The images show no indication access is NOT allowed for pedestrians, just that there is no explicit permission. Default for pedestrian access is yes, so it makes no sense to put foot=no here. Reverting.

Klopt niet, zie https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.720870499972&lng=4.2952139999722&z=17&pKey=111164704922403&focus=photo&x=0.5300990606117982&y=0.5317803799977485&zoom=0
Volgens het verkeersbord mag je hier niet fietsen, ook al hebben ze er ook een fietsroute over gelegd. Ik heb dit al gemeld bij de gemeente, maar ze hebben me genegeerd.

Merci!

Ik denk niet dat de school de hele site gebruikt hier:
relation/11755779
Ik vermoed dat het niet om een school gaat maar enkel kinderopvang; en dat die in nr 47 zit. Ook nog spelfout gezien: "Pannenfabrief"

These are just two "implantations" of the same "etablissement" with different grades offered, different address and possibly different contacts. Physical school sites tend to have one or more "implantations" from one or more "etablissement". It is OK to map the "etablissement" as a site relation as extra information, but that makes things very complicated and it has not much added value for data users. It is however never a good idea to NOT map the individual implantations.

In this case I would honestly just flatten it into two ways. You could still bundle them together with a wikidata or operator tag. There's a few site relations as well, e.g. relation/10592577 . That particular relation is an example of what I would recommend we DON'T get into ;-) , but for the school we're discussing here it might be a solution.

I'm not sure it makes sense to map this as a relation only. For one, the two sites have different addresses, so having the relation have an address is wrong, I think. Also the small site has only secondary education, whereas the bigger one has both primary and secondary. That makes it feel like two different sites to me, not just a single one. Could still be included in a relation as well, but I'm not convinced we should even try that (the administrative reality of schools is generally insane, trying to model that in OSM will drive us mad)

Everything fixed now.

Hi John,
If you're interested in fire stations in this area, I'm looking for people to help review them. More info here: osm.wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Firestations

I guess you learned by now, but please use lifecycle tags or similar for features that don't exist anymore

Bedankt voor je bijdragen aan dit project!

Hey Boris,
Sorry voor de schade. Zie https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-party-in-halle-with-onwheels/104056 voor meer info. Tegen eind deze week zou alles in Halle gefixed moeten zijn.

They also added a diplomatic office here way/837521686 ...

Do you mean Bear-in-a-Box? Have you contacted them? Should we escalate?

Wat is nu juist je redenering om van de fietssnelweg hier een unclassified te maken?

Hey Arthur,
I have had to delete that cycleway you drew next to this road way/11290246 , sorry.
We only map cycleways as a separate way (=line) if it is physically separated from the road. Here, it is just a shared lane for counterflow. The main road already has oneway:bicycle=no, which means cyclists can already use it in both directions.
For more info, have a look at osm.wiki/Bicycle . The map showing all the bicycle infrastructure might also be helpful: note/3877092#map=18/50.60766/4.13636&layers=YN

social_facility:for staat daar nu wel wat raar bij. Ik heb niet direct iets op de wiki gevonden over dit soort jeugdgevangeniisen, maar prison=* & prison:for=* wordt heel af en toe gebruikt.

ZNA stuivenberg is reeds gemapped: way/9557447
Dit lijkt me dus nu een punt voor exact hetzelfde.

Mag deze dan op disused gezet worden?

Thanks!
I'll use lifecycle tags and leave a Note