It's better to avoid creating these. They aren't really routes, but are groups inside a district. There's no linear routing between a start and end.

Please don't delete a properly tagged object, especially not replace it with your wrong version. Edit it if you want to change it.

As mentioned before, please don't add the location to the `name=` , which should be the proper name only without hyphenated or bracketed descriptor labels. `branch=` should be used.

But also for that matter in OHM, again `natural=peak` is different from the `place=` named after it. You should only add such a `place=` if that's how the residents or government refer to the community. When the mountain is unpopulated, this shouldn't be added.

You still didn't reply on the original changeset for this…

You are confusing the terrain with the community. These `place=` are used to refer to settlements, and they need to be how the public are commonly referring to it currently, not to mentioned for addressing purposes.
And again, please don't add historic names especially no-longer-existing features as `name=` + `natural=` / `place=` in OSM. They belong to OpenHistoricalMap. OSM describes the reality now, not what you think it should be.

@mranderson2025 Can you please actually reply to the original changeset comments as mentioned first, including to list out what "various sources" they are? You are the one making accusations and judgements. I made no judgement by restoring the `old_name=` as corrected by 2 other users before.

@Taya_S
I mostly refrain from making judgements on mountain-side toponyms. This was corrected by @minghong , and @HKHikerhang the latter of whom has even made it to the news by holding a press conference about many users adding historical or personal names causing hiker confusion, even potentially risking their lives when they call rescue. Ref DWG tickets #2022033110000028 , #2022120210000048 , #2024022610000063 for previous incidents, where sock puppets have appeared repeatedly. @Supaplex/diary/399062
This has been noticed by the community (not me) at least 5 more years earlier in 2016 osm.wiki/Talk:Zh-hant:Hong_Kong_tagging#Place_Names
In this case, the involved users are difficult to track down, as they have deleted their account, similar to many of those offending users, and sock puppets. For now, I could only see they are "charmaine_pui_ting" (uid=17048038) and "hkpeakname"(uid=15436648) from Better OSM. OSMCha purged their database, so finding older changesets are more difficult. I can't say these two absolutely bad, but they definitely have mixed records at least. Need to do more digital forensics/archaeology to be sure.

For reference, that was added and re-added by a few dubious users who often add historical or personal names. This was corrected twice by reputable users already.

I don't see any evidence, at least around the time of that and the edit. This should only be edited after it's actually closed, if planned.

Please don't add random `place=` by your standards. Them and `name=` needs to be in common public use currently.

Please don't remove other names. Use `*_name=` to add other names.

It was wrongly changed from `=path` to `=unclassified`

This already had `covered=yes`

They should be connected, not moved away (eg no alleys between them)

This destroyed its correct shape. You should move it, not trim it.

This is very obviously not a `=hospital`

This is not enough. The routing is still broken by the banned turn.

Please be careful when dragging. There are accidental movements.

This is obviously not a `=peak`