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".

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.