OK, can you send me a private message with her contact information? Thanks!

As a rule of thumb, you should never align anything on map that is already there unless you are sure that your aerial imagery is calibrated. The one we use is (Géodésie Québec), but we cannot share it with the community because the servers cannot handle more than a few requests. What is the team Emilie Gamelin? Where can I find contact information for this team? Thanks!

Thanks for the update. However, we should keep the crossings there, because otherwise routing cannot access the pedestrian street since both Avenue Girouard and Avenue Earnscliffe have foot=use_sidepath. I added them back. Thanks!

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.