Please notice that this is already added in `tunnel:name=` . `name=` is used for the common name. so I decided not to use this here, as it is a short and minor tunnel. For a different reason, Shing Mun Tunnels and Lion Rock Tunnel don't use the individual section and bore names.

My intention for the `name=` of `public_transport=stop_position` is to reflect the name in the direction, similar to `=stop` in other modes. So it should use "Central" , not the exact pier. That's reflected in the `=pier` , similar to `=platform` .

Please don't remove `highway=crossing` when the `=service` is not flat, and there are crossing facilities for it.

Please don't use `=wastewater_plant` for `=pumping_station` . That's for sewage treatment only.

Please don't detach `highway=pedestrian` from roads.

Please don't delete casually. You broke a `enforcement=traffic_signals` here.

Should it not be `building=service` ?

3. You have duplicated Nai Chung here. This has no effect.

1. `=isolated_dwelling` is only for a independent settlement (as in village) with 1 or 2 households. This meets neither criteria.
2. Again, the standard for housing estates in HK is to use `landuse=` . Please don't use `place=`.

38e. "The alignment of Nin Fung Road extension through the knoll would impact these
fung shui sites and the villagers’ customs and traditions" https://www.tpb.gov.hk/en/meetings/TPB/Minutes/m1249tpb_e1.pdf#page=54

36a. "Nin Fung Road would be
extended to connect the proposed new access road which would be the
access for Sites A and B1." https://www.tpb.gov.hk/en/meetings/TPB/Minutes/m1249tpb_e2.pdf#page=40

1.4.2. "Resumption of some private lands within Village Environ Boundary (VEB) might be
required to extend the Nin Fung Road for traffic connection to Site 1. " p.2 https://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/ava_register/ProjInfo/AVRG159_ExpReport.pdf#page=6

note/new

Please don't create a new point with nothing other than `fixme=` . Add the `fixme=` to other features, or use osm.org/notes visibly.

Stop accusing others of things like "obsession and imagination". I already explained to you why the project description didn't say extension. By your logic, no other roads should be named until gazetted and opened. This obviously runs counter to how `=construction` is used.

1. Are you aware I'm not the one who has used `highway=construction` ?
2. Then you should be the one who change it `proposed:highway=` . That's irrelevant to you wrongly removing `name=` , `lanes=`, and `sidewalk=` .

2. Please don't use `=dismount` . Aside from the fact there is no difference with `=no` on roads, `=yes` on routes mean they are allowed to be brought on them. `motor_vehicle=yes` certainly doesn't you can drive on a car ferry.

Why are you deleting all of them??? That's what the lines should be enhanced to.

Please don't add `=traffic_signals` to the point of intersection when it is already added to the stopping line. This is duplicated.

Please don't remove other valid names. Move them to `*_name=` as seen here.

How did you tell whether some of them are single? Regardless of that, and whether it is is preferred, you didn't replace them with `natural=tree` , and is thus removing data.
You broke a large `=multipolygon` here, and also deleted a `=bare_rock` later .

Please stop changing `=uncontrolled` to `=unmarked` when there is already `crossing:markings=no`