I went there again, and yes I saw it wrongly. Those are supporting structural walls, not pillars.

This may suggest `tunnel=yes` but consider these tracks are actually at ground level (observe from Shek Kok Road), and one may see sunlight while riding TKL at this location. Doesn't make full sense to get `tunnel=yes` (eg contrast Yau Tong Station where sunlight does not exist).

Might we do `covered=yes`?

The tracks can see supporting pillars. Wan Po Road looks like `=bridge` to me.

I can extrapolate the discussion to cover "integrated bridges" e.g. Tai Chung Road in Tsuen Wan currently mapped as "at surface" but is technically a large bridge over a covered ditch.

Hi there, do you have more information about 多廟徑?

afaik OSM really strongly discourages using `=institutional` because it does not distinguish between e.g. "government", "medical", "education", "ngo" and a whole lot of other categories.

My goal on OSM is to provide/handle updates quick enough with reasonable correctness. Sometimes I choose not to ask when I expect the change to be simple / small, e.g. this case.

I do admit I was thinking quickly here and then selected the crematorium preset on the iD editor.

Improved with changeset/171031532

It turns out we don't even seem to have `landuse=amenity` in OSM.

The original changeset was to update on the `landuse=construction` tag. I guess we do need to remove the `landuse` area altogether.

I have a feeling the chief OSM schema guys mostly live in places where burial is done in the traditional sense of "graveyard" and have no concept of "a building for holding ashes".

I currently view `landuse=cemetery` to be "a land that is used to hold/bury dead bodies". This would work alongside e.g `landuse=residential` to be "a land that contains houses/homes for people to live in" without needing to specify the exact format of homes/houses.

But still, one thing to note: the distance between the tunnel openings on both sides really are different. I think there should be some unusual shapes here.

I also need to apologize here. Others e.g. Kovoschiz might already know it, but I tend to think/write/type directly, which I think has the tendency of scaring off people. Please don't be too scared 🥲.

Tbh I don't quite get the optimal usage of changeset comments. The thing is that the changeset author will be notified of new comments. I just take new comments as something I should respond. Maybe I got the entire feature wrong.

Regarding the sudden curve, I took a look at the ESRI imagery again, and again, you are right: the east side also is misaligned. Indeed, my intention was to "finish the changeset asap" and the curve is what I decided to do because I thought the east side was correct. But it was/is not. I have made a decision based on wrong info.

Thank you for pointing this out! I will write down a todo in the map so that me or others can improve this area in the future. I do spend less time on OSM nowadays compared to some time ago so some of my changesets perhaps is not the best.

Hi there!

Re aerial imagery source. It should be a community consensus to use the ESRI aerial imagery (not "ESRI Clarity beta"!) since it is often the latest (I think now is July 2025), and it is OK-ish clear to correctly see the features. This changeset was made with this ESRI imagery.

Re altitude distortion. Yes, your view is correct, and I also know about this.

Re quoted dubious calibration. Yes, it was also made by me (woah).

My objective in this changeset is to look at the imagery and describe the latest observed "new roads" from imagery. However, doing so requires alignment with satellite imagery, which existing roads do not align well. Some creative work is done to balance between aligning with satellite imagery and retaining reasonable curves with existing data.

Ultimately, if we really need actual GPS tools to correctly provide the coordinates (tools which I do not have), then I believe we may be requiring too much a barrier for OSM editing. And, as much as Sisyphus is concerned, GPS coordinates can self-drift by itself, and imagery can also self-drift by itself, so requiring absolute accuracy is too nihilistic.

IMO, a bigger context is that, there is a guideline that discourages using Bing imagery (see osm.wiki/Hong_Kong#%E7%8F%BE%E6%99%82%E8%A6%86%E8%93%8B%E7%8E%87_Current_coverage ), and when I see the roads distorting too much from imagery, I cannot help but think "perhaps this was first made with Bing", and then go edit them. There is a real chance the initial shape is just too bad, and my improvements are legitimate.

But for real, if you think the changeset was too bad, you can go improve upon it. Chances are I won't notice subsequent edits, and there will be no edit wars.

Re `=use_sidepath`, that is my negligence, and I will review it again.

Re `access=customers`, respectably disagree. imo `access=customers` implies there is some sort of (human) guard that prevents you from getting into the area (e.g. Shing Mun Tunnel BBI, the exit to Shing Mun Road is there but is guarded). Shing Mun Tunnel BBI should use `access=customers`, I agree with that. But here, and at several other BBIs, outsiders cannot enter the area not because there are any (human) guards, but because it is simply physically impossible to do so. There are no guards.

The network really is free-hanging, as correctly warned by the iD editor. Having `access=customers` here would then be an unusual kind of "consequential mapping", and should not be done.

I see no problems here.

Merge conflict with changeset/170379585 ; changeset/170379585 was used.

Review may be needed.

Hi all!

Lai Tak Tsuen is a HKHS property. HK-gov naming rules may not automatically apply here. We need to hold our horses and be careful.

However, this being a HKHS property makes `access=private` very believable, despite Kovoschiz's belief.

It seems this changeset caused some parts of Tsing Sha Highway to become `highway=motorway_link`, which seems like a mistake.

As of writing these mistakes should be mostly fixed.

Reverted via changeset/169116643

Re Shing Mun Tunnel & Airport, other than it being the Old Road, I see this is only because SMT is only $5 and TSH is $8, and this usage pattern will most likely go away when $5 -> $8. (They say both side mileage is similar but TSH is friendlier on engine wear.)

Back to here, when I really think about it, I think you are right. If I am not mistaken from the AADT stats, it seems about 33% of relevant traffic actually goes through the Old Road.

To reiterate, I have no idea why the ratio is this high, and I really feel this should be `=tertiary`, but looking back at OSM principles, I should just take this as "the locals do be like that" and restore the Old Road to be `=secondary`.

Hi there! To denote a path in construction, simply change `highway=???` to a `highway=construction` and a `construction=???`.

You may use `note=?` to further describe what is going on.

To be fair, this is my first time knowing about AADT, so I don't know how to respond to this.

It seems strange heavy vehicles are disallowed to go uphill but are allowed downhill.

From the many available bus videos passing by at the lower end, I can repeatedly see the signage to be something like this:
"Go forward for Sai Kung"
"Go left for Fei Ngo Shan"
No "alternative routes" specified for Sai Kung, which would otherwise justify `=secondary`. (I think Kam Tin Bypass has a "alternative route to Kam Tin" somewhere...)

It really seems like the Old Road is not supposed to handle cross-district traffic. It actually being physically capable of doing so seems like a coincidence, so it really cannot be `=secondary`.

Again, this feels like a local road that is extra long and open on both ends.

How do you think about these?

I also vaguely remember there might be relevant discussions before.

With this section of road having `share_taxi=no`, perhaps the ring outside the airport is not intended. (iirc this road was made just to connect to the newly opened railway station, and is therefore quite local).

But we can revisit this when Kam Ho Road widening is complete.