Monsieur,Madame,
Je rappelle que la politique du projet est de cartographier ce qui est vérifiable sur le terrain.
Un sentier ou une allée de jardin sur un terrain privé doit être cartographié comme highway=path + access=private.
Si l'étiquette "access=private" n'est pas présente, il faut seulement l'ajouter.
Nous n'induisons donc personne en erreur.
Si vous avez d'autres questions ou préoccupations, n'hésitez pas à nous en faire part.
Cordialement,
Thierry Jimenez
Bénévole OSM Belgique

Dag Jowie, de jaagpaden langs het kanaal Halle-Brussel zijn door u hermapt van highway=service naar highway=cycleway, bijv. way/962897136#map=16/50.7805/4.2861
Ik herhaal dat volgens de wiki een jaagpad gemapt dient te worden als highway=track, unclassified of service -> osm.wiki/NL:Jaagpad
Hopelijk is mijn uitleg nu wel duidelijk :-)
Anders hoor ik het graag ...

Dag 'Jhowie_Nitnek',
Volgens de wiki dient een jaagpad gemapt te worden als highway=track, unclassified of service -> osm.wiki/NL:Jaagpad
Alle nieuwe stukken jaagpad (die deel uitmaken van de fietssnelweg F20) tussen Halle en Brussel zijn oorspronkelijk (door Joost Schouppe) gemapt als highway=service.
PS: Zie bord ter plaatse -> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1446773345675975
Gelieve de nodige aanpassingen te doen. Bedankt en fijne dag!

This is my logic:
If there's "space" to park at least one cargo bike (even though is't not a dedicated cargo bike parking) I generally add capacity:cargo_bike=1
If there are (other) rules to calculate it, I'm very willing to know them! :-)

ok thx for your message. I will try to remember to add in the future the road type. And construction=minor I didn't know before. Do you have an idea if routeplanners take it into consideration?

ok thx for mentioning. I will try to make a new picture in the coming days ...

Alban Chambon is the name of the architect ->
https://monument.heritage.brussels/fr/Bruxelles_Laeken/Avenue_de_la_Reine/A001/23267

Hello! Thanks for adding the Pixel Museum!
One remark: the location is not correct. It's on level=-1 + next to 'Fietsatelier MolemBIKE4 -> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=632092798164330

no need to apologize!
Documenting what you're doing and why is more important. At the end, everything can be corrected! :-)
Short reply to your changes:
1) you're completely right about that 'future road' and a bridge 4 meters above :-)
2) the other 'future road' doesn't stop nowhere. It stops at the Flemish-Brussels-border. I know it might sound 'surrealistic' (it actually is!): this cycle highways-project is limited to the borders of Flanders!

cycle_network=BE-VLG:cycle_highway

Hello Fred,
Thanks for your reply and for your action.
One thing you write is not correct.
It's not because a road isn't built yet, that it cannot be part of a cycle route relation.
This cycle route relation 'cycle highway F208' (relation/13192255#map=16/50.7697/4.3089) is a proposed cycle highway by the regional government. It has the tags route=bicycle + state=proposed + note:state=has_highway_no. So in practice it's not yet a bike route where you can cycle, but it's the aim to cycle there in the future.
And in the wiki (please do read section 4) there's an aproved consensus that ways without building permit are mapped as highway=no + note=* Thanks for your cooperation!
Best regards.

Here you can find more info about "Mapping cycle highways" in Flanders: cycle_network=BE-VLG:cycle_highway
We started with this mapping project in 2021 at the request of the Flemish provinces.
Non-existing but proposed/planned (without a building permit) parts of a tuture cycle highway should be mapped as "highway=no" (look at section 4 of the wiki)

and the same issue with these highways:
- way/970634132
- way/970634131
- way/970634127

Hello Fred73000,
I have an other question about this same changeset:
this way (way/970634134/history#map=17/50.77101/4.31042) was created 5 months ago as a highway=no making part of the PROPOSED cycle highway route relation F208 (relation/13192255#map=16/50.7697/4.3089&layers=Y).
You modified this highway=no into highway=cycleway. Can you confirm that this highway has become a cycleway?
Thank you for your reply.

Hello both,
In the meantime, I have looked at the interesting discussion and this is my point of view:
1) in the heritage link https://monument.heritage.brussels/nl/buildings/16053 there's written "Deze twee tolpaviljoentjes ... bevonden zich vroeger AAN de Naamsepoort" which confirms what I already intuitively sensed and that is that it is clear that there is only ONE Porte de Namur/Naamsepoort (in Brussels) and that is located at the metro/bus stop (!)
node/142758834
2) Technically speaking, I think these buildings have NO name. But if we do choose to give one (I am tempted to actually do so) then I plead for the name from the heritage link "Anciens pavillons d’octroi de la porte de Namur - Voormalige tolhuisjes van de Naamsepoort"
3) Please re-establish the description-tag. This is very useful information:
"Former customs office. These two buildings were originally built near Porte de Namur/Naamsepoort and relocated here in 1862."

Klopt, in Kremer is er geen plaatselijk verkeer. Ondertussen aangepast

yes you can! :-)
when I pass by there I regularly see people queuing there and I think that it is because there is a social restaurant

Hallo,
Bedankt om het dubbelrichtingsfietspad langs de Felix Roggemanskaai apart in te tekenen. Gelieve in het vervolg de fietstags van de aanliggende weg dan wel aan te passen (meestal is dat bicycle=use_sidepath toevoegen). Mag ik vragen om de goede ontvangst van dit bericht te bevestigen? Succes nog met het verder mappen!

Dag Philippe!
Bedankt voor uw bericht.
Vragen van mij:
1) wat bedoel je juist met de "Imgur foto is niet bruikbaar"?
2) ik heb de foto toegevoegd via Mapcomplete. Ik heb geen account bij imgur. Hoe kan ik een (klein) album aanmaken? Wat is daar de meerwaarde van?

you're right! :-) renamed in the meantime ...