have missed this one. Can you recommend a good tool to add new points with details already in the field?

In this case, there are two groups of two stands each (capacity 4) south of the bus stop, so it's a new one:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=274454925512965
Should the new one and old one be merged into one with capacity 8?

fixed: osm.org/changeset/146108008

sth wrong here - highway=residential got removed with the recent changes. Is the road closed for traffic now?

I had a second look on the way out and actually there are two set of stands, each with 10 frames (so for 20 bikes). So instead of deleting, I moved the node to be in front of Carrefour.

Sorry, my bad. I'll delete the node.