> See "Big Three of Shatin" (Tai Wai, Sha Tin and Fo Tan) all only has `highway=tertiary` to connect to them.

Which roads specifically are you talking about?

> CPR (Ko Po - Ngau Tam Mei) tends to use Yuen Long Station instead. (See KMB 76K, and the many minibus routes.)

I think public transport go to Yuen Long only because it's a major town whereas KSR station is basically in the middle of nowhere. As for private cars, Yuen Long does not have park and ride facilities, does it? And even if it does, it would probably still be less attractive due to the congestion in Yuen Long and the higher parking fees from a busier location.

And even if CPR does indeed prefer Yuen Long, Kam Tin and Pat Heung still have enough population to justify a `=secondary`. Pat Heung Road doesn't serve CPR nor Kam TIn (due to the Kam Tin ramp on Route 3), but it's still `=secondary`.

> Northern Link (construction is starting) is reducing importance of KSR station in terms of actual passenger in-out count via KSR station; would go in/out at Northern Link stations instead.

I don't understand this sentence at all. How does Northern Link (transfer passengers) affect in-out count? The only station whose in-out count might be affected would probably be Yuen Long due to the B1, 64K, etc. Or are you saying that fewer people would drive from CPR to KSR because they could have taken the train instead? But didn't you just say that CPR is going to Yuen Long?

> afaik in rural context, `highway=secondary` must have some sort of cross-district capability (e.g. Kam Tin Road, etc.). I don't see Kam Ho Road has this.

Given the PTI and park & ride at KSR, it's pretty clear that cross-modal transfer is encouraged and/or popular. Then, the West Rail can simply be seen as an alternative to Route 3, being cross-district. When Tung Wui Road and Kam Ho Road are the only ways to access KSR Station, they can be seen as an extension of the West Rail, which is cross-district, making Tung Wui Road and Kam Ho Roads themselves cross-district. This is practically quite similar to the "no change in highway classification without junction" rule: when you consider the rather remote location of KSR station, most people (except perhaps the residents of the new developments) using it are probably continuing their journey (using Tung Wui or Kam Ho roads) anyway, so the cross-districtness of the West Rail can be inherited to the roads.

Why would you do this when node/13167199104 exists?

> Actually, upon further review, it turns out Kam Ho Road also has share_taxi=no.

But that only means Kam Ho Road and Tung Wui Road should get the same classification, and does not imply anything about what the classification is, right? After all, the whole point of this discussion initially was to decide whether Tung Wui Road is `=secondary` or `=tertiary`.

Imho just the fact that Kam Ho Road and Tung Wui Road provides access to Kam Sheung Road Station should be enough to justify `=secondary`. KSR station (alongside with the bus terminus and park & ride) basically gives indirect railway access to the entire Kam Tin/Pat Heung plain, and perhaps the villages along CPR-Tam Mi too. It's similar to how Pat Heung Road gets `=secondary`, presumably due to the connection with Tai Lam Tunnel.

See changeset/173042199

Hi there, the Kam Ho Road widening is largely complete, so you might be interested in revisiting this.

Note: I am aware that this changeset broke multiple bus relations. This will be fixed soon in the part 2 changeset, which I expect to upload no later than tomorrow noon. Other mappers can also fix it before I do should they want to.

Sorry if my initial comment is not clear enough. My concern is that the quoted relation only has a "via" node with no "to" and "from", so it's incomprehensible.

I suppose you mean that the RCP can be accessed by turning right from the entrance, and that's the only legally allowed turn from way/1410120494 ? In that case, how about mapping the "back door" with `access=private` way and `barrier=gate` node and map the way as the "to" of the turn restriction?

See changeset/172855842

Hi there, what is the purpose of relation/19294540 ?

Do you think it will be better to keep the old nodes, only changing them to entrances, both to "keep the history" and to explicitly state that there are two entrances?

Are the old paths really demolished? Afaik it's only the direction of oneway that has been changed. Would it be better to simply replace the geometry to "keep the history"?

Would also suggest cleaning up https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2crR

Is this actually a name, instead of, say, description?

Is the peak really there? Out of copyright maps seem to say otherwise.

Afaik, `name` is the current commonly used name. Being commonly used has nothing to do with using standard romanisation. As long as "Dit Sei Kau" is the popular English name, even if it is caused by an error or a typo, it should still be used.

Languages (including vocabularies and proper nouns) can (and do) change, and in this case your edit in 2019 was influential enough to modify the actual name. If you wanted to revert it to "Tit", you should have done so before "Dit" became the popular name. But now it's too late, and the change should be respected.

"I believe many online reference simply copied the name from OSM without reasoning." Then it still doesn't explain why no one used "Tit Sei Kau".

Since all current uses are "Dit Sei Kau", one of four things is true:

1. This peak has no English name, and "Dit Sei Kau" is not widely accepted. In that case, `name:en` is not necessary.
2. This peak has an English name of "Tit Sei Kau". If this is the case, please give some evidence of its uses (from someone other than you), since I can't find any on the internet.
3. This peak has an English name of "Dit Sei Kau", both before and after your edit in 2019. Then, this changeset is wrong.
4. This peak has an English name of "Tit Sei Kau" before 2019, but your edit changed the general public's consensus and made people use "Dit Sei Kau" instead. Then, use the new name, as `name` is meant for the commonly used name, not the "correct" or "original" name. Remember that words are an artificial construction, and all names were made up.

Yes, I know that the government romanisation uses "Tit" for 跌. The question is whether the commonly used English name is the same as the government romanisation. Based on internet searches, almost all instances use "Dit" and not "Tit". The only use of "Tit Sei Kau" I can find is https://www.flickr.com/photos/minghong/albums/72157622473602534/. (and that post was made by "minghong"... is that you?)

Are you sure? Names don't necessarily follow the government romanisation, and based on online information, Dit Sei Kau seems more common than Tit Sei Kau.

Please be careful when panning; there are multiple dragged points. Also, why is way/296724850 deleted?

It appears that this changeset re-adds vandalism?