| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 189822845 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-10-01 12:55 ~ 10 days ago | 1 | ~ 10 days ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | Can you document these `landmark=` tags somewhere? |
| 2 | ~ 9 days ago | Kovoschiz | It's tentative. I would have used `landmark:*=yes` , not them. | |
| 189106192 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-09-16 11:20 ~ 25 days ago | 1 | ~ 18 days ago | heiman191 ♦2 | Why removing a path that is clearly still visible (check Google Earth imagery 2024-2026) while readding paths that are clearly no longer exist? Shall we go hike there someday to see for ourselves? |
| 2 | ~ 18 days ago | Kovoschiz | First of all, Google's imagery shouldn't be referred to. I don't know what you are referring to, and I have only made `abandoned:highway=` here. | |
| 3 | ~ 18 days ago | heiman191 ♦2 | I'm referring to the edits you've made to this area in the last two weeks. I personally have been to this place many times and know the area quite well. Some paths you have readded to the map no longer exist, like two of the three "informal paths" that is connecting Ma On Shan Co... | |
| 4 | ~ 18 days ago | heiman191 ♦2 | Also the is no path between Po Lo Che Road and Ngong Ping. (Maybe someone crazy enough might hike through dense forest and steep hill to go the campsite this way). But you have readded this "path" to the map in one of your revert. | |
| 5 | ~ 17 days ago | Kovoschiz | Can you please re-read it's `abandoned:highway=` | |
| 6 | ~ 15 days ago | heiman191 ♦2 | Can you please re-read my message, I'm not just talking about this edit, I'm talking about the changes you have made in the last two weeks. Also you didn't address any of the problems I pointed out above. Have you been to Ngong Ping recently? Do you really know the area and the condit... | |
| 7 | ~ 14 days ago | Kovoschiz | What "changes" are you referring to then? All I have done is adding `disused=yes` , and changed to `abandoned:highway=` as you disagreed. | |
| 8 | ~ 14 days ago | heiman191 ♦2 | 1. Way 88145094, an impassable road you added back to the map 18 days ago2. Way 621133189, an impassable road you added back to the map 18 days ago3. Way 1046040108, a "path" on a steep hill side covered with trees, you added it back 18 days ago4. Way 1235202973, you removed a sectio... | |
| 9 | ~ 14 days ago | Kovoschiz | 1,2,3. These are `disused=yes` as I said. Why don't you ask the original authors? You would also need to define "impassable" and "steep". You didn't seem to disagree with them. I can further edit them now. 4. What section have been removed? | |
| 10 | ~ 14 days ago | Kovoschiz | 4. You added `abandoned:highway=` to the section as well | |
| 11 | ~ 14 days ago | heiman191 ♦2 | The section you removed is "way 1557416347", which I have already restored.Also do I have to define every word for you? As stated in documentation, "use your best judgement to follow common sense". The reason we're having this conversation is because you keep adding path... | |
| 12 | ~ 13 days ago | Kovoschiz | Can you not read `abandoned:highway=` again? | |
| 13 | ~ 10 days ago | Kovoschiz | 2. Yes, they need to be defined. Extent of impassability and steepness is indicated by eg `sac_scale=` , not simply deleting. | |
| 14 | ~ 10 days ago | Kovoschiz | 2. And please don't blindly merge different sections. Attributes may only apply to one section. | |
| 15 | ~ 10 days ago | heiman191 ♦2 | I've continue our discussion in a comment on your latest edit. | |
| 16 | ~ 10 days ago | heiman191 ♦2 | But again, I didn't not merge paths blindly. I would like you try to explain how, for example way 891400870 is not a single path, but two different sections. | |
| 17 | ~ 10 days ago | Kovoschiz | Why don't you ask the original authors? If an attribute has been set on a shorter section, it should be kept. | |
| 189809554 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-10-01 08:32 ~ 10 days ago | 1 | ~ 10 days ago | heiman191 ♦2 | Okay, first of all, Way 1046040108 clearly didn't meet the criteria of being a "highway" in the the first place, the path is not "paved or improved", and certainly not "trampled by a sufficient number of humans".Second, some paths like way 621133188 and way 621... |
| 2 | ~ 10 days ago | Kovoschiz | 1. `highway=` is not understood literally, or by your definitions. There's no such restriction.2. That's still `abandoned:*=` by being past features. Again, not understood literally or by your understanding.3. There's no "making the map unreadable, as if the map is not alread... | |
| 3 | ~ 10 days ago | Kovoschiz | 1. Again as aforementioned, if you have disagreements on its status, you should add `sac_scale=` etc for the passability. `highway=scramble` etc has been discussed, but `=path` is still the mainstay. | |
| 189403996 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-09-22 14:51 ~ 19 days ago | 1 | ~ 19 days ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | I am assuming the lack of `bridge=yes` on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1561367039 is a mapping mistake? |
| 2 | ~ 18 days ago | Kovoschiz | Maybe the entire object is extra. I forgot. | |
| 186602609 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-07-29 18:30 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | If keeping the polygons, then at least the bus stop polygons should be smaller than the construction area polygons. Will make improvements. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Kovoschiz | There are bays on the north side. At least the southbound looks very much `bus_bay=` with the beginning of the bus lane, and can be part of the `=station` area. | |
| 186339328 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-07-25 10:47 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | I see/guess the objective is indicating the reclamation protection area. Placing the harbour to be equivalent to other natural reserve areas in the world is imo unexpected, but I guess this is still technically correct per the "protected area" definition. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Kovoschiz | The cause is actually because a problem is shown, whether it's an unknowing duplicate https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/851848400There are several reasons 1. Conceptually the two shores of Victoria Harbour are HKI and Kln being separated. No one actually says Rambler Channel is Victoria Har... | |
| 170070269 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-08-06 17:22 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | Hi there with the mega changeset; specific concern at note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5416561 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Kovoschiz | I didn't edit the feature here, only names. That's a different problem. Furthermore it's stated as "tentative". | |
| 185905477 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-07-17 13:20 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | Disappointing, but the idea was that "number 80" at least should not be here.It is OK to persist the shop space, but this cannot possibly mean we can affirm the relationship between this suspiciously-placed bakery and subsequent legitimate users of "number 80".Though perh... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Kovoschiz | What's "should not be here"? The `=bakery` is 80 Shop 5. Why "cannot possibly mean we can affirm the relationship"? | |
