Welcome! Nice to see other folks adding info about local businesses here :)

One question though...in addition to adding the businesses, you seem to have moved the node representing Saint-Lambert itself??? I'm not sure what repercussions that has, so I'm going to assume it was a mistake and put it back roughly where it was for the time being.

As far as making the address show up on OpenStreetMap...congrats, you did it right and it's there already! If you don't see it, you might have to clear your browser cache.

As for facebook, no idea. Different maps take different amounts of time to update from the main OpenStreetMap data set... the OpenStreetMap website updates something like every minute or two, but for instance OrganicMaps only updates once a month. I would assume facebook updates pretty often because they have the money and infrastructure to do so, but I don't personally know.

Hello, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

First, thanks for updating this area. There aren't many active mappers in Longueuil and Saint-Lambert, so it's always nice when a local joins to help with their area.

A couple of notes:
First of all, the 'name' field for things in the world is intended for the actual name of that thing. 'Sir Charles Condominiums' sounds probably correct, but I suspect the park isn't actually called 'Nouveau parc public de 4 000 m2' :D

If you can get the official name of the park, that would be best--else, it's fine to just leave the name blank when you don't know. It's already marked as a park on the map, and there are better ways to indicate if a park is public or private-access using access tags.

In the future, it also would help if you described the kinds of changes you made in the description when saving. If you've made a bunch of changes and you're not sure how to describe what you did, it's usually a sign that the change should've been broken up into a few smaller ones. Don't worry about it too much either though, it's not a hard rule so much as helpful for other mappers.

Otherwise, your work looks alright at a glance--thank you for contributing!

I've already fixed the tags, so all that's left is to reposition the business into the correct building.

If you know which one houses it, you can just drag it in the middle of the building. Else, I will fix that too eventually--I'm close enough to check in person, just gotta make the time for it.

You can find it here for the time being:
node/12472650466

To add on to that, it's possible to have multiple nodes with the same address in different physical locations. One common pattern is putting the address tags on both the business *and* the building's entrance. This lets data consumers like map apps provide more accurate directions. For another simple example, you can consider something like a mall where the businesses might have the same street & number, but different unit numbers corresponding to specific locations inside the same building.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in OpenStreetMap--in addition to entering the address, you have to set the position in the world yourself. The reason is simple: While addresses Mostly follow a simple line, the precise location can vary a lot (for instance, consider a building with multiple address numbers stacked vertically. Some of the apartment/plexes around here do that). So there's not really a system that can place it with perfect accuracy even with the address, you always have to do it yourself.

Hi, welcome to openstreetmap! I gave your change a look, there are a few odd things with it... first of all, you seem to have created 2 copies of the same business with different tags? And they're attached to unrelated geometry as well, generally the way we map businesses is with a detached point directly over the business itself--usually in the center of the building. Additionally, there's no tag for the type of business. Looking at the website it looks to be a car dealership, so it should have a tag for that. Probably shop:car (see shop=car).

I'm going to combine these points and detach them so that they're not obstructing the road anymore, but since I don't know the exact location of the business I would ask if you can shift it into place once that's done. If not, I'll check in person when I have a chance.

I appreciate the enthusiasm and desire to improve the map--but please take your time to make sure your work doesn't have to be fixed later

Looking at this again, it has also been incorrectly offset...are you doing that to everything you touch?

Please read osm.wiki/Montr%C3%A9al#Bing_Maps_Offset
it also applies to Longueuil. When using the Bing imagery, you need to set the offset to 0.6,-1.54 or your data will be offset incorrectly

This building should not have been split. Don't touch it anymore, I'll fix it myself

I gave this a quick look, not too thorough but at a glance this seems fine.

The size of the change and the fact that it touched an administrative boundary (way/974786061) made me raise an eyebrow, but I think a node just got onto it--the geometry doesn't seem any different, so it's probably just fine.

No worries, thank you for the contribution and the quick reply! I've made the change, so I think this is all set.

Quick question: From your edits, it looks like Collège Durocher has 2 pavillons: Pavillon Durocher (this one) and Pavillon Sant-Lambert (the one south of here.

However, I see that the building here on what you've marked as 'Pavillon Durocher' is labelled 'Pavillon Saint-Lambert'... I'm not familiar with these 2, but it sounds like either you got them mixed up or the last person did. If you you're correct, then I think the name on the building should be erased.

Honestly, I haven't looked into it yet. It might be possible, and that's probably the best long-term solution...

Thanks for the contribution, as well as your comment about the route number. I've added the stop to the route!

OpenStreetMap is sadly missing a lot of RTL stops and routes, it's something I've been trying to improve recently so I'm seriously glad to see someone else adding a local stop :D

Regarding une abeille's note, in this particular case the stop looks roughly where I'd expect it to be so I don't think you need to adjust the position in this case. I definitely recommend keeping that '0.6, -1.54' offset on hand though, to ensure that stuff you add is always properly aligned (and because sadly the default editor doesn't remember it between sessions...I still get burned by that sometimes).

Apologies, I wasn't aware of that rule of thumb! I must confess that I'm pretty inexperienced when it comes to cycling infrastructure, this was my first real crack at it... I'll see about reverting my changes once I'm off work, and doing better pass on this street's cycleways in a few days.

With that said, do you mind if I send a message asking for clarification on how to map a few specific bits of cycleways I've run into on surveys? I'd like to minimize the amount of future work you have to do on my changesets :D

Hold on, why are there now an overlapping footpath *and* sidewalk on Rue King-George? The footpath is also running past the street crossing, which you've somehow gotten to connect to the same sidewalk twice?

Please take some time to re-review and fix some of your recent changes. I understand that you just started making contributions, but OSM is something people use--and rely on--in the real world on a daily basis. Your contributions don't have to be perfect, but there's some really fundamental errors with the footway network here and every single one of your contributions thus far has several validation issues listed.

(Apologies in advance if you're a francophone, I'm writing this only in English because my written French is pretty bad)

Hi! I see you requested a review on this change so here are a few things to note for the future. First of all, I noticed that you've added a section of sidewalk as a foot path to the map. However, it's not actually marked as a sidewalk because it's missing 'sidewalk=yes'. It's also disconnected from the network, so most routers can't actually use it as-is.

But more importantly--the existing section of bike path (Route verte 1) was already marked as 'foot=designated' to indicate a walkable area. If I were editing this area, personally I'd probably lean into that by adding 'segregated=yes' (indicating that the foot/bike parts are separate, see segregated=yes) and indicate the different surfaces. You can see an example of what that looks like from some of my work earlier this year here: way/1184504681

Alternatively, the other option is to add the sidewalk *and remove 'foot=designated' from the bike path*. Otherwise you wind up with two elements representing the same thing... in that case, you'd also need to connect it to the rest of the network by at least placing road crossing nodes where the sidewalk connects to the roads on either side.

Regardless of all that, I do want to thank you for your contribution. Longueuil's non-car infrastructure is seriously under-mapped right now, so every little bit helps! Judging by the comment on your change this was probably a homework assignment, but if you have the inclination please consider sticking around. It's honestly very normal to make mistakes early on, there's tons of little rules and gotchas that become second-nature as you get more experience mapping.

Was this an accidental change? The amenity seems to have been placed in the middle of the road, it looks like something that'd normally exist in/next to a building...

Ok, I've watched some of the video and some parts of the feedback (like the note about curbs) makes more sense. I'll change my workflow to match the explanation there going forward.