Why did you removed the non-reclaimed part of runway D island?

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4681

好像是選擇in Taiwan的時候因為廈門邊界連着金門邊界所以一併選擇了。另外，各受影響的路徑這邊也接着修正回去了。

Was Ma On Shan Rail ever described as a branch of East Rail Line? From documents back then https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr04-05/chinese/panels/tp/tp_rdp/papers/tp_rdp1119cb1-215-c.pdf it doesn't seems to be the case, but rather it describe the Hung Hom to Tsim Sha Tsui segment as a branch line.

1. The last .vn link I provided was an example of the problem also exists in Paracel. For situation around Macclesfield Bank please see previously posted links.
2. Whether Philippines/Vietnam have claim or not on some of the island, does not change whether China actually having any control over this sea area. American, Japanese, and European warships operating in South China Sea including in the area Macclesfield Bank, are doing so out of the principle that they see thispatch of sea as international sea water not being controlled by any single countries. I do not see any report of China ever succeeded in enforcing control in the area to get rid of these foreign warships.
3. First, the "natural reserve" being claimed to setup did not display its exactly geographical area and is not clear whether it cover Macclesfield Bank or not or did it only cover Scarborough Shoal, and second drawing a natural reserve zone doesn't mean the state have the capacity to implement it just like any national government drawing any arbitary border for the nation doesn't mean that it would magically become the de facto national border on the ground either.

It would be more appropriate to have a node instead of area if your only purpose is to tag something residential exists at the place you see them on satellite images.

Nevermind Macclesfield Bank. I can even see videos of Vietnamese fisherman fishing normally in Paracel: https://zh.vietnamplus.vn/%E5%B9%BF%E4%B9%89%E7%9C%81%E6%9D%8E%E5%B1%B1%E5%B2%9B%E6%B8%94%E6%B0%91%E5%9D%9A%E6%8C%81%E9%9D%A0%E6%B5%B7%E5%AE%88%E6%B5%B7/157185.vnp , which strongly suggest China do not have control on what claimed to be "territorial sea" of not just Macclesfield Bank but also around Paracel Islands area.

- What are "Islands and Shoals of Zhongsha Islands"? The link you provided describe the name but not its extent. As for "and their sea area", nost common understanding would be 12 nautical mile radius from any shoals or islands above water, which in Zhongsha's case the only matching geographical feature would be Scarborough Shoal?
- I am not aware of Chinese Maritime Police successfully disrupting operation of foreign navy in the Macclesfield Bank area. Mind sharing examples?

Sources I cited reflect the lack of actual on the ground control by China over this sea area. According to what I can tell, ships stationed in Zhongsha Islands are all on more shallow shoals or other features, but they do not cover and are not scattered across the entire wider Macclesfield Bank, and sail by foreign ships/planes across this area also occurs normally. This is why I don't think it constitute actual control by Chinese government.

As for the declaration by Chinese government on sovereignty of SCS Islands including Zhongsha Islands, as well as their associated territorial water, it didn't define Macclesfield Bank as either an island or a rock of the Zhongsha Islands, and I am not aware of any other Chinese government documents makjng such claim, and thus it doesn't make sense to say the claim aplly to the entirety of the Macclesfield Bank.

Let me paraphrase my previous comment: China is not able to enforce effective control over this sea area, nor did they claim to do so, hence bases on OSM's on the groun rule, this area should not be tagged as within Chinese border

用中文再说一遍，基于前述证据，中国没有在这海域实现实效控制，因此基于OSM的实地情况原则，此海域的边界不应该被划为中国国境。更何况中国政府没有宣称过中沙大环礁的海域是中国的领海。

1. How is the two ways not the same? Both of them are tracing the outline of Macclesfield Bank.
2. According to source I cited in my edit, China didn't even have claim on control of Macclesfield Bank, and success of Freedom of Navigation Operation conducted by other countries within this sea area also indicates China do not have de facto control over this sea area.
3. If you want to address me regarding my edits, please directly comment on my edits instead of under your own edits.

The area in itself is a big building (or structure/podium), covering the rail yard at ground floor.
But there seems to be sone other confusion in the tag of the way, since tags like level=5 indicate it was only intended to represent the top level of that building instead of entire building.

1. No, the office is supposed to be "a department directly under Central government command" in order to circumvent basic law article #22 so I don't think it should be tagged as police. I tagged it as military because it is a National Sexurity affair which seems to be similar to National Defense affair. Comparing with situation in Xinjiang where the Maintenance of National Security is equivalent to a civil war against opposition groups
2. The article indicate it's at least half year and they're modifying its interior so I don't think it's going to be transient.

Doplhin reserve is not a problem. There are coordinate of that available. Alsp please avoid citing.dubious source please.

Well, there are many room in the international maritime law left open for interpretation and China simply picked one interpretation that they prefer amd try to base their claim on it.
Now, the question become whether China have the ability and willingness to keep other ships off this area.
How can we tell?
As far as I know, right now, China is enforcing a period of fishing ban to these area, while Vietnam have deemed these rules illegal under their law and motivated their fishermen to fish in these sea area.
So the question is whether there are any Vietnamese ships around the area now and whether China have done anything to keep them away?
According to my understanding there was one Vietnamese fishing ship that get attacked by China on the area bwfore the start of this period, which have reaulted in escalted bilateral tension, but I haven't heard much about the area since then.

Note 3: The question of note 2 also affect way/804352180

Translation to the comment above: "This change might be problematic as the original boundary was drawn according to the territorial sea basepoints announced by the Chinese government, when there are basically no dispute it should drawn according to the original line. The reef toward the south should be drawn separately. Thanks"

Note: Since this reef is a submerged shoal reef, I am pretty sure it is not allowed under international maritime law to use the point to construct territorial sea, and thus it wouldn't make sense to put the reef inside the big relation.

Note 2: That bring up another question: While China can be said as controlling most of the features in the Paracel Islands area, does that automatically mean they have control on the territorial sea being drawn here? Some countries from around the world, including especially the United States, have challenged the claim and have also sailed their ships into this area to counter the straight baseline declared by China.

Please help set the state of those stop nodes back to open.

1. The question is what is "on the ground" on Paracel Islands? While all the island and islets have already been occupied by China, is it the same for other reefs and shoals in this relation? Initially I thought it is no when I made the edit, but after performed more search on the matter I got mixed results. Do you have any more information on this?
2. I have already copied the original name:XX value to name:zh-Hans, which represent Simplified Chinese name.

As for the problem of worldwide changeset, in fact I have already split out name:simple objects in central Europe where there are higher density of name:simple=* objects for another edit which I have yet to make. Unfortunately in the eye of most changeset QA tools the world minus Central Europe is still the entire world. I would pay attention to that if I need to commit similar edits next time.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79726185