| 185216672 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-07-06 17:32 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | ajmat ♦594 | Revert of https://osmcha.org/changesets/185172923 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | While I originally discovered this offending changeset, the idea was to revert it later using e.g. JOSM undo. However, I was unavailable to click through it, and Kovoschiz has completed the undo while I was checking other stuff. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | @vectorial8192 Reverting a changeset doesn't take that much time. If you had the time to create a note, write a note comment, and write a changeset comment, you had the time to revert it.The damaging changeset lasted nearly 14 hours before being reverted. That's not short. The longer i... | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | Kovoschiz | @ajmat Can you please some private or third-party noting tools, not commenting meaninglessly (especially I already mentioned this) in others' changeset discussions that's soliciting attention from others | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | Kovoschiz | @vectorial8192 You don't need to do it "later" when you are "available". What I used is online. https://revert.monicz.dev | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | Good to know about the online tool. This will be helpful in the future.To mitigate the bus factor, we should start typing stuff to the Wiki. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | This keeps coming up so I must clarify:Sometimes I am on OSM "along the way" while doing other stuff, and during that time, I count myself as "unavailable". You seem to misunderstand that "OSM action" immediately and necessarily means "available"; there is... | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | Kovoschiz | What @kingkingHK means is you don't need to spend time and effort making a Note. You can directly revert it after commenting in changeset. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | @vectorial8192> we should start typing stuff to the Wiki.Osm-revert is already well-documented on the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osm-revertWhich is linked to by the "revert" page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Change_rollback#osm-revertIt is already ... | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | ajmat ♦594 | Thanks for the feedback, Kovoschiz. The comment was added as part of our revert workflow to log the source changeset for internal tracking, not to solicit attention. I understand it may feel redundant given that revert:id=* already captures this, and that's a fair point. I'll pass this fee... | |
| 184704133 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-06-27 17:12 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | Hi there, is `disused:highway=*` an editing mistake? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Kovoschiz | iD bug. Not my fault honestly, and no real effects. | |
| 184704033 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-06-27 17:10 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | Desync. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5360199> We will start by marking the affected roads as "unusable" since these are still observable on the ground.I am unsure between access=no or was:highway=tertiary . How should these usually be done? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | This changeset lgtm. Firstly `=no` is clearly wrong as e.g. construction workers can obviously still use it. From what I gathered online, pedestrians are still allowed, so `motor_vehicle=private` looks good. But might need to check bicycle restrictions. That's not mutually exclusive with `was:h... | |
| 184498501 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-06-24 00:37 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | Why? Shouldn't the higher one be used? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Kovoschiz | This section is only useful for Chak Cheung St, `=service` Sui Cheung St , and Kiu Ha Rd. Or do you want to consider MOS Rd u-turn for Tai Po Rd Sha Tin? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | MOS Road <-> Tai Po Road (and hence Shing Mun and Tsing Sha) deserves `=tertiary` at least imo. This is the only way without any traffic lights, at least until T4 opens, so it should be somewhat competitive. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184594847 | |
| 182310967 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-05-06 19:50 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,what does "highway:reason = change:lanes" mean? "reason" is not a common suffix for a note, and there is also no "change:lanes" tag on these roads. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | This guy is notorious for adding heaps of self-invented tags in OSM, while constantly criticizing others' edits for not conforming to his personal preferences. What a joke. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | Kovoschiz | @GSF1200S And you are notorious for harassing me on other users' changesets, name-calling, and promoting your own loop-sided view. Still waiting for your replies.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159360167 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144534922 | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | Kovoschiz | @mueschel I have already explained in the cited changesets https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182280452 | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | I don't understand. You write "This section is because it only connects `=motorway` " and here you add "highway:reason = change:lanes"To me it seems this piece of highway should be 'trunk', because it is the direction connection between two trunks. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | @mueschel It is not "connection between two trunks", but connection between a trunk and a motorwayhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19984021 | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | You're right that overall it is connecting a trunk and a motorway. But this specific piece of road connects a trunk (tunnel) to a very short other trunk that then splits into a primary and a motorway_link.I would call it a trunk until it splits into a motorway_link to the right and a trunk_... | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | If it connects to a motorway, then it is subject to the same restrictions as the motorway, and should therefore be `=motorway` or `=motorway_link` (there are disagreements on whether is specific piece of highway is a link or not)https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link#Special_considerat... | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Ah right, this intersection is just too confusing.Shouldn't the rest of Lin Cheung Road be a trunk_link then? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30658123https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30658139@Kovoschiz you could have made the discussion much shorter by simply adding a note explain... | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | The reason https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30658125 is `=trunk` is that it connects Central Kowloon Bypass (numbered route; route 6) to West Kowloon Highway (numbered route; route 3), which satisfy "Road sections indirectly connecting between motorway / trunk" https://wiki.openstreetmap.... | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | Kovoschiz | @mueschel This `note=` is simply a template I have been using on every case before. I haven't thought of how to explaining all of them convincingly in brief. I would also need to update all of them. The `highway:reason=` is meant to explain all classifications concisely and machine-reada... | |
| 182177216 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-05-03 20:11 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | CC_Simon ♦9 | 粉嶺繞道是否合適使用highway=motorway？，他既不是快熟公路系統，也不是封閉隧道路段，我認為使用highway=primary已經足夠了 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | CC_Simon ♦9 | 事實上，連封閉隧道的大老山 城門 獅子山也不再使用highway=motorway，這裡就更加沒有條件使用了 | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | Only connects to expressway Fanling Highway. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | Kovoschiz | It uses `=motorway` + `motorway=no` + `destination:motorway=yes` (can be fine-tuned) | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | Kovoschiz | One factor for non-Expressway is not meeting TPDM requirement for `lanes=3` + `oneway=yes` | |
| 181111256 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-04-09 18:03 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | West Kowloon Corridor is signposted I think https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/kaartcam?lat=32.72446&lng=-117.171646&z=16&pKey=297862111823514&focus=photo&x=0.5191253197103024&y=0.6602385103586426&zoom=1.5505617977528092 |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Kovoschiz | Sure. I didn't touch that though. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | Kovoschiz | Sorry, wrong filtering. Didn't realize it was downloaded. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | user_5359 ♦20,882 | Hello! What is the mean of the key nonetwork? Did you mean no:network? | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | Kovoschiz | I'm a promoter of `no:*=` , so yes https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182006049 | |
