If that's the case maybe we hold a meeting or such with other contributors in Hong Kong?

@samho1234567 No worries, it's not a personal matter. If we can come to a consensus and adapt accordingly, then what we have done will become examples for others to come.

(by 'editors' I mean people like us)

@Kovoschiz That's what I do for route_masters. For the routes themselves, though, it's preferable to have at least something to distinguish between them, I suppose? I can't expect editors to be so smart, especially when they use tools like iD (okay, maybe that's what you mean by "tagging for editing software"?)

@Kovoschiz Frankly I don't think either of these 2 are the best anyway. What do you think?

@Kovoschiz I only concerned human readability. Editing software probably won't give a damn on either.

When I first edited I also observed Example 2, but eventually I found example 1 slightly easier to manage.

Since some more prominent early contributors (e.g. 小智智) had emigrated, I'd say we could seek a new consensus among ourselves. From your response I believe that we have already reached one ;)

My two cents on this is that, both hkbus fandom and Wikipedia have their own policies, so it might not be the best idea to follow them indiscriminately here.

1. Schedule of Routes gives official definition so if (a) it is written as such and (b) the information still applies today, use it.

2. Some newer changes (e.g. Citybus 79P) need to refer to Transport Department notices.

3. hkbus fandom always splits routes, but they will often include a statement that a route is a special departure of another route, referring to the Schedule of Routes

4. Wikipedia group routes of similar function or historically related into one article. If a route group doesn't have wikidata because of this, leave it blank. The only exception ever I made was KMB 290A, where I simply put wikidata of KMB 290 onto it.

According to Schedule of Routes X89D is an independent route:

https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr2022/chinese/subleg/negative/2022ln118-c.pdf

Just curious, I found the "name" tag of your routes a bit inconsistent. Sometimes you use alternate Chinese / English notations (i.e. Chinese start / English start / Chinese end / English end), other times you use full Chinese and then full English.

Which one do you think is better?

IMHO this should be at least three changes. One for the lone edit in Philippines, one for the Lille and Maubeuge, and one for the two in Lyon

Hi Sam, just for your information, last time I put down stops here I intentionally left out the others because this place is going to be changed greatly soon. Your edit has no problem, but as the reconstruction goes on most of what you have added in this edit will need to be mass-edited again.

While others are often blamed for having their edits spanning across a large area, you seem to be the other extreme. Group edits in the same area in one changeset unless they differ from each other too significantly.

Yet KMB 91, 91M and 92 had the corresponding platform node removed. It is tedious to use iD to recover them so I will leave it to when I can access JOSM later. Sorry for the inconvenience caused.

Hi Sam, I recently added a statement on OSM wiki to recommend addition of route_master even if it's a single-variant route (e.g. circular) (reference: osm.wiki/Hong_Kong/Transport/Public_transport).

Also, it seems the route has the final few stops missing?

Thanks, I didn't notice that the node was not connected to the north side pathway

That said, I still think it weird to see American streets to bear Russian names. Unless there are official documents or signs indicating so, I do think some of those removals can be kept.

I second LockOnGuy's opinion. If they cannot physically exterminate the (in their view) rapists and perpetrators, at least hack their computers or vandal sites that they set up. I am not against destruction, but it should be meaningful.

(Message Wright One: Sorry that this change kind of reverted your previous changeset/135741442, but This section of Canton Road seem to parallel with their surroundings and the space between Grand Austin and the road seems quite large. I actually equated the boundary with the drainage line near the middle of the west side pavement to avoid aligning the roads too easterly. If GPS records actually suggest a more westerly positions, I suspect the park and Grand Austin are both drawn too easterly and re-surveying them is necessary.

Last but not least, stops / platforms *always* go before ways. And for *every* stop / platform pair, the stop comes before the platform.

I know you might want to do ways first because it's hard to add stuff to a relation once the said relation is out of your view, but it's possible.

The trick is, select the element you want to add to the relation first, and then drag or move the map to whatever you have already added the relation. *Then* do the add relation operation.