Please don't connect areas along roads

Please don't connect areas along roads

Also `place=` areas are unverifiable.

This is demolished in history.

You can delete the tags, without deleting the point to represent the empty shop.

(temporary solution for long section; tentative solution for short sections)

I have used `carriageway=transition` as a temporary solution for sections of "wrongly" separated single roadways as well, but it's best to make a single line.

There's no post code here. PRC assigns 999077 only for them internally. The validity and origin of 00852 has been commonly doubted

It's not encouraged to remove `phone=` and `email=` for compatability reasons.

It's also better to apply the higher rank address elements to the largest area, viz the estates way/700770822/ and way/25637794/history. Only `addr:street:*=` + `addr:housenumber=` is needed to describe each buildings, if they have different `addr:housenumber=`.

You need to check whether the address matches the format. There's also no need to to add HK, NT, and Yuen Long District, which are already described by `boundary=` `relation`s.
Only
```
addr:town:en=Tin Shui Wai
addr:town:zh=天水圍
addr:town=天水圍 Tin Shui Wai
```
is needed for accuracy (personally I use `addr:town=`, instead of `addr:city=` to be consistent), on top of `addr:city=`

To me, `proposed:*`=* is better for unphysical features, similar to `demolished:*=` et al, unlike `=construction`.

Need to know what kind of construction works, as in whether this section will be permanently closed. OSM doesn't record "temporary" (eg <3 months) events directly.

Aside from `=permit` not `=permissive`, you need to check if non-goods vehicles are allowed there.

The correct value is `=permit`, not `=permissive`
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95873217

Are you serious incapable of differentiating node/391725397 and https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/7196472862?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95751049

As another example, you haven't responded on changeset/93761856.
This is formed from for instance changeset/86356680

Concurrent: changeset/95718255
Example related changeset discussion: changeset/86417366
Before I forget. I must also point out you have non-descriptive changeset comments on the changes in changesets related to this.

Are you going to map take every "except with permit" literally as `=permit` too?

1. Do you know you can map the actual `=traffic_sign`?
2. I'm talking about actual usage. Some signs deliberately missed the "except with permit" plate, when it actually means `=private`.