| 181261242 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-04-13 07:40 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | Wildsharky ♦1,134 | Revert of 181253999 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Kovoschiz | Hi you don't need to comment it when I uploaded with exactly this. Please use other tools if you want to make personal notes of changesets that at least doesn't add to the upload comment. I would welcome and encourage if you can contribute to OSMCha or develop your own private changeset no... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | Kovoschiz | It helps reduce embarrassment and annoyance with your false positives https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181025537 | |
| 176562041 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-12-29 07:28 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | Hi there,I suppose the purpose of this changeset is to identify sections of roads which are part of the Strategic Routes. Then, could you please take a look at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2nvm and see if the existing `ref=` data are wrong, or if there was a mistake in this changeset? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Kovoschiz | This was only to remove the `type=network` It doesn't change the `route=road` | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | Kovoschiz | Ie any mistakes would be from the existing `route=road` | |
| 180615895 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-03-30 07:41 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | passing byhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/853595683 looks like should be `oneway=yes` |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Kovoschiz | See this is why `oneway=yes` can always be added to `junction=roundabout` | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | Sounds like a good rule to e.g. add to iD editor. | |
| 179654057 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-03-10 18:50 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179642577 |
| 179251617 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-03-02 12:09 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | Wildsharky ♦1,134 | Revert of 179235318 |
| 179197177 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-03-01 07:32 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | Dundee930 ♦6 | Why you revert all my work in Sai Kung?I am very angry !!我用佐成晚貢獻 Update 的西貢資料，為何你全部都 Revert 哂? 請解釋! |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179199146 Please read your own changesets if you know how to comment https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179184501 | |
| 178161719 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-02-05 23:58 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | Jetbridges for gates 47-50 and 70 didn't get `access=`, is this simply an editing omission? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178905889 | |
| 178666019 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-02-17 08:34 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | What's the purpose of `bicycle:pushing=`? Isn't it already implied by `bicycle=no`? (because of pushing is allowed it would be `bicycle=dismount`) |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | Kovoschiz | You can read the wiki, or the post https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/solving-the-dreaded-access-dismount-problem/134288 | |
| 178089087 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-02-04 10:54 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | Re `level=`, aren't there many (non-public, but still used by airport personnel) levels between the ground and the gates, meaning it should be higher than `=2;1`? |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Kovoschiz | I must have copied from other features. Missed 1 level. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Kovoschiz | Wait the 6F is departures already. Which floor are you referring to? | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | Kovoschiz | Oh I missed 4F? | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | Kovoschiz | It's confusing as ground level is different on each side (3F vs 4F) | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | Iirc there are three levels between the APM and the arrivals. I don't remember the exact level relative to the ground, but assuming `level=-2` for the APM is correct, then the gates should be `=3;2`. (Ok I see you fixed it already https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178153215) | |
| 177444748 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-01-19 18:59 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | I actually dispute this mapping method. This naming strategy/guideline for "new projects" better be documented somehow because I can see this reoccurring a lot in the future.My logic is that the name comes from e.g. the bidding document, it would read exactly something like "railw... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Kovoschiz | https://mtrtungchunglineextension.hk/tung-chung-east/ ? | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Kovoschiz | https://www.mtr.com.hk/en/corporate/tenders/TUE_C12003.html ? | |
| 176793147 by Kovoschiz @ 2026-01-03 18:22 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | Aleksandar Matejevic ♦241 | Hi Kovoschiz, can you explain the need for admin_level=4 relation here? |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | Kovoschiz | This corresponds to the `=city` , which doesn't work in the `admin_level=3` HKSAR. If the `=city` is un-related, it will be interpreted by Nominatim as below `admin_level=5` HKI etc. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176537259You could understood it as HK proper. While HKSAR includes th... | |
| 176537259 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-12-28 16:21 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | vricciardulli ♦42 | Hello Kovoschiz, I see that you're making many changes in Hong Kong. However, I see now that the 3 main divisions of HK are not children of HK any more, e.g. for this one Hong Kong is not in the hirarchy anymore https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=R&osmid=10268964 ... |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | vricciardulli ♦42 | And I also see that HK is now address_rank = 16 which means "city / town / village". That doesn't seem right. | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | Kovoschiz | That's Nominatim's fault. It overwrites the `admin_level=` with the `label` `place=` `address_rank:` counterintuitively. Has already been worked around with `admin_centre` yesterday. Need to wait for it to update or something. | |
| 176208396 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-12-21 08:58 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,what does 'splitter = vehicle' mean? This tag isn't used in other places. |
| 166534222 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-05-20 17:03 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | See note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5099138 ;Now that Route 6 is open (at least for this area), what is the status of those seemingly duplicate sliproads? Probably `was:highway=*` rather than `highway=construction`? |
| 175195537 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-11-27 12:12 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | 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. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | Kovoschiz | You could argue the `ruin*:landuse=residential` , but it's not being lived in now. It's a `=brownfield` , not `=residential` | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | 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`. | |
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | Kovoschiz | OSM is about the existing reality, and `landuse=` the existing use. `=brownfield` means it's not inhabited. | |
| 5 | ~ 10 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | @KovoschizYour 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... | |
| 6 | ~ 10 months ago | Kovoschiz | 1. What do you mean by there's "no actual changes to the estate itself"? `landuse=` is about the use. The use has changed from being uninhabited to inhabited. 2. That's untrue. Abandonment without demolition is still `=brownfield` , as with many such polluted industries in real... | |
| 7 | ~ 10 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | 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... | |
| 8 | ~ 10 months ago | Kovoschiz | 1. The structure is independent of the use. If there's no one living there , it's not `=residential` now. Unless you are arguing it's a short-term closure. 2. `landuse=` is describing use, and OSM is about the existing reality. Legal status and plans don't affect that. | |
