Previous attempt to upload got an error, i noticed the undo list was over so i assumed the upload has been done, but apparently it didn't. Further edits: extended field, merged equal elements,

+ sidewalk added

+ corrected route relations according new elements

Hi! Please be careful with your contributions, you displaced this node node/5522385397

If you check now the rendered standard OSM Carto Map layer you will see the recent differences between both: highway=pedestrian is rendered as large as a road, whereas a path or footway is rendered much thinner, giving an idea to people who see the map what to expect in real.

Hello! Welcome to OSM and thanks for your first contributions! Please, notice:
- specific tags “key=value” have a specific definition and therefore define what its element is embodying from reality in OSM. You used highway=pedestrians which embody very large ways exclusively for pedestrians like the "Rue de l'Alzette", but the ways you plotted are rather thin, only one or two max beings side by side. Therefore the right tag is highway=path or highway=footway. Youc an find those definitions in OSM's Wiki osm.wiki/ I corrected this way way/1005219324
- For this way way/1005226685 you "faked" its intersection. You plotted it going up and then directly down to the road. You cannot do that because if someone would want to plan a route from Rue Acier to Rue Docteurs MW thanks to a routing service, the directions would be forced to go up too and then down. The proper method is with 2 ways intersecting both. Also you made it cross the building whereas no one can cross a building. I know you didn't create the building but it would have been nice of you to correct its position too. I let you correct its tag and geometry so you can practice.

Thanks for your comprehension! :)

correction: "undeground rooms". Shouldn't have used the word "building", matter of interpretation, is a space dug in the undergound a building? A buildings is a structure made of walls and roof as per definition.

+ new trees

+ other positions enhanced

Salut! Ta note sur le chemin 807230581 a été coupée parce que il y a une limite au nombre de caractères dans une valeur, voir v8 : "...Celui-ci est donc encore praticable à pied et à vélo en faisant un p". Entre temps quelqu'un d'autre a changé l'accès pour "foot=yes", ce qui est juste il me semble et a également interprété la fin de ta note. Pourrais-tu vérifier et corriger si besoin stp? Merci!

Wrong comment, sorry! ONly tags added for note/979657

notes 2601195 2601190 2601191

note/2601194

Hi! For this way way/343303298 the value cave for a tunnel doesn't exist. Since this is an important "machine read" tag, no systemic service can understand it. Therefore in interaction with the rest of the data, it's misleading. You are even the only one who used this value in OSM's database. Contributors should not invent new values and tags as they please. For underground features the tags tunnel=yes, location=underground in combination with layer=* to express the order. natural=cave_entrance at both ends of the river is enough to express further the underground aspect.

Bonjour! Il y a une différence fondamentale entre brownfield et greenfield: on utilise brownfield lorsqu'il est prévu de reconvertir un terrain qui a déjà été urbanisé/industrialisé/etc avec infrastructures, structures... or on sait bien que cette zone était industrialisée (voir aussi les deux cheminées héritées), alors que greenfield c'est plutôt pour un terrain naturel, tel un champ, foret, etc. En plus, le greenfield est plutôt un tag situationnel en stand-by car en l'état du terrain du moment il est plus pertinent d'utiliser le tag correspond. De toute façon pour landuse=meadow, landuse=forest, landuse=grass, etc qui sont des matières naturelles avec une fonctionnalité spécifique ils entreraient en conflit, deux "landuse" ne peuvent être utilisés pour le même élément. J'ai donc remis en brownfield. Merci de faire attention aux tags.

Hi! You could have kept landuse=commercial since the final aim of the institute is to commercialise its researches.

See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1cu5

more to be corrected after discussion in larger community

No it's OK thanks, only if you have the occasion to check. I thought you'd know already because you added the surface. If you ever find out but think it's too complicated for you to update all the route relations, you can contact me to make the update. it's relatively easy with JOSM editor.

I think also it should be only one road entrance. User EUmapper kept both when he changed it as living_street. The type of road fits i'd say, since it's a road allowed to low speed traffic and priority to pedestrians. Sometimes he makes mistakes so the double road is certainly wrong according our point of view + photos. I warned him several times about some of his errors but he never replied.
Thanks!

Hi! About the ways around here way/586993234 I see on Geoportail's 2020 photos there have been works for making the whole street more adapted for pedestrians, haven't the little footways disappeared actually then?