It is not without controversy. You can read the aftermath of some strong words. osm.wiki/Talk:Highway_link#Y_Junctions_should_NOT_be_classified_as_links
Fung Mo St has a u-turn. Then `_link`=* shows it diverges into 2. But Ching Tak St doesn't.
Would you do the same if it connects to Lung Cheung Rd at 90 degrees? What is the reason for the difference? Determining purely based on whether it curves is not consistent and useful.
Another comparison can be made at roundabouts. You won't change the eastern end of Fung Tak Rd to `=secondary_link` simply because it splits at the end, would you?
This can be compared with divided roads. Hypothetically if Shatin Pass Rd is only channelized by an island near the Fung Tak Rd junction, suddenly it has to be considered as a `=secondary_link` , despite having no other significant difference with reality.

2. `=drain` is for useless water. Piped and reservoir transfer water are clearly not that.

Please check that `=canal` includes water conveyance. It is not the usual meaning of canals for ships only.

Please don't change a `=mini_roundabout` point to ` =roundabout` line.

I don't agree with this style. Is it merely because of the shape? For a simple straight central island, you would keep it the same. Think about a two-way road intersecting a one-way road. This isn't done for roundabouts either.
Or why not make the `*_link` all the way through the next junction?

Please don't remove the lines. Both points and lines are valid. There's no good solution yet.

Please stop doing meaningless changes. The info is already available in some form.

Again, please don't draw pencil tip intersections. This is already easier because of the one-way single carriageway. Simply connect the straight direction directly, and connect the opposite direction separately to the road to make a box like everywhere else.

Please don't upload test edits to a live public database. This is considered vandalism. If you want to "test", add valid new data.

Can you please explain what you are trying to do?

Please don't delete something that still exists.

It can be changed to `tactile_paving=yes` . This is acceptable detailing. Only the `=footway` is wrong. And this is `=pedestrian` (+ `sidewalk=no`) , not `=service`. (`service=emergency_access` should only be used for roads entirely dedicated to contingency use without dominant pedestrians use, while this is more for walking along the building)

Please don't change towers on podiums from `building=` to `building:part=` . This is not the common practice locally, and is debatable as to their definition.

`*:housenumber=` is used for the street number, not building number. They are all 7 as the estate here.
Secondarily, `addr:*=` is for some form of address. These block numbers are not used, when they have names.

If the eatery occupies the entire area, and the area has no other identity or info of its own, having `amenity=` on the area is correct. Especially as they should be `indoor=area` which should have another feature or feature-attribute tag to describe it, not `=room`.

The deletion is for this project only. It is only deferred, not cancelled.

1. There is still a left turn from Ma Sik Rd though?
2. Please keep the road section which will be reinstated after completion.

Please don't use `_link`=* when they connect to different classes of roads. Eg Oi King St is not `=primary`.

!. While separate `addr:housenumber=` points is more detailed, you can still keep the main address used on the area. This aligns with the common practice in HK.
2. Please don't delete `shop=` / `amenity=` points as they still represent a shop space. Moreover, some have an address, especially they can have individual numbers in a range of address. You can remove the feature tags (by changing to a plain "point"), or modify them to be `was:shop=` / `was:amenity=` etc.

0. Please split your uploads.
1. Please don't directly add not yet opened features. Don't add `railway=` to `roller_coaster=track` .
2,3. The roofs are not yet removed.