2. You could even say it's not in any "network", for this example

1. You are conflating system/mode and service. MTR, Light Rail, MTR Bus, and MTR Feeder Bus can be considered in the same "network". This is similar to considering transit agencies as a "network".
2. Again, what's the issue with a partially-integrated route in a network?

1. This fails to reflect that it is integrated in the PT network of MTR.
2. I don't see how it "fails". They are simply only partially integrated.

For example, how would you tag MTR Bus and MTR Feeder Bus?

1. `brand=` is for the brand it is carrying. `operator=` or `netowkr=` isn't exactly the same as `brand=`
2. "Special Departure Route" is used.
3. `network=` isn't used for that. Some other tags could be used, including the legal `designation=` that could be applicable here. And there are obviously a lot of varieties of usage in practice here.
4. This is same as the difference between track and train ownership on railways. A bus route could also be contracted out.
5. `passenger=` denotes the kind of passenger service it is. `railway:traffic_mode=passenger` is used for what you have in mind.
6. There are 1k usage of `usage=` on relations. `service=` has been suggested on routes, where they can likely be used together.

What is "invalid" about them?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93008053

Are you sure these are not 2 peaks of the same mountain area?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92898245

Hi, this is actually something I would like to hve some discussions. In the past, or from casual simplicity, these are modeled with separate lines. Now that way/762936333 has `turn:lanes=` and `change:lanes` together with a turning restriction (relation/10583247), should this follow the classification of the only allowed movement from way/762936332? I'm concerned if making it `=primary_link` would look as if way/762936336 can turn across.

Universakkt, at least for roads in a numbered route, it would be common to keep its classification (eg way/88008303). Another issue is left-turn is banned with the pressence of a left-turn slip here (some countries allow turns at the main intersection even with a slip), so making it `=primary` may also make it look less consistent with how the road is organized (although I forgot to change way/680715997).

Most villages use `addr:place=` of the village name, not `addr:street=` of the road serving them.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92246754

Was thinking since Po Lam Rd N - Po Hong Rd (W--S) is the main route, this should follow the `=secondary` classification to the East, and upgraded to `=primary` after the `=primary_link`. How do you think about that?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92368242

Please don't name features with generic descriptors to act as a label on any renderer. A competent application should be able to show the sport of the pitch satisfactorily. A name as simple as "Number 1 Tennis Court" isstill if it is exactly used there. If you aren't finding their names, leave it empty. Don't pollute the name field.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92139315

Usually `highway=service` ("service road"), with `service=driveway` ("driveway") sometimes only. The common meaning of driveways isn't widely found in HK. Most roads don't go to individual houses, only each premise, especially to a parking area.
There's the concept of shared "drvieways" raised in the West. service=driveway#Pipestems It's not readily applicable in HK yet, again especially with individual houses needing a separate road to fit the definition.
You can ignore all these more in depth discussed , to simply use the most general `highway=service` ("service road") without any further specification.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92274208

changeset/92280147
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92274208

`landuse=residential` should be used, not `building=house` directly
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92274208

1. Don't delete points such as especially node/7428749415/history. Move them to the correct position instead.
2. Don't connect areas to roads. This doesn't reflect reality (they don't extend over roads), and is difficult to edit
3. The meaning of `=irregular_settlement` is very remotely relevant here.
4. `highway=living_street` refers to a pedestrian-priority road. These would be `highway=residential` (if "public" and "outside") and `highway=service` (if inside a facility or site)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92274208

Good evening, and good night.

I edited as to `demolished:highway=` in case anyone mistakenly add them back from imagery.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92180650

1. Ok I made it work

1. Are you sure? The turn from Sai Yeung Choi St S to Argyle St is almost 90 degrees. It may be considered a right turn across the junction, which the solid white line doesn't ban. There's no obvious conflict at the junction. I would assume this is to control lane change along Argyle St, where left turning vehicles must get in lane before the junction.
2. This won't be the best solution, with the absence of any physical separation. The turning restriction would be established `from` Sai Yeung Choi St S `via` Argle St `to` Nathan Rd. `turn:lanes=` and `change:lanes=` would used. More complicated, yes.