Quite certain it's not for the Chinese (as the name of an tourist spot). The English name could be reviewed. My view is that it is an established common name for the tourist attraction (see the press cutting at the separate OSM notes)

i. I am a bit surprised that I would need to have the wiki page link pasted here, but here you are (name=*), at the third bullet point in the "Values" section; and one of the many names appearing on various government website (https://www.hyd.gov.hk/en/our_projects/road_projects/6145tb/index.html)

ia. I am well aware that there shouldn't be "descriptive name" (e.g. "public toilet", "small temple") or names that should be descriptions but as I wrote this is not the case.

ii. Exactly, thank you. The guideline is referring to "Category:" / "List of" pages which this is not.

i. "key:name" considers official usage as one of the usual sources of primary names. This gives "Footbridge Network in Tsuen Wan" legitimacy to be inserted as a name. Generally speaking and as indicated in OSM wiki, "key:name" is designed to "expect data consumers to expose in a label", while "key:description" is intended to provide additional information, not as a mere alternative to "key:name". This issue has been raised more than once and I am sure Kovoschiz is aware of such views, whether it is from me or not.

ii. The strictest interpretation of "Relations are not categories" guideline would seemingly not apply in this case. The footbridge network has warranted its own notability as a Wikipedia article (regardless as a walking system or as a construction project for the community). The examples the page quoted (Footways in East Anglia and Scottish Lochs) are not apples to apples comparing to this case.

iii. That gives way to the second issue in question - whether there should be a relation created for the purpose of the footbridges. The page you and I cited confirmed that "[relations] are meant to model a close (and usually local) relation between objects", which I see suitable to describe the footbridge network itself.

iv. The third case in question would be whether it should be categorised into "relation:network" or "relation:route". The prime intention of tagging it a "route" is because it runs (crucially) north to south and (as branches) east to west at both near Tsuen Wan station and near Tseung Wan West station. Indeed it could be divided up into several "routes", but alternatively, it had been grouped into one "relation:route" that, in my view, does no harm and does not deviate from the good use of "relation:route". Had it been otherwise it could be contained in one "relation:network" named as "Footbridge System in Tsuen Wan". It is clear that "relation:network" is used in some places to tag relations, but whether it could contain ways instead of relations is not mentioned. The tagging decision is taken with prudence and I am open to any dissenting considerations that would improve the OSM data and align it even better with the intended usage.

2&4. The article you cited rebutted exactly your points - "A good example for a valid and useful grouping is the "route" relation, where multiple ways are connected to form ... a walking route..."

I am referring to (3). As for the use of key:ref, I don't see any requirements that limit its use to those with signpost but I won't object to removing them if you consider it to be most suitable

Please see the official map for the trail at https://www.roundislandtrail.gov.hk/en/project-overview/project-background

The subway exit is metres away from the corner of the covered walkway and not positioned at the end of the east-west path. The "unrealistic" and "casual" snap was trying to show this insitu situation.
In fact I'm glad that you have reviewed my works which you may faithfully consider to be defective. From which it highlights the collaborative nature of OSM that makes it stands out. I'm sure experienced contributors like you would have appreciated this better than I do.

For the record that the mergers are conscious save for a few that are inadvertent

Agreed on 2 - which explains the situation here on this map, as it apparently mapped with reference to Geoinfo map

I do not have a definitive answer for now, and so the lines plotted are taking reference from satellite images available in osm. The copyright issue could need some further study. However, the current alignment of the train tracks appears to largely reassemble that on the government map.

Hi Kovoschiz,

(1) "name=" serves mainly to display primary name. I think we can at this stage establish that 舊羅湖鐵路橋 is a primary name which was acknowledged by the authorities.

(2) "old_name=" is for historic name for an element. In this case, however, it was a relocated component of the Lo Wu bridge and it currently demonstrates more as a commemorative historic relic, instead of a change in name. I think "old name" may not be able to fully explain the image here.

(3) Even so, "old_name=" should typically be combined with the current "name=" which presents a visual rendering on a map. This would be more in line with the main goal of a map.

Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks.

Hi Kovoschiz. Just a quick question for this. What's the guideline of naming the bridge structure in osm? One of them is using an unofficial name while the other is official. I imagine common name would be more preferred after all, which would be what my edit hoping to achieve? Thanks.