The number of times Maria, Marek and some others have had to explain the habitual and continuous stuff just on this lesson is ridiculous, let alone on various other lessons in the course; it's a shame Duolingo doesn't offer the facility to have this explanation given at some point as a sort of lesson before the exercises.
The number of times I've had chodzić, iść, pójść, jechać, pojechać etc. explained to me is also ridiculous. Not just by Maria and Marek, but also my teacher, native speaker friends and several textbooks. Even so, I still can't seem to make the right choice without a good deal of thought.
Verbs of Motion are the rare exceptions when it actually matters whether you translate it into Present Simple or Present Continuous. "chodzić" happens 'generally, not 'right now'.
Although without a context, without any specific direction, "chodzić" can also mean "to be walking" (walking around). But not 'to be going'.
@alukasiak's article about VoM: https://www.clozemaster.com/blog/polish-verbs-of-motion/
I put "are you going?" (i know, i was wrong) but it sugested me "are you walking?" as a correct soulution. what's the problem??? is this word translated as in Continious as well??? i understood that the difference between "idzie" and "chodzi" is like between "goes" and "walks". But how can i define the difference between Continious and Non-Continious in such a case???
No, that's not exactly the difference between "goes" and "walks", because as far as someone "goes" on foot, it's the same. Like, when you say "I'm going to the shop" you don't mention if you go there on foot or by car. So in some way "goes" and "walks" are synonymous. And in a way they also are very different. But both work as translation because this 'going' may be on foot unless it's specified otherwise.
The difference between "iść" and "chodzić" is generally between Present Continuous (iść) and Present Simple (chodzić). BUT: if "chodzić" is used without any direction mentioned, if it's just walking around (and this sentence here doesn't have any context), "to be walking" also works. But "to be going" does not.
Quote from a native:
"And yet in a way it could work, eg. "Are you walking to school in the mornings, or do you take the bus?" Which is hardly an ideal sentence, but might be said."
"Still, I think it's probably rare enough it doesn't need to be accepted."
So, as it seems it's rather rare and only confusing, I will delete it.
EDIT: Actually "you are walking to school" is not among the accepted answers for that sentence. "you are going to" somehow works and is accepted.
It seems to me that a great deal of this confusion is also based on the wide usage of "to go" in English. I would think that "Are you going?" works for this depending on context. If it's meant as "Are you leaving right now?", it doesn't work. But in the sense of "To church? Are you going?", it definitely seems to me that it would work. I think it's much easier to understand and use "chodzić/iść" in Polish than to translate to English :P
The continuous form in English just shows a distinction in time, whereas habituality shows a distinction in regularity. If, for instance, you know that a person did not go to the church before, but you want to know if that is still the case, it would be correct, at least in British English, to say, "Are you going?" Even when it's meant habitually.
So yes, this confirms that "a great deal of this confusion is also based on the wide usage of "to go" in English", as you said. But sometimes we have to have some artificial borders for what we accept, because especially with "iść/chodzić", we just wouldn't be able to teach you anything if we accepted every possible English context. For example telling a story or telling a joke uses Present Simple when Continuous would seem more appropriate, but if we took that into consideration, it would lead to a total confusion.