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!

Merci pour l'ajout de POIs (points d'intérêt)!

C'est très apprécié!

Hi!

Here the streets and sidewalks were aligned using official geodesic data. Please do not realign features using Bing or other aerial imagery, since most fo the time, they are not alilgned correctly and need an offset. Thanks!

Hi! On Île-des-Soeurs, your changes removed a crossing which is there and even has a tactile paving (des Parulines/de la Pointe Sud) and the crossing for bicycle was also removed, making it impossible for bicycles to reach Rue des Parulines using standard routing engines). The bus stop was also moved from the sidewalk to the cycleway which is set as foot=no, making the bus stop innaccessible for pedestrian routing. I will fix the issues. Please validate the data beforehand next time. Thanks and have a nice day!

In Quebec, we usually map the POIs as nodes instead of within the building tags. It is easier to maintain and it allows for standard analysis when more than one POI is inside a buidling, which is often the case. Thanks!

Please read this thread on the Canadian forum before changing from light rail to subway. Please revert until a concensus is found. Thanks and have a nice day!

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/montreal-rem-labeling-as-light-metro/132047/27

Hi!

Motorways in the Montreal region were all aligned using precise geodesic data. Please do not move or realign them. Bing and ESRI aerial photos are not aligned correctly right now. Wi will realign them as they were. Thanks!

There were no rationale and I'm not for or against it, it is jsut that a lot have been changed recelty from Québec to QC.

I would even remove these province tags since contrary to cities and municipalities for which borders are variable and may not be up to date, the delimitation of the province is more robust and more up to date (except for boundary with Labrador which is still not permanently defined). I created a tread on the OSM Canada forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/addr-province-tags/138129