The `place=` node/7229326838 may also need to be corrected.

Why are you citing the Government or Google? I didn't see you responding in changeset/111486111 .
If this is the case, you should still keep both in the opposite of the tagging here. If possible, add a `traffic_sign=` showing the `name=`.

That's not how it works though. You can't put it on a `type=building`. Even if you can use a `type=site` to collect all related objects, there still needs to be an area object for it first.

Please don't directly add features not even in construction

It‘s clearly not an `attraction=amusement_ride`

What's the purpose of this? Those should be the excluded areas in the country park.

What is `layer=1`? `layer=0` is not needed here.

These two are the more well-known holding companies of this one front company, like a joint venture. Both are publicized and presented.

Do you know where's A Kung Ngam? Please don't "fix" correct names. Put other romanization elsewhere.

This is referring to the `landuse=education`, not the `amenity=university`

Please don't directly add features being built.

Ok let's discussed here.
First of all, you need to notice that not all "overlapping" towers-on-podium `building=` are highly structurally dependent (although I'm not familiar with this), eg using a transfer plate to transfer the load of the tower to the base's columns. Many towers have columns extending to and directly supported on the ground. Many structures are also simply linked together, but are separate. Here, at least the 2 hotels look more separate (there are some geometry or alignment issues relative to the deck extending over the road).
The page started by " Note that building:part=* are optional areas used in addition to a building=* area. building:part=* areas should be always within a separate building=* area representing the entire building. ". By this factor, the towers are not "optional" to podium structure, but significant and considered independent buildings on their own.
If this to be a `building:part=`, then you still to harmonize the entire thing:
1. Change to or create a `building:part=` for the base.
2. Make a `building=` for the outline, with correct attributes.
3. Correct `building:levels=` and `building:min_level=` accordingly

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/2155520548 created in https://osmcha.org/changesets/15035529/ was transferred to a normal one on https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/260760232 .

This looks like a mistake in the first place. There's not going to be any park-and-ride here, or at least so far away.

1. This is the strange local situation. A lot of old sections require dismount at crossings on a cycle track, so this is the reality. Alternatively, I can use `=path`.
2. I wanted to keep it as a `=cycleway`, since this is what is is. I read there are controversies with `bicycle=dismount`. I also prefer using `*:conditional=`, for these use values.
3. Yes, the marked "median" for pedestrians can be quite long, so I decided it's more of a lane.

Is this not a real `building:part=`?

This was discussed in changeset/110835972, and raised in a separate case with your team in changeset/111223568

This is debatable. They are considered separate towers on the podiums. Should be `building=` + `building:min_level=`.

The `=station` is already at way/248775630, so you need to reconcile them together.

Please move the corner and `barrier=kerb` to the correct position instead of merging them. The sidewalk doesn't pass through the kerb.