Penfold Park is already drawn on the map as an area, so it's not necessary to separately add it as a point.

Hi, this changeset caused several issues with rendering and metadata (you removed the information that indicates that the northbound railway track is on a bridge). Please be more careful with your edits and don't ignore the warnings in iD.

Done.

I've reverted part of this changeset to fix an area which was split into four.

(The bridges are not physically connected at any point, despite being very close together.)

This is indeed drawn incorrectly; this is actually two structures, one built in ~1988 and the other built in 2013 during the widening of Tolo Highway north of Yuen Chau Tsai. The northbound bridge is the newer one.

I have already reported you to the Data Working Group (see the OSM wiki) so that they can decide whether it's necessary to revert and redact your changesets. Sorry for having to approach the issue in this way; it would have been better to avoid this situation entirely.

Hi, why are you using the Government's map tiles? To the best of my knowledge all of the government's maps since at least 1968 are still copyrighted, so OSM contributors should not be using them due to the data being incompatible with the Open Database License.

Previously (about two years ago) there were station nodes tagged with public_transport=station + railway=tram_stop, but another editor deleted those.

I assumed it wasn't necessary because the stops were already tagged with railway=tram_stop. Typically tram stops do not need to be additionally attached to a railway=station or railway=halt, right?

Unless the validator does not like railway=station/public_transport=station on ways; in that case I would move the tags from the station building to a new public_transport=station node (and so on).

* "remove any railway=station without labels": this is incorrect; for Siu Hong station specifically I would re-add railway=station and public_transport=station to the station building, and remove the node without any name tags from the commuter rail station's relation.

Presumably the validator will still be fine with this, since it should only check the public_transport=* tags?

Okay. In that case, I would remove railway=station from the Light Rail public_transport=station nodes, re-add railway=station to the MTR West Rail Line stations, and remove any railway=station without labels. I would probably do the same for tram networks in other cities.

(As noted, if the software really wants a public_transport=station, it probably shouldn't be rendered since the stop positions already have labels.)

I haven't really edited for a while, but I would have one node/way for the commuter rail station (Siu Hong station) and follow whatever the tagging convention is supposed to be for the light rail station (Siu Hong stop). I think it would probably be four nodes with both railway=tram_stop and public_transport=stop_position if the station is classified as a tram stop (for platforms 1–2 and 5–6, since the other two are not in service). This is my guess, though, and I'm not totally sure if this would be correct. What would the validator software say if you did this?

I don't think it's supposed to be used at the same time as railway=halt or railway=station, though.

I am still not sure why you removed the railway=station tag from the Siu Hong station building and added a railway=station node with no name tags, though. It was presumably fine before; or is that usage incorrect?

What did you have to "assign as such"?

I'm not sure if this is a translation issue, but outside Europe a "light rail" is usually a medium-capacity tram system. This is partly why I chose to use railway=tram_stop (there is no such thing as a railway=light_rail_stop, to my knowledge); it seems to be used in a very similar manner in e.g. Paris. If changing it to tram=yes would be more accurate (I think this would be technically appropriate, since light_rail=yes refers to S-Bahns in Europe) then I would be fine with that, although a wider discussion than on this changeset would be necessary.

If public_transport=station is necessary for the validator to stop complaining, I am not opposed to adding it to the stop area relations; however, I think railway=station would be inaccurate, and on the osm.org map it's visually confusing because the tram_stops are already rendered.

Hi, note that you seem to have introduced a lot of rendering issues with these changesets (for example, there are now a lot of superfluous railway=station nodes, and this changeset removed the station label for the mainline Siu Hong station). Tram stops should not need railway=station or railway=halt, to my knowledge, although I might be wrong.