I mean if you take it to the extreme, it won't be realistic to split it based on whether construction has started on each section either. The exact flow belongs to OpenHistoricalMap.
The project ceremony commenced at the end of last month. Temporary sites have already been handed over before. Contract signed with contractor this week.
Also remember OSM is not always updated frequently in applications.
Other `proposed:*=` features are much more loose. You won't put Route 11 and Tuen Mun Bypass in the same namespace as this.

Please don't remove addresses. They should be preserved somehow.

You can at least discuss why they should be deleted? Unneccessary doesn't mean not accepted.

Warning:
This guy (GSF1200S), knowing nothing about the difference between different users, accuses others of doing things they didn't do on random changesets of others.

Please notice that this is already added in `tunnel:name=` . `name=` is used for the common name. so I decided not to use this here, as it is a short and minor tunnel. For a different reason, Shing Mun Tunnels and Lion Rock Tunnel don't use the individual section and bore names.

My intention for the `name=` of `public_transport=stop_position` is to reflect the name in the direction, similar to `=stop` in other modes. So it should use "Central" , not the exact pier. That's reflected in the `=pier` , similar to `=platform` .

Please don't remove `highway=crossing` when the `=service` is not flat, and there are crossing facilities for it.

Please don't use `=wastewater_plant` for `=pumping_station` . That's for sewage treatment only.

Please don't detach `highway=pedestrian` from roads.

Please don't delete casually. You broke a `enforcement=traffic_signals` here.

Should it not be `building=service` ?

3. You have duplicated Nai Chung here. This has no effect.

1. `=isolated_dwelling` is only for a independent settlement (as in village) with 1 or 2 households. This meets neither criteria.
2. Again, the standard for housing estates in HK is to use `landuse=` . Please don't use `place=`.

38e. "The alignment of Nin Fung Road extension through the knoll would impact these
fung shui sites and the villagers’ customs and traditions" https://www.tpb.gov.hk/en/meetings/TPB/Minutes/m1249tpb_e1.pdf#page=54

36a. "Nin Fung Road would be
extended to connect the proposed new access road which would be the
access for Sites A and B1." https://www.tpb.gov.hk/en/meetings/TPB/Minutes/m1249tpb_e2.pdf#page=40

1.4.2. "Resumption of some private lands within Village Environ Boundary (VEB) might be
required to extend the Nin Fung Road for traffic connection to Site 1. " p.2 https://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/ava_register/ProjInfo/AVRG159_ExpReport.pdf#page=6

note/new

Please don't create a new point with nothing other than `fixme=` . Add the `fixme=` to other features, or use osm.org/notes visibly.

Stop accusing others of things like "obsession and imagination". I already explained to you why the project description didn't say extension. By your logic, no other roads should be named until gazetted and opened. This obviously runs counter to how `=construction` is used.

1. Are you aware I'm not the one who has used `highway=construction` ?
2. Then you should be the one who change it `proposed:highway=` . That's irrelevant to you wrongly removing `name=` , `lanes=`, and `sidewalk=` .

2. Please don't use `=dismount` . Aside from the fact there is no difference with `=no` on roads, `=yes` on routes mean they are allowed to be brought on them. `motor_vehicle=yes` certainly doesn't you can drive on a car ferry.

Why are you deleting all of them??? That's what the lines should be enhanced to.