Additionally, aligning roads to the center of the driving lanes would also necessitate a lot of realignment if the lane layout ever changes, like if they reverse a oneway and change which side the parking and bike lane are on. Whereas if it is centered in the physical width of the paved area, only tag changes are needed.

It depends if the bike lane is drawn as its own way or not. Because it is included as a tag, it makes sense to center the line in the middle of the entire span. I think it makes more sense as to why when you look at it with the JOSM lanes plugin. Centering the way in the middle of the drivable space means that the way's width will be too far to the west and not far enough to the east, in this case. Centering it in the middle of the driving lane also implies that roads are for cars — and while that might be the de facto norm in North America, it isn't strictly true.

But I haven't been able to find any discussion on it. I've been following the way that it was done in other areas I used to map, and whenever I've encountered a road here that was not aligned to the middle of the physical pavement it seemed to be because there was once a bike lane mapped as a separate way that was removed. (Usually you can tell because of some leftover nodes.) So I moved them back into alignment as part of the final cleanup when adding the bike lane tags.

I am not sure if `addr:*` is meant to be used to show which buildings a parking garage serves. The wiki doesn't say anything, unfortunately.

Hi, I recently updated all of 1re Avenue to reflect its new configuration. This appears to have duplicated it.

On a besoin d'une meilleure documentation sur le wiki pour les pistes cycables à Montréal... 😅

Si la piste est séparé seulement par les flexi-posts, on l'ajoute typiquement avec les tags à la rue seulement, pas avec un way dédié. Parce que la piste n'existe pas encore, est-ce qu'on peut attendre pour l'ajouter? (Je suis passé·e par ici aujourd'hui et l'avenue est entièrement en cours de construction et impassable. Je me suis fait une note pour moi-même de le donner le tag.)

This doesn't look correct. This "path" crosses many buildings, and I do not think it exists. what were you trying to do?

This doesn't look correct. You've moved a tree that was from the City of Montréal dataset import across the road, and placed it in the middle of a crosswalk.

No, these paths were real. I have 360° images available in Mapillary that you can verify against. Reverting.

Are these real?

Salut, et merci pour votre contribution!

Quand vous ajoutez des éléments à la carte à Montréal, s'il vous plaît utilisez le "offset" de 0.6,-1.54 pour les images de Bing. Tous les autres éléments auraient été aligné à cet offset.
osm.wiki/Montr%C3%A9al

Merci!

It looks like this bike path was already represented via tags on the street's main way and is now duplicated.

Sorry about the Maproulette hashtag, it was somehow autofilled from a previous changeset. Sigh.

Hi, and thanks for contributing! Could you please use more descriptive changeset comments in the future? It helps those of us who do quality control. :)

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

CyclOSM takes longer to update than some tile layers. Check back tomorrow!

You will need to add the other details to the node as well.
shop=*
office=*

I uploaded some 360° imagery of this street on Mapillary the other day, if you need it. I was planning to use it to update this area eventually.

Please do not put names on objects that describe what they are.

The benches were all named "Scenic Bench" as well. I think the lesson here is that when we encounter one generic name, we should look for other elements in the area with them as well...

Should I remove the names on the walking paths here as well?