Super merci! À bientôt!

SVP, garder access=private pour les chemins à accès limité ou les chemins privés, car access=foot empêche les calculateurs de chemin d'envoyer quelqu'un à cet endroit. Il est tout-à-fait légitime pour un employé de vouloir lancer un calcul de chemin vers un lieu privé, surtout lorsque le lieu est loin d'un chemin public. C'est le travail des calculateurs de mettre un avertissement qui mentionne que le chemin est privé. access=no doit être réservé aux chemins où absolument personne ne peut aller (pont brisé, route non utilisable, inondée ou détruite). SVP ne mettre access=no que pour les routes qui sont définies dans le wiki:
For example, a stretch of roadway may be closed with a "Road Closed" sign and barricades due to a serious damage to a road or a long-term construction project. There may be a physical reason why no one would realistically be able to traverse the road.

Si vous vous opposez è cette définition, demandez un concensus sur la liste Canada ou dans un forum local.

Merci de votre support et de votre comréhension

It does not change a thing for me and for routing, but someone later on may change it back to use_sidepath for the reason that is is not forbidden. See:
foot=no

Yes I understand, that's why I put use_sidepath on the whole roundabout. foot=no means it is forbidden by law, which it is not. Only motorways in Quebec are forbidden to foot/bicycle traffic.

Technically not forbidden for pedestrian though. I have put use_sidepath so routing engines do not route pedestrian on the road, but there is no sign prohibitting pedestrian to walk there.

Routing engines will not route cars there when the correct access tag is set (access=private or access=customers)

Please keep service roads there. OpenStreetMap is very clear on that: map what is there, even if private or customers-only. Then add the correct access tags: access=private or access=customers

Are you the owner of this business?

Please read this wiki page for more info (even if this page talks about trails and tracks, it is even more true for service roads): osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Perfect!

Hi! Please keep the POIs (shops, amenities) as near as possible to their main entrance, because otherwise, when we analyse accessibility for some of these POIs, they could snap to a backside road instead of the main door, which could make data analysis incorrect. Thanks!

Oh, I see, thanks!

Yes no problem! There does not seem to be any information in the wiki on shop=horseback and shop=equestrian

I don't know, I just added connections to roads so the paths that were already mapped were connected to the rest of the network to make sure they don't create unconnected islands. Looking at the current Géodésie Québec aerial imagery, most of them seem legit though, but could have been removed recently (I checked photos from 2018 and 2022). Feel free to remove any that you confirm are not usable now.

was*

absolutely no problem! I as doing the same some years ago!

You can contact me anytime for more info

This part of the cycling path is a lane, not a separate path. When there is no physical separation between the cycleway and the road, please use the cycleway:both/left/right tags on the road itself. For a separate drawing, there must be a barrier (fence) a curb or concrete separators. Thanks!

Oh désolé, vous pouvez corriger!

Voici la photo de juillet 2023 (Streetview):
https://ibb.co/w7bwCd1

There is a curb now. The cycling path is not on the road but separated now

Removing this crossing makes cycling routing fail, because now the park is not accessible by bike rom Rue Saint-Hubert north of the service road to Cour Municipale. I will add it back.

Je suis plutôt d'accord, mais il faudrait le mentionner dans un forum auprès de la communauté, car comme j'ai dit, je n'ai fait qu'aligner ce qui était déjà là.