I understand very well. You could change foot=permissive isntead, but there is no way right now to specify the danger level of a footpath. I wish there was, but it does not exist yet. Usually, we should use other data on top of osm for this kind of usage, but I know it is difficult to implement. However, you can add any tag you like and use them for your specific routing. Example: routing:danger=1-10 and then in your routing engine you could route only if danger <= 5 or so. But keep in mind this is non-standard and people could remove those unstandard tags. The problem here is that on a Sunday at 7AM, this crossing is almost always emty and thus very safe, but at rush hour on a weekday, this is dangerous, but still legal. Highway code explains that you must use a crosswalk if between two intersections, but at an intersection, you can cross, even if there is no paint or crosswalk as such, expcet if there is a specific sign for pedestrian saying it is illegal to cross the street there.

Unsafe but legal. Unfortunately, we need to keep them. Thanks!

Also, please use this offset when dealing with Montreal Bing 2020 aerial imagery: 0.6,-1.54

See this page: osm.wiki/Montr%C3%A9al under Bing Maps Offset

That's fine, but can you explain why you remove the connectivity with the taxiways?

The dental technician would be the person who build the implant. The denturist is the one who will install it in the patient mouth.

Honestly I don't know, but in french, the name of the places (Denturologiste) is translated to denturist, so this should be correct to use the speciality=denturist.

Please do not test in public open street map data. You may be flagged for vandalism. Reverting.

Denturologiste = Denturist
Dentiste = Dentist
Why remove the speciality?
Denturist != Dentist

Shouldn't we add informal paths there so the park is accessible from Rue des Paquerettes? Pedestrian would not make the detour through Moise-Vincent and Julien-Bouthillier to go to the park.

I fixed it. Thanks!

authorised personnel only would mean access=private, not no. foot=no would mean even employees would have no access.

Please verify that there are no missing crossings when changing to separate instead of both/left/right for sidewalks.
Some routing engines will add foot=no to these roads and if sidewalks are not correctly connected at each intersection, this could break routing or add unrealistic detours. Thanks!

Merci pour l'info. C'est bizarre qu'ils n'aient pas au moins connecté la nouvelle piste au viaduc de la rue Saint-Pierre en attendant. Ça doit être cause d'un terrain privé.

Il semble que la traverse de l'A30 sera construite dans une deuxième phase:
https://roussillon.ca/grands-projets/parachevement-de-la-route-verte/

Ils vont vraiment abandonner le petit bout qui manque? Où sera la fin de cette piste cyclable finalement? Merci si vous pouvez trouver l'info.

These are paths used for access and are legit if you want to route to a specific pitch. I will readd them back.

The cycling paths were already mapped on the road itself as cycleay:left/right = lane with related detailed tag for separation, marking, etc. When there is no permanent physical separation, the concensus is to map the cycling lane on the road itself. Flex posts are not permanent and are often removed in spring, fall and winter. I fixed it already. Thanks!

It is legal to cross the street as a pedestrian at Gladstone/Ste-Catherine, even if no official crossing is there. Removing it would force routing detours for pedestrians. Thanks!

L'historique est bien accessible ici, au besoin:
way/100809051/history

J'ai complété l'alignement pour la partie ouest du barrage: changeset/152756786