| 9 | ~ 10 months ago | Kovoschiz | 2. Eg if Wang Chi House returns, but the Court voted to rebuild, it's still `=residential` until they move out | |
| 10 | ~ 10 months ago | Kovoschiz | 2. As I said, whether this has been an estate would be covered by `abandoned:landuse=residential` | |
| 175018206 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-11-23 09:37 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | IvanChan2000 ♦1 | Those exit exist though, there is no such footway across Fitfort. Also, these exits are in different levels. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | Kovoschiz | No, these are rough works needed for routing. You should detail the internal layout, not delete it entirely. | |
| 174721082 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-11-16 10:57 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | 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 unders... |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | Kovoschiz | 1.1. At least we can consider whether classification should change when it intersects roads of the same, or higher class (ie `=primary` Nathan Rd). But this is considering Argyle St routing, not MK Rd alone.1.2. Tai Kok Tsui (also currently `=tertiary` )doesn't justify `=primary` at the weste... | |
| 171463819 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-09-04 17:36 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | It appears that this changeset re-adds vandalism? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | See next | |
| 170379077 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-08-13 09:32 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | Merge conflict with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170379585 ; https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170379585 was used.Review may be needed. |
| 83095584 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-04-05 11:07 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | user_5359 ♦20,882 | Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/143330226. What is the mean of the tag way:highway = passing_place? Did you mean was:highway? |
| 170143548 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-08-08 08:54 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | ultisol ♦2 | Please see my response to you on your comment on my changeset. Why do you revert a changeset 3 minutes after commenting, without even waiting for a response? Shouldn't we wait at least for a day for the other mapper to respond? |
| 166626675 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-05-22 19:05 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | kingkingHK ♦440 | Is `contact:name=` supposed to be `contract:name=`? Typo? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | Corrected (as seen from others) | |
| 166986044 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-05-30 18:43 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | 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. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | No, this was intentional before as proposed and adopted by others, for the `=motorway` extent problem https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/835665898/history/1 | |
| 123689821 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-07-16 13:31 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦11,254 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/91387889/history has sidewalk:right = both that was added in this editso left or right or both? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | Corrected (maybe `sidewalk=` autosuggest fail) | |
| 164951098 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-04-14 17:56 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | HiRe place=neighbourhood Tai Yuk Road (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12744462800), can you confirm whether one of the following:- This is real (the neighbourhood name is unusual but is real)- This is a mistake (see Yuen Long actual Tai Yuk Road)- This is an inaccuracy (eg nearby Solar... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | All roads seems already named. The numbering isn't sequential if it is along a street. Likely `addr:place=` and a `place=`Reports suggest there's no such road https://www.sportsroad.hk/archives/372701/【冷知識】體路之外-香港還有甚麼體育的路？/ | |
| 164723207 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-04-09 12:48 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1371007612May I suggest to tag this way with :lanes? Neither bicycle:both nor bicycle:centre are currently in use. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | It's `segregated=no` . There's no `lanes=` for it, nor any visible physical characteristics that would divide it into `*:lanes=` on the left half. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | Tried to divide it into `footway:*=` and `cycleway:*=` , but it doesn't work quite nice. `cycleway*:bicycle:*=` is still needed. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | If there's nothing on ground, I don't understand what the tags mean. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | Yes, there's something, but not lanes. The left half is shared-use, where bikes need to keep right (center), and pedestrians keep left. There's only a pair of small pictograms towards the sides as a reminder, which doesn't take up the entire "lane". No different surfacing. ... | |
| 164576142 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-04-06 06:41 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | Hi there, since the note says "permanent closure", does it make sense to slap on "access=no" for the affected roads? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4681270 | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | I don't see any evidence, at least around the time of that and the edit. This should only be edited after it's actually closed, if planned. | |
| 163301826 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-03-06 20:52 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,is that reverted correctly? This shop node now got completely different tags:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11655897469/history |
| 131454590 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-01-19 08:57 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | waldyrious ♦31 | I am a bit puzzled by the tag "tree_lined=separate" added to way 714490950 in this edit. Does that mean there are trees around the edge of this area? Or could this mean that the segment of Ching Tak Street (way 86041176) that passes next to this area is what should be considered "tree... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | waldyrious ♦31 | For the time being, I removed the tree_lined tag from this area (changeset 163362734), because it is a non-linear feature and the meaning of the tag is ambiguous in this case (especially since there are individually mapped trees in its vicinity, that are in no way forming a line along its perimeter)... | |
| 162442329 by Kovoschiz @ 2025-02-12 19:15 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | seewhyso ♦7 | Hi Kovoschiz. Just a quick question for this. What's the guideline of naming the bridge structure in osm? One of them is using an unofficial name while the other is official. I imagine common name would be more preferred after all, which would be what my edit hoping to achieve? Thanks. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | The problem is there's no "official" name for the north bridge, and the TD notice you might have checked used "Northern Bridge" to refer to it afterwards as well. `name=` is defined as commonly used by the public, or what's signposted. I have already added `short_nam... | |
| 160787246 by Kovoschiz @ 2024-12-30 11:19 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,let me suggest an alternative to the new "shoulder:variable" tags using the usual conditional syntax: shoulder:left = yes shoulder:left:conditional = no @ obstructionlanes = 3lanes:conditional = 4 @ obstructionBtw, is "obstruction" really right? Usually the f... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | 1. I have read somewhere that `*:conditional=` is considered inappropriate as compared to `*:variable=` , because it's not always active even when there are `obstruction` . It will only be in effect when the staff judge it's needed. 2. No, it's only a pilot project to have optional ... | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | 1. Even if I don't use `*:variable:values=`, `shoulder:variable=` and `lanes:variable=` are more accurate and consistent for "exceptionally in cases like accidents or breakdowns, on occasional traffic peaks (few days of year only, for example start or end of school holidays), road works or... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | I would think `*:conditional=* @ (obstruction)` is conceptually better reserved for signs saying you are automatically legally allowed to do something when there are crashes. | |
