It is indeed possible to check for the footway=sidewalk tag, but the issue would be that if you want to analyse the presence of sidewalks/separated footways on all roads, it would then reduce this road to a one-sided separated footway access. Two solution: add the footway=sidewalk to the cycling path, which could be weird, but accurate in this case, or count cycleways alongside roads as a sidewalk.

Hi! The cycleway on the right is accessible to pedestrian, thus usable as a sidewalk.

Please do not fix valid data. There was a placement=transition which was connected at the beginning of the theoretical gore. The data was correct. I will revert. Sorry for the inconvenience and have a nice day!

Reverting. This was correct. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience.

Alignment was correct and followed the theoretical gore with placement=transition. Please do not fix non-errors. Short segments are quite ok when precise data is drawn. Thanks!

In Quebec, when we validate and complete the data in a specific area like this one, we are adding very precise data, so very short segments are often created. This is not an error. Thanks!

Thanks!

Hi!
The geometry was correct by following the theoretical gore. What was wrong and what kind of error were you trying to fix? Thanks!

Thanks!

No problem thanks!

Also, can you confirm that the crossings at Meilleur/Sauvé are zebra and not lines? The last photo from June 2025 has lines, and not zebra.

Hi! Thanks for the updates in Ahuntsic. However, please use cycleway=lane instead of track when only flex posts are installed. See wiki specific to Canada about this: osm.wiki/Canada#Mapping_cycleways

Thanks!

Please contact your whole team so I do not have to revert multiple times. Thanks! Sorry for the typos in the previous message! Have a nice day!

Hi! Icontacted you guys some tim ago. Please do not cahnge transition tag and change the number of lanes, please follow the wiki: lanes=*

When there is placement=transition, you should keep the width:lanes:end/width:lanes:start and put the right number of lanes. Thanks!

Can you specify which information tell you it is prohibited to pedestrians here? There is no sign and it makes some shops on the "Desserte" not accessible to foot traffic. It is not pedestrian friendly, but I am pretty sure it is not prohibited. Thanks!

I will fix it, thanks!

Thanks! Is it passable for foot and bicycle traffic though?

foot=permissive on a pedestrian street is weird, isn't it?

Is it temporary during construction?

Thanks for any explanation. Have a nice day!

Salut!

foot=discouraged ne peut pas être utilisé ici, car discouraged est seulement si il y a une pancarte spécifique. OpenStreetMap n'a pas le pouvoir de dire si un lien est dangereux ou pas à vélo ou à pied: voir ici pour le vélo, mais c'est la même chose pour la marche: bicycle=discouraged. Ça doit être mis dans un autre outil.

Aussi: sidewalk=no et sidewalk:both=no veulent dire la même chose ici.

Merci!

This path does not seem to be indoor. Can you confirm a roof was built here? And if there is a new roof, shouldn't it be covered=yes?

Thanks!