I quote level=*#Multiple_values

> Use a hyphen (-) to specify a range of numbers with no missing values. E.g. the elevator of a 32-storey high-rise with two basement levels will be tagged `level=-2-32`.

Hi there, would `note=level: 2 through 6` be better represented as `level=2-6`?

way/1235498283 ...`=secondary_link`? Why?

Are you sure about the `ele=`? Out-of-copyright maps say otherwise.

Feels like a descriptive name; are you sure?

By the way, do you also know if node/7134763063 node/7134763668 and node/7134763667 exist irl? (Didn't notice them at first as they don't render prominently on carto)

Is it appropriate to use `layer` this way? I quote layer=*

> Ways in buildings (or similar structures like multi-level parking lots, shopping centers, airports, railway stations, some multi-level bridges and roads...) should be mostly described with level=* instead of layer. level=* is used for the physical vertical arrangement of levels (floors, walkways) inside structures. Use level:ref=* for the human readable signage used to identify physical levels (eg elevator buttons, multistory parkade levels).

I take that to mean you should not use `layer=n+1` when there are no `layer=n`.

This is not a criticism or a complaint, just a question purely out of curiosity: how did know this alignment is correct / more correct than the old one?

Underground, you can't use GPS or aerial imagery, and you probably can't even dead reckon because there are no points of reference in a dark tunnel.

1. > The government websites include "Yau Ma Tei" https://www.info.gov.hk/tb_chest/tb-chi/contents/c614_1July2007.htm https://www.dh.gov.hk/english/tele/tele_chc/tele_chc_shcf.html https://www.dh.gov.hk/english/tele/tele_chc/tele_chc_shcm.html

I think we can simply believe in the website. Quoting you from note/3209599, "I don't think you need a survey for this. If the (official!) website contains wrong data then it's entirely their problem and we have no obligation to help them clean it up."

2. Understandable. But then, `=clinic` is an obviously wrong tagging, and with how few people are seemingly interested in this topic, I don't think you can ever find an obvious and uncontested replacement without more attention. Maybe post on the forum?