| 160538088 by Kovoschiz @ 2024-12-23 13:25 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Kovoschiz | Partial revert /changeset/140363758,154121901,140363982 |
| 157070269 by Kovoschiz @ 2024-09-25 08:30 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | tijptjik ♦3 | Thank you for showing how it's done <3 |
| 149487737 by Kovoschiz @ 2024-04-02 15:35 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | Hi Kovoschiz,Sorry that the changeset 149694862 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149694862) was prepared before this changeset so I wish you to take a look on it and advise if anything is wrong. I tried my best to resolve conflicts though. |
| 148817669 by Kovoschiz @ 2024-03-18 13:40 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | This change causes all relations with way 397790157 to break, by including the way twice.Fixed in /changeset/149336743. |
| 121018932 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-05-15 16:18 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | os-emmer ♦353 | Hello Kovoschiz,was it on pourpose that you used operator:short_name=* additionally to operator:short=*? In my eyes operator:short_name=* could be removed as it contains the same information.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1056840860https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator#Further_de... |
| 141919377 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-09-29 15:38 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦11,254 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/732047958/history has access:bus that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)Would using bus access tag (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bus ) be fitting at least equally well? |
| 82113110 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-03-12 12:48 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Friendly_Ghost ♦663 | Hi. Why does https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3048004342 have addr:street tags? |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | If you have checked the usage, `addr:street=` already have a significant number. So don't ask me. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=bus_stop#combinations I don't believe `object:street=` or other existing solutions are better. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:par... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | Friendly_Ghost ♦663 | 1.35% is quite insignificant. Tagging the street explicitly is also redundant, because the bus stop already has a spatial relation with the nearest street. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. And `object:street=` doesn't appear at all. 2. It's not here, and can be uncertainty in many cases. How do you know it is for the `=primary` here, not the `=residential`? The other purpose I'm looking into is associating it with the CA07-N prefix on this direction. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | 2. You have to rely on the `=stop_area` which is not always created for every one. And it's less straightforward to process. As I have discussed elsewhere, there is a non-ignorable need for this across different features. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | 2. Searching for the `=stop_position` won't always work either. And that's even proposed to be left out by some. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 years ago | Friendly_Ghost ♦663 | Address tags are wrong here either way, because bus stops shouldn't appear in address databases and no postman (or woman) will deliver mail to a bus stop. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 years ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | This particular guy is well known for adding a bunch of redundant and useless tags to the objects created by others, all over Hong Kong territory. Luckily this has not been spread elsewhere outside of HK. Let's pray. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 years ago | Kovoschiz | Yes, and you are well know for holding a grudge and commenting on other's changesets randomly. You must be blind when I cite how `addr:street=` has been used worldwide. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 years ago | Friendly_Ghost ♦663 | Would be nice if both of you could be more kind to each other. | |
| 134502584 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-04-04 15:56 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | vasinlo26 ♦7 | https://ibb.co/C0bnc0Msee what are you doing, why don't you leave all nodes alone? you are the one who should correct all nodes to expect GPS location, if you don't, why does you insist at the first place? Can't you see the 3D model already show detail ridges? |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | vasinlo26 ♦7 | i will not revert at all , but to remove your ridge line at once | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | Never expect him to reply. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 years ago | Kovoschiz | Have you replied here you annoying hypocrite? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144534922 | |
| 5 | ~ 2 years ago | Kovoschiz | Oh, and you should learn about the limitation of SRTM or whatever DEM those maps are using, and the contours or hillshades they generate. Vector breaklines exist independently from raster elevations. | |
| 79738784 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-01-18 18:52 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | os-emmer ♦353 | Hi Kovoschiz,you mapped this piece of road (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111303161) ashighway=tertiarylanes=3not:junction=roundaboutoneway=yessurface=asphaltturning_loop=yesWhat does the prefix "not:" mean? Just from looking on the satelite-picture I suggest:high... |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | not:junction LOL | |
| 143731237 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-11-07 10:44 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | It seems there are no visible construction sites yet?Agree with the construction tag, just that perhaps it is not this early. |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Kovoschiz | I mean if you take it to the extreme, it won't be realistic to split it based on whether construction has started on each section either. The exact flow belongs to OpenHistoricalMap. The project ceremony commenced at the end of last month. Temporary sites have already been handed over before... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | Ah ok, tbf I was also not paying close attention to the extension. EG I did not know about the commencement ceremony.Well, if the ceremony is done, then yes, the tags and the timing are both correct. And then there is no problem. | |
| 144534922 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-11-28 07:25 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | Bad revertion, again. |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | bad reversion | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | Kovoschiz | And you are notorious for accusing others without responding to them. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 years ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | So, what's the point of adding false info in OSM? | |
| 5 | ~ 2 years ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | No evidence of a road being constructed yet in this araa. In case you are not aware of when to use highway=constructionWiki: Major construction projects typically several years to complete. Use this key to denote active construction roadworks. For projects being planned, where there is little or... | |
| 6 | ~ 2 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. Are you aware I'm not the one who has used `highway=construction` ? 2. Then you should be the one who change it `proposed:highway=` . That's irrelevant to you wrongly removing `name=` , `lanes=`, and `sidewalk=` . | |
| 7 | ~ 2 years ago | Kovoschiz | Stop accusing others of things like "obsession and imagination". I already explained to you why the project description didn't say extension. By your logic, no other roads should be named until gazetted and opened. This obviously runs counter to how `=construction` is used. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 years ago | Kovoschiz | 38e. "The alignment of Nin Fung Road extension through the knoll would impact thesefung shui sites and the villagers’ customs and traditions" https://www.tpb.gov.hk/en/meetings/TPB/Minutes/m1249tpb_e1.pdf#page=5436a. "Nin Fung Road would beextended to connect the propose... | |
