Hi! Can you confirm there is a signprohibiting pedestrian here? I did not see any sign recently. Also, prohibiting foot traffic here would make the buildings on Boulevard du Plateau-Saint-Josrph inaccessible for routing.

But after verification, it looks quite fine, so it seems you used the correct offset :-)

Please note that Bing maps from 2020 needs an offset of 0.6,-1.54. See osm.wiki/Montr%C3%A9al#Bing_Maps_Offset

Thanks and have a nice day!

I understand that it would be dangerous/weird to walk there, but is there a sign prohibiting it? If not, the OSM wiki says to use the foot=no or bicycle=no tags only if there is a sign prohibiting access. Thanks and have a nice day!

J’ai déjà corrigé c’est bon! Bonne journée et joyeuses fêtes!

Ford Île-Perrot ne semble pas être fermé. C'est en fait un nouveau bâtiment. Pourquoi avoir enlevé les tags du concessionnaire automobile?

Excellent merci! Je vais voir sur osmose si on peut désactiver la vérifications.

Super! Thanks!

I see the wiki explains that cuttings should not count as layer -1, so you are right. Seems weird that layers do not follow the terrain though. Forget what I said in the two other changesets too. Thanks!

I see the wiki explains that cuttings should not count as layer -1, so you are right. Seems weird that layers do not follow the terrain though. Forget what I said in the two other changesets too. Thanks!

I see the wiki explains that cuttings should not count as layer -1, so you are right. Seems weird that layers do not follow the terrain though. Forget what I said in the two other changesets too. Thanks!

Same here, Crémazie stays at layer 0 and Boulevard Pie-Ix goes under (cutting) at layer -1

Same here, Henri-Bourassa should be a tunnel at layer -1 and the railway tracks at layer 0

Autoroute Décarie is indeed at layer=-1 (cutting).

What kind of error did you get?

Thanks for any info regarding this edit.

I fixed the issue by merging before the intersection. Thanks!

Hi!

Can you explain the rationale to remove this transiiton from dual carriageway to single?

Now for a car driving from South to North, the router will say: turn left on Rodolphe-Pagé, then turn right on Stuart-Graham, which is not what people understand, it should just say: continue north on Stuart-Graham. So I think the transition was correct.

Bonjour!

Cela a fait l'objet de discussions (https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/redundancy-of-oneway-yes-for-junction-roundabout/101043/54) et pour conserver la compatibilité avec les anciens engins de routage qui ne prennent pas pour acquis que les roundabout sont à sens unique et pour d'autres raisons, certaines personnes pensent qu'il vaut mieux conserver le tag oneway=yes. Je vous laisse voir si vous voulez faire un revert ou non. Je suis dans le camp du "conserver le tag oneway=yes" pour éviter toute ambiguité, mais je ne vais pas faire le revert moi-même. Merci et bonne journée!

No problem, it is just that I feel in a T junction, we should keep the carriageway separated until the intersection.

Hi! Thanks for the update. However, why merge the dual carriageways at intersection? Is it standard? Can you point to the wiki explaining we should do that? It adds transitions where there are none.

Hi! I removed the oneway tag because it is permitted to u-turn from atwater going south to atwater going north. There is no sign prohibiting it, so we must keep the segment two-way. Thanks and have a nice day!