Hey! What are you doing here? Why did you tag all the road tertiary then revert them?

hope if you can assist Chinese mappers clean those multilanguage names！（esp in Guangdong）

i also referred to the construction diagram of it

Sentinel-2 imagery, sorry i'm lazy to change the source every time

Actually, I didn't do so. In this changeset I added capital=yes.

是的。。。

My answer is yes. I don't know which primary route you are referring to, if that primary route connects several provinces, then I have to reconsider that issue. Currently, Freedsky and I am doing this changing manually ( because some G-routes have been diverted to newer roads). We hope foreigners can understand the situation in China and follow the guidelines, which would be a great support. Our tagging it as a trunk is similar to that of Japan. You know Japanese tag their national route trunk, so do we.
Another point is that things prescribed by agencies or departments should be tagged accordingly without exception. If it is a G-road, then just don't care its surroundings, tag it trunk. Including other factors will make things tough. Anyway, thank you for your contribution in China.

I don't think so. All G-network roads should be tagged trunk, Chinese contributors have agreed on that. And they are not replaced. The expressways are new G roads with higher construction standards. There's nothing called old network. Trunk is mainly used for national road system (all G-nnn roads) and elevated roads in cities. Please see China tagging guidelines.

If it is currently a member of the G-network, then it should be tagged with trunk.

It's G316. It should be tagged as trunk instead of primary.>_<

Part of your changeset will be reverted, please comply with the tagging guidelines(osm.wiki/China_tagging_guidelines).

Sorry, I'll refill it!

That's OK. I will not bother your fix a lot. I only care about airports modified precisely by myself(RJTT, RJAA, RJGG, RJBB, RJOO, etc.), and obviously you can still edit in a way you prefer. Thanks for your suggestions. :-)

Yeah, I can also say that I have viewed many airports in OSM, but only some of them follow the definition. So I don't think it's persuasive.

I have read several books about airport design and construction. None of them excludes the blast pad from a whole runway. I did not mean that I'm mapping for the rendering, I mean it is convenient for people who use the map. I acknowledge some of your points, but not all.

Plus, for visual convenience, I think it's more easier to identify the gray area if it is a little bit stretched out. Otherwise it may seems to mix with the gray taxiway although they differ in width when displayed. And visual convenience is crucial for a map, I think.

Yes, the runway is 3800m in length, but that's for normal use. You should also include its feature for emergency use, which is the overrun. And most importantly, Wikipedia mentions that blast pad is a section of a runway, so it definitely belongs to a runway. The "runway" which you referred to is only a section of the runway defined by ICAO. I quote here: "a runway is a defined rectangular area on a land aerodrome prepared for the landing and takeoff of aircraft". The definition does not emphasize its usage under specific condition, but both emergency and non-emergency. Besides, if you exclude the blast pad in this way, then how can you depict it?

hey, overrun is a part of the runway!

请你不要使用过期的卫星图进行修改，很明显您未经过实地考察以及没有现时的卫星图，这样做出的修改会对使用者造成不必要的麻烦，我将会恢复历史数据至先前状态——osm苏州制图组

你啊...迟早要完