| 143357519 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-10-30 10:36 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | vectorial8192 ♦224 | Following previous discussions that I did not have the opportunity to answer, my previous edit again highlights another inconsistency inside the map of Hong Kong:- How does eg Sha Tau Kok have access=permit but this Lok Ma Chau has access=no (now access=private)?- Both Sha Tau Kok and Lok Ma C... |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. I'm not the one who added it. I believe Sha Tau Kok may be due to the tourism allowed. Sha Ho Rd is a border crossing that will be `=permit` the same as others. 2. The signage unfortunately isn't conclusive, because of how `=permit` is defined. HK and UK etc uses "except with per... | |
| 142786139 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-10-18 23:05 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Kovoschiz | Follow up /changeset/141631443,112412493,75309973,112892201,75239976 |
| 140828800 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-09-05 02:58 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | Why do you insist on reverting a nonexistent feature? |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | Why don't you explain how it's non-existent? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | The location where you put this "cliff" is a relatively gentle slope which I can safely walk through without falling from height. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. I'm not the one who added it first2. What is "the location" ? It's a few hundred metres long. As I said, move it if the position is wrong. 3. Are you sure you can drop down the slope directly from the village to Hong Lam Court? | |
| 5 | ~ 3 years ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | There is no "cliff" in the first place, that's why it was deleted instead of being moved to somewhere else. The height difference is a retaining wall (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1204445516) along Siu Lek Yuen Road, which is appearent ly not a "cliff". "... | |
| 6 | ~ 3 years ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | If you are so obsessed with cliffs then it's OK. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | This is not true. There is a large slope behind the `=retaining_wall` , which this is trying to capture. `=cliff` has been widely used for slopes in HK. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | The `=retaining_wall` itself is very short. And there's a large gap here. | |
| 139916947 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-08-15 14:00 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | GSF1200S ♦36 | How come there is a "cliff" across the paths? |
| 135819941 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-05-07 16:54 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | FYI, this change caused all bus routes using Tsing Sha Highway northbound become out of order |
| 119306802 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-04-04 15:14 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | os-emmer ♦353 | Hi Kovoschiz,you mapped a road (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116287469) with turning_loop=yes and usage=link.I have seen you use the turning_circle/turning_loop tags wrong several times in the area of Hong Kong. Please have a look in the wiki for how to use these tags:https://wiki.opens... |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | @os-emmer Please take a closer look as wiki only stipulates its usage with `highway=turning_loop`. There is nothing wrong about using it when it is separately drawn. I feel `usage=` is a better solution for `=unclassified` and `=residential` not having a `=*_link`. It may also be used for frontage... | |
| 135375235 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-04-26 08:55 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,you introduced the new tag "network:official_name" here. In the past you used "official_network". Is there any difference between these tags? |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | @mueschel Is there a mistake? I don't remember having used `official_network=`, and I would strongly opposed to it now. They are in Taiwan, and I haven't touched those objects. It started in 2014 https://osmcha.org/changesets/25280748/ (before I even registered) and corrected in 2021 http... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,I'm also confused now. I think I found a tag you used in some earlier edits, but maybe I added the wrong one here ... | |
| 134813858 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-04-12 12:03 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,what is the meaning of "kerb:both:sides=1"? This tag is not used in any other place. |
| 134495490 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-04-04 12:58 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | vasinlo26 ♦7 | your drawing were just low grade and useless, and merged with whole nodes with the wrong gps location |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | vasinlo26 ♦7 | stop your graffiti, pointless, incomplete, what all the straight line work for? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | vasinlo26 ♦7 | i will revert all your graffiti asap | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | vasinlo26 ♦7 | and please stop this madness on the map at HK, your straight line are very visible, affecting all hiker who using OSM in HK including HKer, you are abusing by using 3rd party hack tools to revert as i know | |
| 5 | ~ 3 years ago | vasinlo26 ♦7 | the one you should release all the nodes and correct them to the right place, and then remove all straight ridge representation, the ridge is the path itself, mostly | |
| 6 | ~ 3 years ago | vasinlo26 ♦7 | just take a look CyclOSM you will have the satelite 3D model which fully better than yours graffiti, you asking me what i have done to your changeset, im asking the same! | |
| 7 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. Explain how they are wrong? Iterative refinement, mate. 2. Have you read what `=ridge` is for? 3. This is renderer problem then. Complain to them if you want them less visible. Or in your application, reduce their visibility. You are also deleting this for everyone. And , ah yes, you are us... | |
| 8 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | 6. You have not asked beforehand though? Simply coming in and deleting everything. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | Upload comments are not for arguing either. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | It's very obvious `=path` is not the same as `=ridge`. The middle section deviates significantly. | |
| 132957781 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-02-24 09:09 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | XD346 ♦37 | Please check Route 8 Expressway ended before the bridge connecting to Chek Lap Kok Island (with an expressway ending sign on the road), and Route 8 mileposts ended after the bridge. The [Airport Road], [Tung Wing Road] and [the bridge connecting North Lantau Highway and Airport Road] should not be h... |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | I already indicated this by `motorway=no`. In OSM, `=motorway` and `=motorway_link` are used between junctions, not the exact location. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | Otherwise by this logic, `=motorway_link` has to be changed mid-way. This has been raised and opposed explicitly in some public discussions. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | That's why `=motorway_link` has been used as a stop-gap despite its issues. That was a tentative solution for many problems. Other debates:Ma On Shan Road Tsing Yi North Coastal RoadTsing Tin RoadHung Tin Road `=motorway_link` is to be used where it leads to `=motorway` | |
| 5 | ~ 3 years ago | XD346 ♦37 | Labeling a highway=motorway together with motorway=no seems to make no sense, especially after Route 8 ended and transferred to another road with a different name. It is okay to label the linking bridge with the mileposts of Route 8, which is exactly what I have edited. But it should not be used on ... | |
