Hi!

Please do not realign buildings that were aligned using official geodesic data. Bing and other aerial imagery are not aligned correctly in this area.

Hi! Please add access=private to private pools so routing engines don't think these are publicly accessible pools. Thanks!

Please use correct tagging when mapping buildings, pools and other features. Read the official openstreetmap wiki please. Thanks!

No problem thanks! Have a nice day!

Hi! Why did you remove traffic signals tags for foot and cyclists here? uncontrolled is only when there is no traffic signals, and markings=yes is less precise than markings=lines

ok, perfect thanks!

Hi! Please add access=private to private pool to make sure routing engines don't send people there thinking these are publicly accessible pools.

This is indeed a long crossing. False positive. I reverted it back to a crossing

Hi! Please add access=private to private pools otherwise routing engines could send people there thinking these are publicly accessible pools. Thanks!

Hi! Please add access=private to private swimming pools otherwise routing engine will send people there thinking these are publicly accessible pools.

Thanks! Should we also consider that any valid shop value should also be valid for trade?

Were the stops removed? We still see them in 2022 imagery

I'm sorry! I was not aware of the revert. Maybe there was a conflict? usually when there are conflicts I verify that nothing is deleted, but it may occur from time to time since the conflicts resolution system is sometime erroneous in the iD editor... I can try to fix the 36 Monk route as soon as possible. Sorry for that!

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.