Please don't remove non-"standard" names. Change them to other `*_name=` to show that.

Please discuss with others before adding back these names changeset/170649572

Newest imagery can be used for updating. But it should fit in with the surrounding. Never use only it to justify mass realignment.

This is wrong. Esri Clarity is usually is the most accurate, confirming it. You can refer to out-of-copyright maps to see how the road would be built.

Please don't abuse these to show suggestions. Use uMap etc.

And it's a further special case of being on `man_made=bridge` (besides `building=` etc)

`layer=1` was correct. Carto doesn't render them in correct order from technical limitation. `layer=2` brings it up to the footbridge.

If transfer-only `=bus_station` should have `=customers` , why should the `highway=` inside not have it? On the contrary, the isolation can also be said as a consequence. They should have an `access=` regardless of the layout, because that's the inherent rule of the interchange itself. Tuen Mun Bypass would add a connection with Lung Mung Rd, then there may be a `=service` road connecting the northbound side.

`=customers` is used to mean only transferring passengers can use it. It at least needs to be added to the `=sidewalk` . `=use_sidepath` is not very clear and useful in HK actually, including different meanings.

1. Please use meaningful upload comments summarizing your edit
2. Please reply and explain what you want to do changeset/170116293

1. Please use meaningful upload comments summarizing your edit
2. As mentioned before, please split to `disused=yes` / `abandoned:highway=` instead of deleting

1. First of all, please don't upload such edit suggestions. You can download and share the change file in the "save" tab.
2. For that matter, Geoinfo and iB1000 underground rail lines are not accurate at all. They are indicative only.

1. Don't change the `name=` . Add `old_name=`
2. Please don't add "Ridge" names when it's a named footpath. Draw a different `=ridge`

Please don't do undiscussed change of `old_name=` to `name=`

Please don't use `*:en=` unless you can prove it's used in English proper. Use `*:yue-Latn=` for your own transliterations.

1. Can you please check what's definition of a `=recreation_ground` first? I'm already using the loose definition. The strict definition is a grassy area, which this doesn't qualify either. You can already see from imagery it has 2 parts, not one area. Parks, at least in HK, doesn't have that much green space when hard courts are used, but those are still open space.
2. Can you clariy what you mean by "the compound"? It's rare for a small outside part to be access-controlled alone on its own.
3. What "local property website"? Indeed, I have to conclude you have no knowledge and awareness on this topic, and guessed what it is. But actually anyone could have seen it's obviously a a very low quality website, with suspicious data source, which you can't copy directly and wholly from government data either. Again, the website has "all rights reserved", meaning you can't immediately safely copy from it as well.
4. Of course, I have to assume you guessed this for some reasons. "Sitting-out area" is the very textbook and awkward naming by government given to a very specific government facility type, which exactly has little open space, and at least more vegetation than this. They are gazetted and listed in the law. It's almost impossible for them to be named from a building. It's also not "休憩地方", but "休憩處“, if you can really read Cantonese, and know how they are named in HK. Lastly, yes, it's an quite obvious thing to assume someone who have edited all over the world in other countries may not have local knowledge, as compared to someone who have edited much here.
You can continue to discuss together with others in the community https://discord.com/invite/CyG9zte

1. Please don't interpret category names literally. `=recreation_ground` means a general area for playing or enjoyment. This has 2 parts.
2. The article you cite for `access=private` has nothing to do with this, not being on roofs.
3. Please don't guess such names, as it seems wrong in the first place. And a Sitting-out Area is not `=recreation_ground` either.

Please don't delete directly. Change it to `disused:highway=` / `abandoned:highway=` / etc

Please don't delete it directly, as the 124m still exists on its own. Only edit the names if they are wrong.

Reminder: `name=` and `place=` are the existing common name and concepts in public use, not what you think should be correct or proper. Put historic names and locations in OpenHistoricalMap, not OSM. Discuss with the community, where the Discord server (https://discord.com/invite/CyG9zte) has been made available in OSM Community Index for a long time already, and there is a wiki project (osm.wiki/Hong_Kong).