HI! Please always put access=private on private pools so they are not counted as publicly accessible. Thanks!

So this should be bicycle=dismount so bicycles can access the park on foot

Added a question about this in the OSM Canadian community forum:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-to-map-new-rev-cycling-paths-in-montreal-and-elswhere-in-canada/121988

Sorry for the typos... Here is the corrected comment reply:

I don't have a specific dicussion about this, it was mostly in changeset comments which I did not track. People started by adding the separated paths at each intersection where there was a concrete separation and then merged to the road in-between but it created a mess so we decided to just put a separated way all along. Personaly, I don't really care if it is separated or not, but when not, the road cycleway tags must be precise and complete. However, someone will redraw it back as this has been the case in the recent years, so I think we should keep them separated to reduce back and fourth changes. It says in the official wiki that in the US, it is usual to map the cycleway separated even when there are only flexposts as separators. If you look on the cycleway:track page, it says that it can alternatively be drawned separately, and track can be used when the separation is only a parking lane which is the case for most REV tracks:
cycleway=track
Considering all this, I don't see the problem here, since the REV is built as a separate, protected lane anyway.

I don't have a specific dicussion about hs, it was mostly in changset comments which I did not track. People started by adding the separated paths at each intersections where there was concrete separation and then merged to the road in-betwen but it created a mess so we decided to just put a separated way all the way. Personnaly, I don't really care if the road cycleway tags are precise and complete, but someone will redrwa it back as this has been the case in the recent years, so I think we should keep them separated to reduce back and fourth changes. It says in the official wiki taht in the US, it is usual to map the cycleway separated even when there are only flexposts as separators. If you look on the trackoage, it says that it can be alternatively be drawned separately, and track can be used when the separation is only a parking lane:
cycleway=track
so I don't see the problem here, since the REV is built as a separate, protected lane anyway.

It was decided some time ago with the first REM to map them separately from the road since there are concrete separators at intersections. Can you revert this edit to keep the alignement and the separated cycleway I did before? Thanks!

Sorry, but this breaks pedestrian routing. It is legal to cross there and the fact that it is dangerous is not taggable per se. This should go on another tool/layer than OSM. And dangerous is relative. Please never delete higways before asking the community unless there is a physical barrier or a sign saying it is forbidden to cross there.

I am sorry, I do not find anything in the wiki regarding Tagging for the renderer or Tagging for the router that is related to where we put nodes on a building. The rule is to put things as close as possible to where they are, so you should put the POI node as near as possible to its entrance. Putting the node in the centroid of the building is the default when you don't know where the entrance is, but when you do know, you should put it next to the entrance (more precise, more accurate)

We do not lie to the router, we just put the node near the entrance, which is physically what should be done. Putting the node in the centroid of the building/area has no meaning whatsoever. There are so many simulations errors caused by having nodes snapping at the back alley instead of the front door/front service road.

Thanks for adding this information!

Please keep the POIs near their main entrance, for better routing. Thanks!

Cycleway=link va avec highway=cycleway, donc ça ne règle pas le problème soulevé ici d’utiliser highway=cycleway pour un segment qui ne fait pas partie d’une piste cyclable.

SVP ne retirez pas ces types de lien sans une discussion avec la communauté. Nous avons des outils qui détectent les brisures dans le routing/calcul de chemin. Si vous enlevez ces liens, il faudra remettre ces petits connecteurs car l'outil va mettre des erreurs partout. À la place, vous pouvez proposer un autre tag, mais il faut que la communauté l'accepte.

Oui, on utilise le highway=cycleway pour des connections, car il n'y a pas encore de tag pour des "connectors" entre les rues et les entrées de parc par exemple. SVP ne pas retirer ces connections, car ça va briser les calculs de chemin pour toute la région. À cet endroit, il faut un lien cyclable entre la rue et le trottoir sinon ça ne passe pas dans les calculateurs de chemin et ça doit passer, car c'est légal de marcher sur le trottoir avec le vélo. Il y a des milliers de petits liens comme ça dans la région qui ont été ajoutés pour cette raison. Quand il y aura un lien de type connector, on pourra les mettre à jour facilement, mais ce n'est pas le cas maintenant.

J'ai modifié la configuration et ajouté une note plus claire. Comme ça on force les cyclistes à prendre le trottoir avec bicycle=dismount sur 1-2 mètres le temps de rejoindre Crémazie ou de continuer sur Molson vers le nord.

On parle bien de l'intersection Molson/Crémazie? Il est légal en tout cas de débarquer du vélo et de prendre le trottoir sur quelques mètres. Selon l'emplacement des barrières de béton, il est aussi possible de passer sans débarquer du vélo à la droite ou à la gauche dans le petit espace avec un vélo peu large. Ça nous prendrait une photo récente pour vérifier. Le lien que j'ai ajouté est un connecteur de type crossing (un jour on aura un vrai type de highway qui fait une connection).

Ok, parfait, merci!

Les arrêts à cet endroit on bien été retirés par la ville?

bicycle=discouraged is only for places with a specific sign discouraging cyclists to use the street. It is not for where we or anyone think it is dangerous or hasardous to cycle there. I wish there was a way to determine the degree of dangerousness of a road, but it does not exist yet. For such a tag, please discuss in the OSM community forums or on the wiki proposed pages.

After checking, it seems it could be true for Tesla to use OSM data. I checked the configuration of Boulevard Taschereau there and the right lane is so large that it was counted as two lanes, but there is indeed no markings so I converted to 4 lanes instead of 5 for this segment. I also changed the double exit lane to a single one. There used to be a bus lane there but it seems it is now inactive. See https://ibb.co/9VZr178 where we moved the exit lane up to the theoritical painted gore.