Might be too late to type this, but some "rest areas" might be "misunderstood tagging" and should be normal parks instead.

Afaik the whole "footbridges in Tsuen Wan" network itself *is* a construction project that the district council pushed for in the past decade. imo it deserves a relation of some sort.

This is not a complaint, but more like a thinking exercise / commentary.

Usually, explicitly adding `bicycle=yes` should mean "there is irl signage that explicitly permits bikes", which afaik HK does not have. However, perhaps there are pathfinders/routers that defaults `highway=trunk` to be `bicycle=no`, which necessitates this unusual mapping.

Oh, and, as per note/5070064 , we still need someone to go look at how the building is like because it's covered in scaffolding, but for now I am quite hopeful ref=H is entirely unaffected.

@Chief

imo don't mark ref=H (the surviving building) as `abandoned=no`.

The situation: ref=H is evacuated, together with ref=A through ref=G. No one is inside ref=H other than perhaps gov staff.

The problem:

With the evac in place, it feels like ref=H should get `disused=no` instead of `abandoned=no`. However, because ref=H is healthy, we locally expect the ref=H evac to be temporary, which means adding `disused=no` does not seem to make sense.

A more accurate description would be ref=H is now in some sort of undetermined state, in some sort of limbo.

See if it helps understand the situation.

This is a good point. I can see `start_date` should be corresponding to "abandoned building" but not simply "building" itself.

Improved via changeset/175308323

Precedent see Yiu Tung Estate landslide.

I have no appetite to continue this discussion.

Bottom line: ref=H is still standing healthily, so the estate cannot be not `=residential`. It is forced to remain `=residential`. Theseus's Ship and "maintain continuity" requires this to be `=residential`.

I have heard that the Wang Fuk Court Owners' Corporation will vote on the future of Wang Fuk Court sometime later. Until then, I will stand by my view that it's still `=residential`. The OC will decide what this landuse value shall become from `=residential`, if a change is to be agreed upon.

Note: you may think Yau King Lane etc. does not deserve to be `=secondary`.

I agree with you. However:

- temporary mapping measure due to Wang Fuk Court fire; Tai Po needs access to Tai Po Road
- even if no fire, Yau King Lane itself should probably be `=tertiary`

They can do so, but may not do so:

- fully packed with parked emergency vehicles
- nearby already has sidewalks; use those
- streets are cordoned off; not expecting short-term reopening (e.g. DVIU will be staying here for approx a month)

You may interpret that the roads are closed off and reserved for various government service vehicles until god knows when. The sheer number of expected government service vehicles that will access this area / will station in this area strongly justifies `access=no` and not simply `motor_vehicles=no`, the tag `motor_vehicles=no` which I understand is something you may be proposing to adopt.

@Kovoschiz

Your view is too rigid and orthodox. Does this mean, when ref=H Wang Chi House is approved for return in some medium-term future, that the entire land suddenly "resumes" to be `=residential`? Even though there are no actual changes to the estate itself?

imo a brownfield is a place with "nothing" in it, which implies non-inhabitation. Or, it's a place where land usage is undecided. It should be painfully obvious Wang Fuk Court to this date is still a residential estate.

It is temporarily uninhabited; de jure it is still a residential estate. It is an unfortunate conclusion that the evac scope covers the whole estate. There are no plans for demolition yet. I fail to see why it must be not `=residential`.

I dispute the landuse change.

The buildings are damaged, but the *estate* itself is not: ref=H Wang Chi House is still standing fine.

Plans must be drafted as to what happens next, but until then ,`landuse=residential` it is.

It was hand-typed; afaik iD's turn restriction editor cannot input `restriction:conditional=` directly because it would just input `restriction=` which would be different from irl.

tbf I was not aware there was an island embedded to the "forest tree".

The problem with this section of Canton Road is that... I don't see/agree its importance. This section doesn't really do anything; why would anyone use this section to turn towards Mong Kok Road?

It realistically can't turn towards Shanghai Street; should go forward to directly use Shanghai Street instead.

If wanting to turn towards Mong Kok Road for east of Nathan Road, I have a feeling that irl the chained traffic lights make it such that it's better to reach Shanghai Street first, and then turn back to Mong Kok Road.

Also irl the section is almost free of traffic.

-----

No comments on the frontage road; can make it back to `=secondary`.

Excellent find. I didn't know about this tag before.

"Data consumers dont understand it"? dont care; OSM schema is always evolving, they will have to understand this eventually.

You are correct, but consider:

- global OSM requires that `amenity=clinic` must also get `healthcare=clinic`
- we don't seem to agree what tag-values to represent "clinic grounds" (e.g. `landuse=institution` is discouraged by global OSM; look at Mong Kok Police Station and it's also `landuse=institution`)

I see e.g. Robert Black Health Centre is currently tagged as a `healthcare=hospital`, which may be an interesting approach to the "clinic grounds" problem.

Upon review, indeed, On Luen Village is not *that* populated to be even a `=hamlet`, and so was demoted to just `=isolated_dwelling`; see changeset/174815393

OK I see/remember the following:

There is a `=hamlet` as you have found node/10752374968 which I believe is (almost) correctly tagged.

Then, looking at nearby `=suburb`, clearly this area does not belong to Lei Yue Mun (land), but at the same time, it also does not belong to Tiu Keng Leng. It therefore must be its own `=suburb`, indeed for addressing purposes.

Local articles which I read to discover this ancient village does use/mention Lau Shui Hang as some sort of "place name".