| Note | # | Tmstmp UTC | Event | Contributor | Comment | Auto-translation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2815869 | 1 | 2021-08-22 15:43 | opened | toeklk ♦120 | IMO there some sac_scale tags in this area could be improved. I crossed this last week, and I'm quite convinced that fi. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245533288 is technically a lot easier than https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/946757705 fi. (IMO the latter should at least be classified as T4 - ma, the former could be T3). Any local that can confirm or contradict this? | |
| 2 | 2025-08-22 16:15 | commented | z11120 ♦392 | Bonjour, Toujours d'actualité ? | ||
| 3 | 2025-08-27 19:59 | commented | toeklk ♦120 | Bonjour, je suppose oui, mais comme vous voyez il a eu tres peu de reactions des locaux... | ||
| 4 | 2025-08-27 20:00 | commented | toeklk ♦120 | (j'habite en belgique donc difficile pour moi pour aller verifier ;-)) | ||
| 4512999 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | 2024-11-09 12:26 | opened | Cdrik_69 ♦1,506 | Chemin à vérifier via StreetComplete 59.3 | |
| 2 | 2025-04-03 20:20 | commented | toeklk ♦120 | Quel chemin exactement? | ||
| 4512947 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | 2024-11-09 11:42 | opened | Cdrik_69 ♦1,506 | Boite pour mettre un mot sur un carnet. Mappable ? via StreetComplete 59.3 Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/250302.jpg | |
| 2 | 2025-03-04 18:14 | commented | Cdrik_69 ♦1,506 | Demande sur le forum : https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/boite-pour-mettre-des-mots-taguable/31844 | ||
| 3 | 2025-04-03 20:19 | closed | toeklk ♦120 | Ajoute summit:register en changeset #164482064 | ||
| 3943093 | 1 | 2023-10-16 10:12 | opened | Jyhem ♦82 | Unable to answer "What’s the name of this street?" for https://osm.org/way/461907855 via StreetComplete 54.0: Cette voie n'est pas sur le plan de la ville. Il n'y a pas d'habitations. Ça permet d'accéder à un parking et des terrains de sport. Noter le parking des remparts 95 places Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/181555.jpg | |
| 2 | 2025-04-03 20:16 | commented | toeklk ♦120 | Est-ce que vous voulez dire que ceci n'est pas un vrai chemin, et donc devrait etre "tagge" comme https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:highway%3Dservice ? | ||
| 3 | 2025-04-03 21:11 | commented | Jyhem ♦82 | Oui, ça me semble approprié. Merci ! | ||
| 4692181 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-04-01 21:11 | opened | toeklk ♦120 | Surface = cobblestone instead? | |
| 2 | 2025-04-01 21:23 | commented | queerthoughts ♦2,689 | The wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface) explicitly discourages the use of `surface=cobblestone`, which is ambiguous, and suggests either `surface=sett` or `surface=unhewn_cobblestone`. This track is clearly tagged with surface, smoothness and track type information, why exactly do you think it should be changed to a less clear value? | ||
| 3 | 2025-04-01 21:54 | closed | toeklk ♦120 | You're right, it shouldn't! | ||
| 3159042 | 1 | 2022-04-30 07:43 | opened | toeklk ♦120 | Building name not accurate: Basically the complete building should be tagged as the 'Centrale Werkplaatsen', consisting of Hal 4 (the Western part), a 'tussenhal' and 'Hal 5' (the narrower eastern part). | |
| 2 | 2022-04-30 12:11 | commented | toeklk ♦120 | Partly corrected, but further improvements necessary/possible | ||
| 3 | 2022-06-15 19:53 | closed | Mizuna ♦80 | Name is correct. See website erfgoed. | ||
| 4 | 2022-06-23 09:03 | reopened | toeklk ♦120 | |||
| 5 | 2022-06-23 09:11 | commented | toeklk ♦120 | Hi Mizuna, what do you mean with 'name is correct'. The new name (Centrale Werkplaats as of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120375336), or the old one, where this (entire) building was called 'Hal 5'? FWIW, I left the issue open, since ideally the building should be split into 3 seperate (but connected) buildings: Hal 4, tussenhal and Hal 5... | ||
| 6 | 2024-11-23 20:34 | commented | Thierry1030 ♦5,961 | follow up of this note? | ||
| 7 | 2024-12-03 09:13 | commented | queerthoughts ♦2,689 | I'm pretty sure splitting the building like this would be correct (it's been a while since I've been there). However, GRB shows the entire building as one. Could it be an idea to map the different parts as `building:part=*`? If I have time today, I'll try and pass there to have a look. If not, I'll pass in Leuven again the following days, maybe then. | ||
| 8 | 2024-12-08 19:49 | commented | toeklk ♦120 | Reading the documentation for building:part, not sure it was meant for this purpose. Tried to improve the situation in changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160068320 , feel free to correct | ||
| 9 | 2025-02-19 15:16 | commented | djsa ♦132 | I've reviewed the changes, and it looks good to me, can be resolved imho. | ||