| 6 | ~ 3 years ago | XD346 ♦37 | I object to the opinion that motorway_link should be used in this Airport Road case. The main line of the road (i.e. Airport Road in this case) is not and should not be a link road by definition. The main line of motorway can be directly connected to a lower-level highway, a link road is not a prere... | |
| 7 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. This is already the case with Tunnel Area. They are not Expressway, but are using `=motorway`. I have suggested to change them to `=trunk` + `motorroad=yes`. For the issue at hand, `=motorway` is a special class that's not defined by function alone. However, it still needs to follow the conv... | |
| 8 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | `highway=` classification is determined between junctions. So it can't directly change to another class in the middle. And again, what is a "main line" can be argued. I can say Shun Long Rd is a very large interchange. Or you can see how long is Yuen Shin Rd, or Tsing Sha Hwy on Ts... | |
| 9 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | The criteria of between junction is because `highway=` is a functional classification. Therefore junctions determine changes in function. Legal and official classification are sufficient but not necessary conditions. They are not the sole criteria, only a correlation. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 years ago | XD346 ♦37 | okay, I guess I have understood the criteria here, but not quite make sense to public | |
| 131381484 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-01-17 14:18 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | (Sorry for the wide changeset) |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | rbsam176 ♦1 | This was my first submission to OpenStreetMap, what does 'wide changeset' mean and what should I do to ensure my proposed changes are accepted? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | NorthCrab ♦4,531 | For a global scale change: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process | |
| 131381584 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-01-17 14:21 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | (sorry for the wide changeset) |
| 131381605 by Kovoschiz @ 2023-01-17 14:21 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | (Sorry for the wide changset) |
| 129603274 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-12-01 13:02 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | This change seems to have made all bus route relations using way 1118631038 to mess up. To be specific, an ordering error occured as that way was put after way 709674368, which is south of it. |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | That would be a software issue. This only splitted it. Or they were already broken beforehand? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | Kovoschiz | I can't reproduce it (by simulating a revert, then trying to re-do this) | |
| 127098673 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-10-06 11:42 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | 125896795.125899891.125899201.125899117.125897623.125897588.125897548.125897332.125896912.125896876.125896822.125896795.125896578.125896523.125895298.125895099.125895015.125894946.125894883.125894042.125893997.125893643 |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | 125896795,125899891,125899201,125899117,125897623,125897588,125897548,125897332,125896912,125896876,125896822,125896795,125896578,125896523,125895298,125895099,125895015,125894946,125894883,125894042,125893997,125893643 | |
| 126015808 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-09-10 13:23 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,891 | Thanks.Since there has been conflict about names here previously, perhaps you could add a few words here explaining why the names here are correct?It would give us something to refer to in future. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | Ok. For this one, Lin Fa Kung HIll is not a "hill", rather a part of the hillside above Lin Fa Kung temple previously populated with huts. I'm not sure the mountains behind are in fact named. | |
| 124830921 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-08-12 19:10 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | habi ♦2,276 | Thanks for taking care of this! |
| 124141662 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-07-27 13:23 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | highflyer74 ♦2,451 | Hello!Just for info: many of the tags you add (e.g. here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/565824344) are not used anywhere else on the planet and thus will not be of a lot of help to anyone.Maybe you can improve the situation by using more established tag combinations.All the best! |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | How about doing some research first? ~800 https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/bollard=flexible elsewhere --- I suggested `installation=` to `cycle_barrier:installation` exactly to overcome this problem. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/separation was `protection=` before.... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | highflyer74 ♦2,451 | Hi there and thanks for your feedback!"I don't have time to draw every `=fence` and `=bollard` out" is probably what will render the effort you put into it useless as no data consumer will be able or willing to interpret that many tags on a single way.Anyway, it was just a hin... | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | Unfortunately Carto doesn't render `=bollard` line yet. As a side note, `=kerb` was removed too. Another issue here is they are used to separate two directions besides other, meaning the `=cycleway` have to be splitted as well. Sometimes they are spaced widely that a bike can easily pass thro... | |
| 122946868 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-06-28 09:21 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | What? You undid all my paths? |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | Okay, rendering issue, I retract my question. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | One more thing, though, two of the stops are not on a sawtooth.Specifically:1. The one immediately to the east of entrance E1, and2. The 2nd on eastbound line west of entrance E1 | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | Ok I will take a look. We can certain discuss what should be `indoor=` and `tunnel=building_passage`, but I wanted to be consistent with `highway=service`. (since you didn't change that), and there is no `level=` yet. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | jOSM gave warning for various stuff tagging level=0 so I omitted them for the new objects I added in. | |
| 120975214 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-05-14 11:29 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | ImprovingStepByStep ♦6 | Thank you for the cross-harbour update. However the removal of the 'subway' => 'yes' on a number of stations seems to break the subway validation of apps using OSM data. See e.g. https://cdn.organicmaps.app/subway/china.html |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | ImprovingStepByStep ♦6 | As a consequence e.g. the east railway line is not shown in some apps. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | I have been adding `train=yes` to them, as I was told there was a compromise to make East Rail Line and Tuen Ma Line as `route=subway` on `railway=rail`. I must have accidentally removed some `subway=yes`. However they are in reality mainline trains upgraded as rapid transit. I have been contemplati... | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | How do stations affect the line? | |
| 5 | ~ 4 years ago | ImprovingStepByStep ♦6 | Thanks! I already updated some of the stations to subway=yes. But there are still a few other issues I was unable to fix. See https://cdn.organicmaps.app/subway/china.html under Hong Kong for the specifics. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 years ago | ImprovingStepByStep ♦6 | I'm not sure how to deal with the subway vs trains that also drive underground. You have it in London as well and as far as I know they are mapped as subway. Currently if they're only designated as train, apps that consume OSM data such as Maps.me and Organicmaps won't show the line ... | |
| 7 | ~ 4 years ago | ImprovingStepByStep ♦6 | Please disregard my comment on London. According to the wiki the station needs the station=subway (or light_rail) or subway=yet set for metro lines. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Metro_Mapping. The validator and downstream apps probably expect this. See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/... | |
