These are ways that are proposed to the municipalities to fix missing pedestrian and cycling accessibility and in some case also reduce the probability of accidents. We are trying to build a separate database for these, but for now, this was the best solution to transfer this information to all the municipalities and autorities in the region. Also, if you check the official OSM wiki on notes, it says that personal notes and public information notes are quite valid. That is the exact purpose of notes: adding notes for personal or public usage. The main issue when using an external database for this is that researchers and government officials cannot use routing engines to test the effect of adding these missing links, because we can't update it live after every changeset so as time goes by, the connectivity of the links are being damaged. I wish there was a better solution, turst me, but there isn't as of now.

Please look on this official osm page:
note=*

Description
A note to yourself or to other mappers. Show/edit corresponding data item.

A note is used to inform other mappers about non-obvious information about an element, the author's intent when creating it, or hints for further improvement. It is usually recorded against a node, way or relation.

I think these notes are quite valid in this context.

Some users also use these for routing (they add the missing_sidewalk or missing_cycleway values to their pedestriand or cycling network to test enhancements) and if someone removes them, it will make their routing tests fail. I wish there was a way to include them and connect them to the OSM network separately but no tools allows this right now.

I understand and we are trying to build a separate database for this, but however, this is useful data for the public, because it says where sidewalks, cycleways and other networks should be added. And we also add errors which should be fixed, like stopping line after a pedestriand/cycleway crossing or other inconsistencies, dangerous crosssings and these information are very useful for a large number of analysists and researchers, which could not have access to an internal database.

Please keep the note:chaire_mobilite infos. These are official notes and warning that is used to communicate problesm or missing infrastructure to cities and government agencies in the Quebec province. Using custom tags is perfectly valid as long as the info is useful and official. Please keep them. Thanks for your understanding.

Please keep the alignment at this intersection, it was aligned with official geodesic data.

Hi! Please use bicycle=dismount instead of bicycle=no except inside building where bicycle are prohibited. Using bicycle no on a park path could create inaccessible buildings or playgrounds with some bicycle routing engines. Even when there is a no bike sign in a park, it is perfectly legal to dismount and walk alongside the bicycle. Thanks!

Vous pouvez répondre en français aussi si vous voulez :-) On répond habituellement en anglais par défaut quand on ne connapit pas l'utilisateur et pour les commentaires d'intérêt général, mais pour tout ce qui est local (ruelles vertes par exemple) on peut discuter en français sans problème.

On each section on which no car is permitted, you should add motor_vehicle=no
On any other section, you should use motor_vehicle=destination on alleys (ruelles), since no car should pass through a ruelle if its destination is not on the ruelle path. This allow routing engines to not use the alleys except at origin or destination for the trip.

Even if most alleys do not have crossings right now do not mean we should not add them. It is just old stuff that need ot be updated :-)

Please keep the crossings there if possible. Crossings should be added for any public/alley/commercial service road crossing, or any private driveway crossing with at least 4 flats served. Crossing segments are used to quantify the probability of conflict (number of cars crossing the sidewalk for an average day). When no crossing segment is added, it is impossible to estimate the crossing width and/or the probability of conflicts between pedestrian and cars. So here is the rules we use elsewhere in Montreal region when updating existing data:

Public road/school driveway/alley: add a crossing segment

Commercial service road/driveway (to a shop or industrial building): add a crossing segment

Residential driveway with at least 5 flats/5 parking places served: add a crossing segment

Residential driveway with less than 5 flats served/individual house: no crossing

It is best to avoid naming bus roads, since it could make some street names analysis fail to match an official street name. Preferable to delete the names "BUS" everywhere. The tags are used to detect bus roads anyway (bus=yes/designated or routing:bus=yes/designated or psv=yes/designated). Thanks!

OK, perfect, I see it now. It was on the other side of the cross walk though. Fixed it. Thanks!

Is this temporary or permanent? How do cars access the shops and services on the street then?

Pourquoi mettre comme bâtiment industriel? Il me semble que ça devrait rester commercial ou retail.

Thanks!

Do you know what they are building there?

Bonjour! Attention à bien utiliser l'offset 0.6,-1.54 pour les photos aériennes haute résolution de Bing de 2020. Merci!

note:chaire_mobilite
which usually have the value: missing_sidewalk, missing_footpath, or errors found. Votre changeset en a retiré quelques unes sur l'île des soeurs. Je les ai recréées.

J'ai ajouté une page dans le wiki à ce sujet:
routing:entrance=*