Parfait! Merci

Hi! A general comments about some edit done around Mont-Tremblant. I see you added some sidewalks and paths. Please be sure to actually connect those to the nearby roads. They shouldn't have any cul-de-sac anywhere. Otherwise, as is, this break pedestrian planners that can't teleport from paths to roads. You can use unmark crossing if there's no marks on the ground.

Here's an example : way/1343088600

Have a good day!

I don't see if the city documented the changes to road signs in the link above, but I've physically confirmed they are not there anymore.

Yes, following construction done in the last few months. (https://www.drummondville.ca/projets-majeurs/13e-avenue-et-14e-avenue/)

What kind of comment is this? This is a 3 years old edit, if it doesn't reflect reality or OSM best pratices, feel free to edit as your liking while respecting guidelines.

Hi, the changeset is mostly to align the crossing to the mapped sidewalk on Hochelaga. Otherwise, this produces a deviation that doesn't exist when using the data in pedestrian routers. The optimal path is really just to walk strait.

Hi, I've seen you added a lot of sidewalks in St-Hubert. Please, be sure to also add crossings at every intersections, whether they are marked or not. Otherwise, those kinds of edit break pedestrian trip planner that can't infer how to get cross a without them.

See this edit to see what was missing : changeset/145010644

Hi there,

Nobody on their right mind would however use their bikes on this elevated, highway-like way. How do you propose for it to be tagged so that the information is correctly forwarded to OSM data consumers?

> Voici la photo de juillet 2023 (Streetview)

Yes, between Blvd St-Joseph and Rue Dauphin, there's a curb like it was mapped in OSM before after my edit.

> There is a curb now.
This is false, as there is no curb between Saint-Amant and Blvd des Pins. Between Dauphin and Saint-Amant is kind of a mix.

I've visually validated this information while being physically on that road. So, please, trust me.

Hey,

Just wondering why this section of Rue De Boucherville were changed from `
cycleway:both:lane` to `
cycleway:both:track`? There's only paint on the road, no physical barrier.

Hi there!

When adding sidewalks, be sure to also add crossings at every intersections please. Otherwise, you break pedestrian planners/routers using sidewalks information. They can't cross a street if no crossing is present!

Thanks,

Just a fyi, but it seems you mapped a couple of sidewalks with the name "Rue De Normanville" on De Lanaudière and Chambord. See the regions around way id : 1204774755, 1204774746

Hi there!

When adding sidewalk to OSM, please be sure to add every explicit and implied crossings too, both at the extremities of sidewalks and at every intersections. Dangling sidewalks break pedestrian router relying on OSM.

Thanks!

I disagree, OpenStreetMap isn't a city planning tool, nor a tool to report urbanism problems to city official. OSM is and should remain a tool to represent the world as it currently is. It is not as a personal database for organisations and their own needs. Those tags are of very little usefulness for the OSM community. Also, they clutter the editor.

Imagine if all organisations started to add their custom tags like this, it'd be really unmaintainable.

I'd suggest working on a solution that doesn't involved diverting an open source project for the needs of you and your partners.

Hello!

When adding sidewalks, please be sure to add crossings (marked or unmarked) at each and every intersections. Otherwise, this break pedestrian router relying on OSM data.

Thank you and have a good day!

Yes, it's the "Projet Fortissimo"

https://www.drummondville.ca/projets-majeurs/fortissimo/

Hello,

Yes, it is. The node node/297112172 to which it's attached is a subway entrance, i.e. a stairs going down. I believe it to be correctly tagger as underground, and, also, different from way/634012794.

Please, don't add ways that don't exist yet on OSM.

If you wish to add proposed or planned features, refer to : proposed=*

> changed ferry terminal access from customers->permit to fix the AC Transit Trip Planner,

Please, don't do that. The `permit` access tag doesn't describe correctly the true access to those ways. This 1) breaks the purpose of OpenStreetMap of being an independent platform and 2) actually breaks other third party software that actually respect the OSM specs.

Hi,
Does people that try to access "Woodstock Road" by walk explicitely need a permit too? While I can see gates for car on the road, there doesn't seem to be any restriction on pedestrian. Can I suggest mapping only `vehicle:permit` rather than `access:permit`?