J'aimerais bien en discuter avec la communité, mais je n'ai eu aucune réponse sur Slack et les mailing lists semblent mortes...

on doit mettre separate pour les sidewalk lorsque les sidewalk sont taggés séparément avec un way distinct. Sans le separate, l'engin de calcul de chemin ne peut pas savoir si on doit router sur le sidewalk ou sur le way de la rue. Si il n'y a pas de way distainct, on peut mêtre simplement left, right, both ou no. Aussi, on doit spécifier si le sidewalk est à droite, è gauche ou les deux pour les multiples outils qui analysent la qualité des trajets piéton et vélo (% en trottoir, présence de trottoir des deux côtés, sur un seul côté ou aucun). J'essaie de mettre le strict minimum, mais de plus en plus, on nous demande de la précision. À terme il faudra aussi mettre toutes les voies de virages sur chaque intersections complexes. Je sais que c'est difficile à gérer, mais à moyen et long terme, on n'aura pas le choix. Il faut penser aux véhicules autonomes qui s'en viennent et qui utilisent déjà OpenStreetMap pour s'orienter, même pour prévoir des rayons de virage et les positions exactes des lignes d'arrêt aux feux et panneaux d'arrêt.

Tout a l'air ok maintenant. Merci et désolé pour le dismount oublié sur le pont.

In fact, just follow this wiki and we will be both happy:
osm.wiki/Bicycle

Please follow this as I though we both agreed on that:
When there is a physical separation (curb, different level, grass or step) between road and cycleway: use a separate way for cycling.
When there is no separation 9same level, only paint on road): use cycleway:lane on road way. And you must specify cycleway: left or cyclway:right, then cycleway:left:oneway = no
or cycleway:right:oneway = no when cycling path is not oneway

The track must stay separated from road here until Rue Cardinal, since there is a physical separation between track and road (curb). Use cycleway lane when the cycleway is on the same level and inside the street (no physical separation).

should be fixed now. I will keep the sidewalk=separate with both left and right subtags for compatibility.

Well, unfortunatly, some routing engines parses only separate and not separate:right and separate:left so we still need to keep the general separate tag.

Would it be fine to use:
sidewalk=separate
sidewalk:left=no
sidewalk:right=separate

OK, I will try to fix these

Every routing engine has a different process to parse tags. In OSRM, we can specify use_sidepath as foot=no, so everything works. And in our analysis, we use sidewalk=no, right, left or both to characterize pedestrian security and quality. I am open for suggestion to change this behavior, but it would invlolve lots of works on our side to modifiy the paradigm. Who decided to trigger an error in Osmose for that specific issue?

sidewalk=both specifies that there are sidewalks on this road. use_sidepath just tell routing engine to use the sidewalk way instead of the street way. This should not trigger a problem, since the sidewalk tag is used to characterize streets. These are two different informations. When we compare neighbourhoods for pedestrian network quality and security, we use the sidewalk tag to find the percentage of streets with no sidewalk, at least one sidewalk or two sidewalks. When we use a routing engine, we use the use_sidepath tag instead.

Fixed!

You can see the replacements in progress in my other changesets: changeset/80481444

These residential zones are outdated. We are replacing them with more precise zones that do not include roads and parks.

Thanks! Do you have a tool to find such typos?

FIxed, I replaced them by student:count

Thanks for the info, I looked in the official wiki but did not find any tag for this. I will use one of these.

Bonjour!

Cette piste cyclable est-elle complétée? Attention de bien la connecter au reste du réseau routier. Elle était connectée seulement aux polygones, qui ne sont pas "routables". Merci et bonne journée!

Désolé, je voulais simplement créer un cercle parfait... C'est bizarre que iD laisse faire le merge si des relations sont dans les ways impliqués...

OK, so finally, I removed the illegal crossing since it is written on the CN website that it is always illegal to cross if there is no official rail crossing, but this will make routing engines very unrealistic in these neighbourhoods.