Exact place level can be reviewed/calibrated.

With which direction are you trying to ask this question?

I try to maintain parity with nearby places; e.g. Lei Yue Mun (land) node/5898138325 is a suburb.

`=suburb` need not be "American English suburb" in OSM; it has no indication/hint of size.

Then, why not extend westwards? I was thinking, normally roads should keep the same highway class "along the way", something like that, which meant the entire Mong Kok Road should probably have the same highway class from west to east.

Previous Mong Kok Road being `=secondary`, I understood as "lower grade road to turn towards higher grade road (Argyle Street)".

irl building directory signposted as-is without e.g. "Yau Ma Tei". They may or may not have the "Yau Ma Tei" in the "city-wide list", but that would be for another changeset and for separate survey/lookup work.

This is MTR's proposal for the West Rail. Recall that MTR had to bid against KCR for what is now known as the West Rail.

I can't seem to find the correct name of this hypothetical spur line given the significant SEO "masking" by the actual Northern Link.

If you are interested in "never realized" railway mapping, maybe you are interested in looking at the Northern Link. The KCR proposal sat inside OSM as `proposed:*=` for many years until recently MTR went ahead with essentially a separate project from the West Rail. That Northern Link KCR proposal is "pinned into existence" by the West Rail relation, which contains all of the KCR's proposal on the "Greater West Rail" (unrealized).

You are right. I was under the wrong impression that the west side `=primary` was a different road from Kam Tin Road.

Then, indeed, there is no symmetry, and this `=primary` should still be `=secondary` instead.

- symmetry (Kam Tin Bypass)
- has precedent; see Tseng Tau (Sierra Sea) Sai Sha Road
- strong significance of (recently-moved) park-and-ride access (at least until Northern Link is complete)
- several confirmed neighbourhood development

I must clarify I later rethought about the "park and ride" point raised by @kingkinghk and thought it to be reasonable, at least until Northern Link is complete. But attitude of MTR makes this fishy.

Sorry to necro this, but again, you see the new & existing development (Grand Mayfair etc) is currently asymmetric and lopsided: all access must be done via the current `=primary` and `oneway=yes` section. It's obvious both roads have different importance / significance.

But, your point is not without merit. A few years later when the (4? or perhaps more?) residential sites are up and running, then Tung Wui Road will have very strong argument to be `=secondary` by virtue of being "urban lateral". Right now being "rural lateral" just doesn't hit it.

Not really; Kam Ho Road got `=secondary` with precedent (see me trying to demote Old Clear Water Bay Road to `=tertiary` with no success); Kam Sheung Road Station wants strong alternative route to access Route 3.

I think Tung Hui Road is not as important. The new park-and-ride needs the `=primary` section for entrance, and depending on exact destination, exiting might just make sense to go through Kam Tin Bypass or Pat Heung Road.

Actually, also consider e.g. San Tam Road is "only `=tertiary` when Castle Peak Road is `=secondary`"; feels like a good analogy/perspective for this case.

Hi there, do you have more information about "咸魚汁角"?

Actually, looking at recent news, it seems to me the park-and-ride aspect/attractiveness is being diminished:

e.g.

https://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/article/20250828/s00002/1756317494666/%E6%B8%AF%E9%90%B5%E6%B3%8A%E8%BB%8A%E8%BD%89%E4%B9%98%E5%84%AA%E6%83%A0-%E6%92%A4%E6%97%A5%E6%B3%8A%E5%B0%81%E9%A0%82%E6%94%B6%E8%B2%BB%E8%AE%8A%E7%9B%B8%E5%8A%A0%E5%83%B9-%E9%8C%A6%E4%B8%8A%E8%B7%AF%E7%AB%99%E6%96%B0%E5%81%9C%E8%BB%8A%E5%A0%B4%E6%8C%89%E6%99%82%E8%B2%B43%E5%80%8D

Also, I have no idea whether the Kam Sheung Road park-and-ride is part of KCR's original plans, or something the MTR is actively promoting after their takeover.

I feel like this is increasingly indicating KSR station does not fit (my) existing mental models, and the station might belong to a new category of station that contains only itself: rural stations.

KSR station is built in an area with a lack of any high-density development / any new town development. Quite rural. Other theoretical "rural" stations simply don't exist (e.g. Kwu Tung, Hung Shui Kiu, etc.) or no longer exist (e.g. Tai Po Kau). We might simply have no precedents for this.

In basically every other railway station in HK, the railway station itself doesn't suddenly cause nearby roads to promote towards primary/secondary; the nearby roads *are* already primary/secondary by themselves, regardless of whether the station exists, let alone whether park-and-ride exists.

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.

But, we might in another occasion consider promoting Kam Ho Road separately with justification as "Grand Mayfair wants access to Route 3", just as how some time ago Sai Sha Road got partial-promoted to `highway=primary` with justification "Sierra Sea et-al is big & has improved road works".

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

CPR (Ko Po - Ngau Tam Mei) tends to use Yuen Long Station instead. (See KMB 76K, and the many minibus routes.) 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 understand Pat Heung Road gets `=secondary` because it needs to connect with Kam Sheung Road, which is itself uncontested `=secondary`.

imo this is OK-convincing but not ultra convincing, but perhaps @Kovoschiz may have something to say?

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

So, seeing Tung Hui Road has `=tertiary`, I think it's reasonable to expect Kam Ho Road to also have `=tertiary`. No actions will be taken.

Good to know.

With the share_taxi situation, I am inclined to just make Kam Ho Road `=secondary` from Kam TIn Bypass to Pat Heung Road and finish.

It seems you took the wrong Northern Loop plan and made it "under construction".

Improved via changeset/172862499

Indeed, I can't remember what I was thinking, but having a turn restriction with no associated paths is definitely strange.