0. Please use accurate upload comment, and don't reuse previous unrelated ones. "Add additional information" is not useful, and wrong here. "based on personal knowledge" would already be covered by `=local_knowledge` , or mostly not necessary to be mentioned.

Please don't directly delete these. There is also eg `obstacle=vegetation` for overgrown. The next is `disused=yes` , then `abandoned:highway=` , while deleting is usually when it has never existed only.

Yes of course, I have seen it. I'm exactly pointing out how it doesn't show a `ref=` for certain.

1. `roundtrip=` should not be used on `=route_master`
2. It's not completed yet

3. Fundamentally, at least the different sections should be signposted, or otherwise officially delimited. It should not be merely different suggested tours on a guidebook. This is too soon to determine.

2. `ref=` needs to be signposted confirmation and routing, and used for wayfinding. Please don't simply based on items of a numbered list.

And please explain what's "disappearing". Eg `trail_visiblity=no` is used when it can't be seen. `obstacle=vegetation` for overgrown.

This is not a `=basic_network`
Please don't use brackets. `name=` is for proper names only, not descriptor labels That's a hint of mistake. It should either be a `superroute` with `route=` inside, or a long `=nwn` concurrent with shorter `=rwn` together.

Please don't delete these. The next stage is changing to `abandoned:highway=`

If you think they are "private", you should remove the `name=` only. The graves still existing physically in reality.

Ok I'm not sure about soft launch. But the Quay needs to be changed together.

Please wait until the launch day to create. This is misleading now, and transit maps or applications are actually updated weekly or less frequent.

A crosswalk doesn't need to be formal. This already has `=unmarked` possibly explaining. It is needed for routing. As long as it's not prohibited (with railings), it can be drawn.

Please don't add `=barrier` to the intersecting point between roads. The intersecting road doesn't encounter it.

1. `=permissive` doesn't mean by permission, but permissively allowed. `=private` should be used.
2. Please don't add `horse=` , as that's not signposted, and not useful in HK

Please don't add `access=no` to such `barrier=` , as they are physically designed, and legally can't be crossed. They are unconnected lines that won't be evaluated.

Please don't change `=pedestrian` to `=footway` . It's the EVA. You are confusing 2 locations. The crosswalk is already at the north.

It's not created, but modified. It should be moved back to the original alignment.

Yes, it does. You should think of a good reason to change it first.
The problem with roundabouts is other arms don't necessarily contribute to it.
Have you considered `_link`=* as well? Eg Tsing Tsuen Rd. And in Tsing Yi by your logic, the `=primary` should extended from Heung Sze Rd across to Fung Shue Wo Rd to Tsing King Rd, as the `=residential` road doesn't contribute to promoting it.
For one particular case you should change Ching Cheung Rd to `=tertiary` instead, with the `=secondary_link` left-turn. This further questions how the one to the east connecting Lai Chi Kok Park `=service` road should have at least one section changed (the other has a u-turn back to westbound to access another `=service` road on the `=secondary_link` ).

Please don't add `bridge=yes` to the walled section, as they are usually mechanically-stabilized embankments( ie `embankment=yes` ). Only use it above the joints, and empty void below.