J'ai mis gift shop (sur leur site, c'est écrit boutique cadeaux)

shop=yes seems a bit generic. Can we adjust it to something more precise?

Je comprends, mais il n'y avait aucune norme et ça causait beaucopu de problèmes pour la modélisation, qui utilise OSM de façon soutenue, et souvent pour des projets réels qui sont véritablement construits. Au moins, ici on a une méthode précise et systématique. Je suis ouvert à la discussion, mais pour l'instant, c'est tout ce qu'on a sur le wiki, alors j'ai implanté ce qui était présenté. Si vous voulez en discuter, vous pouvez ajouter vos commentaires dans le wiki/proposal, ou sur le forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/

SVP prendre le temps de bien lire la proposition complète:
osm.wiki/Proposal:Placement
C'est sytématique, précis et facile à implanter partout. C'est fait comme ça sur toutes les autoroutes de la région de Montréal depuis 2 ans, car avant c'était le fouilli total (plusieurs méthodes différentes ou jonctions à des endroits aléatoires).

La section avec un ligne double doit être une seule ligne comme ceci: https://ibb.co/GfxghC8N
(regarder les attributs à gauche: change:lanes=yes|yes|only_left|no

Et pour la section du bas, le gore théorique se termine exactement à la jonction, ce qui est exactement comme expliqué dans le wiki: https://ibb.co/wZHN1vXK

these transitions were following the official wiki on placement=transition. I reverted back the modified mergings. See placement=transition

This building was already aligned with precise aerial imagery. I will revert. Thanks for your understanding.

Hi! Please do not realign streets except if you use precise aligned aerial imagery (Bing, ESRI and Mapbox photos are not correctly aligned)

Hi! In Quebec, we need to use the french name as default (by law). I added the name:en to these nodes to include both languages. Thanks!

Thanks for your contributions!

Please add access=private to private pools. Thanks!

Hi! Thanks for your contribution!

Please add access=private to private pools. Thanks!

Hi! Thanks for your contributions! Please add the tag access=rpivate to private pool so they are no considered publicly accessible. Thanks!

Hi! Thanks for your contributions!

Please add the tag access=private to private pool since these are not publicly accessible. Thanks!

Hi! Please write meaningful changset comments so we can understand what this edit was for. Thanks!

Hi! Thanks for your contribution!

However, in Quebec, we prefer having POIs as nodes since it is easier to update and visualize the POIs near their actual entrance instead of on the building centroid. Thanks!

OK, I agree. However, please help me starting the discussion by stating what issues are to be asked to the community. The use of JOSM instead of the iD editor seems hard to enforce because iD is the official editor, for better and for worse, and it is way easier to use for this kind of work (we can easily change the offset on the fly, and use custom aerial imagery urls and switch between them, which does not always work in JOSM (believe me, a lot of imagery are not loaded correctly in JOSM). I think the main issue here is keeping the history of the ways. However, I do not see how we can fix that or discuss this with the community. Adding a placement=transition to the merging segments will always create a new segment and will delete the existing segment since we need to cut before and after the merging, as well as at each change of number of lanes. I'll let you start the discussion as I am not sure how to introduce the problem exactly. Also, I would like Pierzen to discuss the issue in a videoconference with me because most of the issues would be solved/explained in a matter of minutes when I show the work we do and the reasons why we do it. I willl explain the relation we have with the ministry of transportation, the ministry of natural resources (they manage the aerial photos) and with the transit agencies in Quebec. After that private discussion, we can then create a common introduction for the public discussion. I would like to emphasis here that I did not get any issue from the community regarding this issue in the past except from PierZen (which by the way is a great contributor of OSM in the region), so I am a bit stunned by this... I'm trying to be as efficient and productive as possible. Thanks!

If you look here: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/placement=transition#map
you will see that the usage of placement=transition is not specific to Quebec, it is used all over the world.

Status of placement=transition is "in use" not a proposal. I added the proposal in this discussion because it is more detailed and explains the history of why it was added. Placements are the only way we can know which part of the street segments are not aligned with the real lanes, and this is especially important for precise routing of vehicles. I add more precise information because some people need this information and will need it in the future. I understand that you would mlike to keep data as is, but we need to accept evolution of tags and new tags + new paradigms in OSM. These precise lanes and transition data will make it possible to simulate exact highway/motorway capacities, which was not feasible before. What do you want us to do exactly? Stop adding the placements? Revert them? I would really like to have a conversation with you about this, because I did not get any comments from other OSM contributors about this issue. Please contact me in a private message to schedule a videconference. I will explain in detail with examples why we do this and what we can do with it. Thanks and have a nice weekend!

Nice! :-)

As a follow-up, we now follow the official wiki on placement=transition and proposal in osm.wiki/Proposal:Placement

So we always join at the end of the theoretical gore. Thanks for flagging this!