Excluding utilities, there's the HKU marine institute there as well

That's what's signed.Can you tell us are villager's vehicles allowed in practice?

1. So how do you suggest this to be represented, which you should have done as a change, instead of only removing it? It puzzles me you consider `operator=` to be operating trains, yet `owner=` can't be used for owning the trains.
2. This fails to represent triple and single carriageway. "Dual carriageway" may also be interepreted as a legal restriction unwittingly. That's why I ask to discuss these beforehand. I don't see you mentioning this in Discord or wiki.
3. "In general the _link won't change mid-way however for motorways it's legally different" do you know the point of last decision is used here?

1. Have you even tried to understand the "point" means the point of diverge? You get complaints for not following `_link` continuity
2. This is about usage. I'm merely picking this up for now, not proposing it yet. Do you have any good solutions?

@小智智
1. Is `owner=` on all train routes to represent the train owners wrong? How do you represent MTRCL using KCRC trains? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/owner#combinations at least has 1k `route=` usage. Is this wrong?
2. There are 2.5k `carriageway=dual`. osm.wiki/Relation:dual_carriageway and dual_carriageway=yes. I have been studying what would a good solution to document. Do you have any inputs?
3. Please tell us where do you find the Wiki suggesting to change `_link` classification mid-way. This is frowned upon worldwide.

@Richard
Purely looking at legal restriction (which of course you may point out is an incomplete view), George St and Magdalen St are `=residential`. Is there any comparison that can be made here?
To note, to general traffic, Des Voeux Rd Central eastbound lanes west of Pedder St is already `=secondary`

@Richard I also see `designation=primary` + `hgv=designated`, when the case here is `motor_vehicle=no` + `bus=private`.

@Richard Would you consider the A420 designation as a necessary factor for `=tertiary`? There's no such network designation here, and they are classified functionally.

@小智智
This is totally incorrect however. `=motorway_link` is decided by the final decision point on diverges. This has been agreed on by several editors in past debates, and secondarily iirc local Apple workers. OSM doesn't attempt differentiate between Motorway area precisely. This is a local addition to use `motorway=no`. HK has the issue of long non-Expressway and non-Tunnel Area roads leading to Expressway and Tunnel Area, for administrative reasons. If you have followed past debates, you will know what's the situation.
I'm highly offended by you reverting my temporary restores, even if they may be wrong in the end, when we are discussing, including your language of "no person in their right mind". You then accuse me of starting an edit war. Isn't this a bit hypocritical?

It should be `motor_vehicle=private` then.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95718709

Same as changeset/95718552. This is agreed as a compromise.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95718630

`=motorway_link` is used together with `motorway=no`

What are you even trying to do here?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95718552

You haven't addressed the classification in the surrounding.

Look, you started an edit war by reverting while discussing, and now you are continuing it.

1. Please notice that `=motorway_link` is used as a compromise on non-Expressway roads leading to Expressway. `motorway=` is used to aid in this representation.
2. Please check usage on `=carriageway` and `access_control=`

2. * also the full name.
2.1 The bus fleet is owned, no? Same as a rolling stock on trains.
2.2 If you would like to express a common abbreviation, that's what I purport `brand=` for tentatively, which also aligns with the scheme of "MTR Bus", "Light Rail", and others under the MTR mass transit network, operated by MTRCL.

1. This is not about "normal routes", but their variety. Have you checked how are they used on trains?
2. I'm talking about language and Wikidata sub-tags.
3. You are arguing about semantics. That's its informal name.
4. How is a stop unverifiable? Are you really saying every one that you removed has no "bus stop" road marking?
5. This is why I'm asking you for. I don't see you discussing this removal, not addition or change in scheme, with anyone else.

And not to mention removing `*:wikidata=`, or the full name of the entities.

Not to mention you deleting other's `=stop_position` without any consultation on transitioning to another PT scheme. The combination of `highway=platform` + `public_transport=platform` with `highway=bus_stop` + `public_transport=stop_position` has also been recommended by eg PTv3. A marked bus stop area on the carriageway, or a bus bay, is clearly physical.