Can you stop deleting things you don't understand? Is this only temporary or phased? If it will be dualed in the future, it should be kept.

You have obviously misunderstood this. They have been `=construction` from start. It's extending the road to 3rd Runway area.

Why are they deleted? If they are still reserved, they should be changed to `proposed:highway=` , not deleted.

Please don't change entire buildings. It doesn't occupy all of it.

Please don't upload personal test data to a live public prod database. This is vandalism.

2. Not disallowed, only the functionality
3. Signage would be an additional criteria, but not required/necessary. You have to consider the simplicity of signage, and encouraging you to use NCWBR, but that only means NCWBR should be `=primary` , not bypassed CWBR can't be `=secondary` . Eg airport is signposted via Tsing Sha Hwy in Shatin, but majority or at least significant minority would use Shing Mun Tunnels, and I would argue this should be considered in classifying Tsing Yi N Coastal Rd — Tsing Tsuen Rd (besides how it connects with Route 5).

Please don't do mass undiscussed changes of `old_name*=` to `name=` and other `*_name=`

Please don't add historical names with no relevance in existing public use as `name=` in OSM. Add them to OpenHistoricalMap.

This might have been discussed before. The NE section connects Kam Tin Rd and Kam Seung Rd, sorta forming a ring road around the airport. SW section connects Kam Tin S with them. It's rather discussed whether Kam Ho Rd should be promoted to `=secondary`

1. I'm talking about northbound which is bypassed by `=primary` Hill Rd Flyover. Seems a close comparison.
2. You keep discussing CPBR only, but is it really comparable? For reference only, the bypassed CWBR is officially a District Distributor, and actually has an AADT of a similar magnitude with NCWBR between Lee On Rd and Shun Lee Tsuen Rd, higher than the latter and Sau Mau Ping Rd. https://atc.td.gov.hk/aadt/3019 https://atc.td.gov.hk/pdf/2018/S3019.pdf
3. I'm only saying they should be considered a set of related junctions, only split up into different intersections and traffic lights from the terrain constraint. So this shouldn't be penalized.
4. As I said, I'm mostly asking about light vehicles, and only downhill for heavy vehicles.
5. If it does "support cross-district traffic", why shouldn't it be `=secondary` ?
6. It's significant and important on a district level. I don't see how it's absolutely "inaccurate".

1. That's a relative perspective. This corridor is not flat, therefore the roads will not be flat. As I said, I was talking about mostly light vehicles, and heavy vehicles downhill.
2. The junction spacing between Fung Shing St and Jat's Incline is not bad for a more urban region. Good Hope School is only a mid-block crosswalk. Fei Ngo Shan Rd might be seen as constrained by terrain only, and actually related to Clear Water Bay Rd. Junction spacing itself isn't decisive, as they could be coordinated, so the intersecting roads need to be compared as well.
3. Still need to consider in context, and compare with the surroundings. It's quite different from eg Lee On Rd — Shun On Rd, and Choi Hing Rd — Choi Ha Rd. It's not very highly localized traffic only.
4. This only justifies NCWBR being `=primary` and more important than CWBR. It doesn't explain why the latter should be `=tertiary` rather than `=secondary` , demoting 1 more tier.
Cf Pok Fu Lam Rd?

Cf Kam Tin. Bypassed Rd only demoted 1 tier.

This is obviously not the same. Light vehicles still use it. Heavy vehicles can use it downhill.

Please don't directly delete them, as they still represent a store space, and may contain addresses. It makes tracking and updating them later more difficult, wasting effort to locate them. Change them to a plain "point", or "vacant".

Please don't delete `area:highway=`

0. Please don't use such comments. It should be descriptive and self-contained.
1. Please be careful when panning. There's a dragged point here. Junctions, bridges, roads, geodetic control stations shouldn't not be intersected and attached to each other as they are separate.
2. Please don't use such `name=` , which is for proper names only. At most add `fixme=` and `note=` only. You can right-click to "add a note here" to let others edit if you don't know what to use.

Please be careful when panning. There's a dragged point here.

`=motorway_junction` is for numbered exits. This should be eg `=milestone`

Revert /changeset/168108953 HK roads: Unsubstantiated, malformated

changeset/168120340

1. Please don't mix `name=` into `ref=` . It should be `ref=G94` only. The `name=` is stored in the `route=road` separately.
2. HK doesn't signpost G94. It shouldn't be in `ref=` , only other `*_ref=` at most. But G94 is signposted to end at the border.
3. I can't verify your naming
Please don't upload your personal data if that's the case relation/2218591