| 10 | 2025-02-23 09:59 | commented | queerthoughts ♦2,689 | Nah, I don't agree here. Drawing this as 3 buildings means it can't be imported from GRB to have the precise geometry, because it's present there as one building. It's also not 3 separate buildings, it's one building with distinct parts. I really don't see why `building:part=*` can't be used here. If there's no objections, I'll import this building from GRB, then draw 3 shapes and tag them with `building:part=*` and `name=*`. | ||
| 11 | 2025-02-23 10:18 | commented | toeklk ♦120 | I don't care too much honestly, so please go ahead, yet I wonder if "it makes it convenient to import the geometry from GRB" is the best argument. The naming from the different "Hallen" for me is an indicator that they are different buildings (for instance, at https://inventaris.onroerenderfgoed.be/erfgoedobjecten/200270 you can read that the "Tussenhal" was added later). After all, you don't map two adjacent houses as a single building neither, right? This being said, I think there is no real right or wrong here, so if you want to go ahead, please do so! | ||
| 12 | 2025-02-23 10:42 | commented | queerthoughts ♦2,689 | The point isn't really that I necessarily want to import the building, but that GRB is usually correct (as much as I hate government data). Also, I do map two adjacent houses as a single building, if it's a single building that has been split so that two families can live there (the case in which it would be in GRB as one building). It's also a pragmatic thing: if I don't import it, sooner or later someone will, and they might not know what's being discussed here, so I'd rather map it in a future-proof way. | ||
| 13 | 2025-02-23 10:45 | commented | queerthoughts ♦2,689 | I only now realise that the entire indoor structure (rooms etc.) is offset with respect to the GRB outline, that's gonna be an absolute mess to move in a way that maintains the geometry. | ||
| 14 | 2025-02-25 09:20 | commented | djsa ♦132 | I tried merging the GRB outline with the existing structures yesterday, but like you said, this is very messy. The resulting edit would contain the correct outline according to Gbg, but the inherited features from the currently existing building would be approximated. What has the highest priority here? | ||
| 15 | 2025-02-25 10:03 | commented | queerthoughts ♦2,689 | The existing interior building structure is not only approximated but incorrect, because it's based on an offset GRB outline. The issue is that if the building is not imported from GRB, someone else might eventually import it and not move the interior structure, leading to even worse results. | ||
| 16 | 2025-06-12 05:05 | commented | kabelhaai ♦1,848 | Wat moet/kan er nog gebeuren | ||
| 17 | 2025-07-11 20:28 | closed | kabelhaai ♦1,848 | Inactieve note. De gebouwen komen grotendeels overeen met het GRB. Building:part + 1 groot geimporteerd gebouw is een goed idee. | ||
| 2428000 | 1 | 2020-11-16 17:59 | opened | --- | 'k Heb het idee dat de kaart hier compleet niet (meer) klopt. Heel deze wijk is veranderd, en de straten lopen niet (meer) zoals ze hier staan. | |
| 2 | 2020-11-17 10:05 | commented | Jakka ♦32,378 | Begonnen met wat wijzigingen op basis van luchtbeelden. Graag hulp van jou. Paaltjes verbod voor vrt, waar wandelpaden, zuivere fietspaden en dergelijke ... ergens een stadplan schets, straat namen ... | ||
| 3 | 2020-11-17 15:55 | commented | Desloc ♦3 | Even een accountje aangemaakt :) Ik woon daar niet, dus ik wil gerust helpen, maar dat zal dan zijn voor als ik daar nog eens ben. Mijn GPS-logs van toen ik daar gisteren was, zijn van veel te lage kwaliteit om meer te zeggen dan "ja, uw aanpassingen zien er juist uit" :) , maar ik zal binnenkort er eens terug naartoe gaan en een poging wagen om nauwkeurigere data te verzamelen! | ||
| 4 | 2023-08-04 21:06 | commented | djsa ♦132 | Hey, de toekomstige toestand is hier te vinden: http://www.landarchitecten.be/uploads/general/Lolanden08.jpg Ik ben het aan het aanpassen naar de grotendeels huidige toestand. Adh van survey & info grb/architecten. | ||
| 5 | 2024-05-31 22:36 | commented | queerthoughts ♦2,689 | Hoe zit het hiermee? Is dit ondertussen aangepast? | ||
| 6 | 2024-07-14 12:17 | commented | djsa ♦132 | Werken zijn enorm gevorderd, ik fiets hier een dezer dagen voorbij voor foto's te maken en een update. | ||
| 7 | 2024-08-02 12:41 | commented | queerthoughts ♦2,689 | @djsa: Ben je daar ondertussen gepasseerd? | ||
| 8 | 2024-08-02 21:07 | commented | djsa ♦132 | Nog niet van gekomen, dit weekend was het plan. | ||
| 9 | 2024-09-27 20:18 | commented | Thierry1030 ♦5,961 | ondertussen? | ||
| 10 | 2024-11-13 18:10 | commented | queerthoughts ♦2,689 | @djsa: ondertussen? Indien niet wil ik vroeg of laat wel eens een survey van deze wijk doen. | ||
| 11 | 2024-11-13 20:27 | commented | djsa ♦132 | Hah, sorry voor het vele wachten. Ik zit met nogal veel hooi op m'n vork tegenwoordig, weinig tijd voor updates. Mag zeker! | ||
| 12 | 2024-12-08 20:05 | commented | toeklk ♦120 | Situatie rond kinderdagverblijf wat verbeterd op basis van luchtbeelden en een survey veel te lang geleden. | ||
| 13 | 2025-02-10 18:40 | commented | djsa ♦132 | Ben er recent gepasseerd, lijkt redelijk up to date. Mag volgens mij resolved worden? | ||
| 14 | 2025-02-10 18:42 | closed | Thierry1030 ♦5,961 | ok bedankt. Dan kan de note gesloten worden. |