The validator has been told to shut up via changeset/163674665 .

Someone should probably go there irl to confirm things, I can see this part of the map is very messy in terms of the footpath shapes. Mainly my concern is about the "paths" that goes into the buildings; might actually be access=private due to being inside the lobby of the building (not for through foot traffic), and then it might not be 100% suitable to include them on OSM.

I may have indirectly caused these issue(s); these are cleaned up via changeset/163674517 .

To philosophically add to Kovoschiz's point, if the warning system could automatically fix warnings (i.e. blindly accepting the fix proposals) and the fixes were correct, then we all would not even need to be here.

We OSM mappers are needed because warning systems don't know what's actually happening irl. It is only us that can like go there and have a look. Warning systems at most are assistants that point out problems, not executives that actually knows what's up.

If you are trying to handle "feature intersect with feature" warnings, then perhaps there's another way of doing it.

Hi there, it seems this changeset has modified the section of Tung Chung Line near Nam Cheong. Why is "bridge=yes" added when the tracks are built on the ground?

Note that "covered:by=bridge" is descriptive mapping and I support it. But just don't add "covered=yes" just because the driver cannot see the overhead sun.

If following consequential mapping principles, then multi-stacked highway interchanges will have many useless "covered=yes" segments that does nothing but to indicate "the driver cannot see the overhead sun here", which is useless and nonsensical. Like, you can just analyze the map and then realize, some other bridge is crossing over the road but at a higher layer, and so this segment very likely cannot see the overhead sun. It should be like that. Empower the tools.

Also another angle:

See note note/4588210 for another very likely case of "consequential mapping".

Another angle:

Some turn restrictions on OSM are actually wrong, with same principle: they are consequential. Some irl turn restriction signs are a reminder that, due to the destination road having special restrictions (e.g. wholly bus lane), it is as if there was actually a turn restriction that prohibits e.g. turning left. This is "consequential", and should not result in a creation of a turn restriction relation; instead, map the destination path as "with special restrictions" and let the routers figure out the rest.

To clarify, what I mean by "consequential" is that, the cover doesn't actually belong to the road. In this case, the cover is "caused" by another road going over it, so the underside road should never get "covered=yes".

I generally do not see "bridge parts" as useful data. That belongs to the topic "micro mapping" and it makes future "minor" edits more difficult to manage because suddenly I would be touching 10 other items that I never intended to touch.

"covered=yes" is reasonable in the following cases:
- full-cover sound barriers
- slope protection covers
- building "covers" that are pre-planned (!!!) such as Kwai Hing BT under a cover, upon which New Kwai Hing Gardens is built
- and perhaps more

Resolved via changeset/161194537

My apologies. It was a careless mistake while figuring out why the crossing was "partially tagged".

To add onto {2}, usually when there is a "plot merger" such as in this case, the addr:house_number will remain null and unknown until the construction is "almost finished (TM)" and the relevant whatever gov-dept announces "thy number is XXX", and then we will write that into the data. Right now since there is not even a foundation laid irl, there is nothing for us mappers to do.

Re

{1}
The government doesn't understand what is a permalink, but see this FB post: https://www.facebook.com/gakeicom/posts/2936533403285783/?locale=zh_HK
The new layout (while lacking details) can be seen as significantly different from any of the old/interim layouts. This warrants a cleanup since those old paths are no longer there irl. It seems likely the new terminus will be a sawtooth one (as per planning preference), but whatever, by the time it needs to happen, someone will draw them.

{2}
I can add back the 485-487 number, but I really don't think the new building(s) will have exactly 485-487 (think: the old bus terminus is probably 483, right?)

{3}
While OSM aims to capture "the essence", at least I think OSM should also capture "the form", especially when it comes to multi-phase constructions. You notice I actually drew 2 construction yards; presumably, you can move them around to suit the updated irl situation, such that one of them will be for the High Block, another for the Low Block. People will be confused when the map says they have to enter a construction yard when in fact the yard is separated by a road. Again, it do be like that irl, and all maps should at minimum capture the irl factor to be called a proper map.

Not sure why you would make this changeset, but data is data; routing problems should be fixed on routing program side, but not by editing OSM data "just because".

One thing I do notice is how the iD editor cannot easily allow us to change the order of bus route contents, which according to the wiki is important.

I do have JOSM, but then I was not aware that iD editor could break bus relations.

This seems like something that should be bug-reported.

You know what, given the complexity of this irl road change, I might as well redo the changeset. I think I can redo the changeset in another style.

I can fix this up a few days later by reviewing the other nearby features. I was kinda worried about this changeset that I am avoiding non-flat calibration. (EG avoiding Chi Fu Fa Yuen.) And then if I go for a throughout review, the changeset size could be huge; you may see how I have made several 100-item changesets already just for calibration.

It is especially annoying when the buildings are also misaligned because sometimes there are a lot of other "dependent" features drawn on top of the misaligned buildings. To limit the changeset size I sometimes just pretend the other parts are correct, and then smoothen the curves near the start and the end, to make it less obvious.

But still I am noticing and learning to center on the road median, that you can be assured.

But wait, it seems iD editor has a measurement tool? I swear iD editor has too many features that are not obvious.

It kinda feel like Phase 2 was an afterthought when planning the buildings, so I am really not sure how to approach this. Kinda like "oh we need something extra, then here are some proper shopping malls", and name those Phase 2.

My guess to mapping these, is to create a relation of areas and give that relation shop=mall, but not sure how it would appear on the map.