| 121609483 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-05-28 09:59 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | The tree areas are not presented correctly and make the place messy. I am using the tag "shrubbery" as well as things like tree lines and hedges to make them look more accurate. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | It's the Openstreetmap team who are wrong by refusing to render shrubberies. Please join me and many other contributors at the discussion at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4473 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | Frankly the reversal action by you is very rude. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | This is not about `=shrubbery`, You are removing the `=wood` that actually exists there. `=hedge` and `=tree_row` are not relevant to this. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | What do you mean by "not presented correctly"? Fix their shape. You deleting them straight out is very "rude" to other's effort as well. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | `=tree_row` is not a replacement for `=wood` areas. (rather it is widely considered the latter is preferred, which I don't take a position here) You haven't replicated trees in the park, and foilage inside Tsing Yi Estate. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | There are too many things to fix and it is take me a day or two. I do aim to add tree areas back where they should afterwards, but I can't stand seeing those polygons going across roads and paths for no good reason.Also, most of them are not natural wood areas -- they are artificially plac... | |
| 8 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. Why is it not good? If the foliage does extend over the road, drawing across2. Common misunderstanding there. `natural=wood` does not mean it is "natural" in origin. It means the trees part of nature, like `natural=water`. I have already added `managed=yes`, and `moved=yes` or `anth... | |
| 9 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | "Natural wood" is an inaccurate preset name. There are many other issues with them. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 years ago | Patrickov ♦109 | As a matter of fact, the foliage does not span across the road.https://www.google.com/maps/@22.3549622,114.1038481,3a,75y,309.59h,91.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHaiseeOft6ADoeh6gV8p4w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DHaiseeOft6ADoeh6gV8p4w%26cb_client%... | |
| 11 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | Before that, I should remind you Google Street View is not allowed to be used, except in other discussions. There are 2 possibilities: 1. If you look at previous years, the canopy does extend over the roadway, at least in this months. 2. There may be alignment issues with the imagery offset. | |
| 119537466 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-04-10 14:13 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | /changeset/118693593 |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | /changeset/118699293 | |
| 119097204 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-03-30 05:33 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | /changeset/118534407 |
| 119000670 by Kovoschiz @ 2022-03-28 02:04 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | /changeset/118992047,118451534,118684890,118452331 |
| 104645686 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-05-13 15:22 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | kof2001ignis ♦4 | Any peak names designated for this proposed peak? |
| 115093536 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-12-18 11:52 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,882 | Hello (again)! What is the meaning of the key name:zh-x-t-en (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1013296165)? |
| 115108294 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-12-18 20:31 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,882 | Hello! What is the meaning of the key name:en-x-t-zh (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8294243822/history)? |
| 115477039 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-12-28 15:46 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,882 | Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9373419305. What is the meaning of opening:count? |
| 112530157 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-10-15 07:36 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,the key "parking:lane:lanes" is not used anywhere else - what does it mean? |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | I need to indicate: 1. A stopping restriction area across different lanes (this situation)2. An additional stopping restriction outside of parking bays to control the parking bay and lanes separately | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | 2 is needed for double parking, allowing vehicles to stop outside of special parking bays, or allow stopping in a parking bay on the side of a `=fire_lane`. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | This seems to be complicated to tag properly :-) I fear there won't be much support for this tag in the parking-related maps we have.I would try to put the parking bay on a separate object (there is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:parking%3Dstreet_side )and have the restrictions o... | |
| 112411700 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-10-12 10:31 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Kovoschiz | * Temporary |
| 111498281 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-09-21 13:55 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | PicaPico ♦8 | Have you check the the official name on map.gov.hk ? It is Ah Kung Wan Road.https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/ST/13186The name on the Google map is not right. But you can check the road sign on Google Street View. It is Ah Kung Wan.https://goo.gl/maps/hLeXKc1GvhCNKq3f7 |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | Why are you citing the Government or Google? I didn't see you responding in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111486111 . If this is the case, you should still keep both in the opposite of the tagging here. If possible, add a `traffic_sign=` showing the `name=`. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | The `place=` https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7229326838 may also need to be corrected. | |
| 111030390 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-09-10 15:42 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | emvee ♦432 | Hi Kovoschiz,In this changeset you added pieces of cycleway with:highway=cyclewaybicycle=nobicycle:conditional=yes @ (dismount)and: highway=cyclewaybicycle=nobicycle:lanes:conditional=designated|no|designated @ (dismount)That is quite confusing:* if is it highway=cyclew... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. This is the strange local situation. A lot of old sections require dismount at crossings on a cycle track, so this is the reality. Alternatively, I can use `=path`. 2. I wanted to keep it as a `=cycleway`, since this is what is is. I read there are controversies with `bicycle=dismount`. I also ... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | emvee ♦432 | Thanks for the details, understood that you are required to dismount at crossings on a cycle track.I am not sure where your preferences for using condition @ dismount comes for but I think it is not a good idea because there is a simpler solution (bicycle=dismount). OSM data is also use by routi... | |
| 107972574 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-07-14 10:51 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | 快乐的老鼠宝宝 ♦603 | Hey guys! There are three item that have a odd key ```fixme:name:<lang>```, they are https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/219614364 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2440289063 , and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7185830521Using taginfo I only found 3 item have this tag, so I guess if... |
| 105572897 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-05-30 15:31 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | Ian Ho ♦6 | Would you explain what are these? |
| 105974923 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-06-07 13:18 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | CC_Simon ♦9 | 你好村落原已有標籤,加上可以無需再另外并且不是一個大的分區,可以無需再另加標籤(例子:雞嶺 大頭嶺等等)而上水南等地名並未有如粉嶺南等為當區居民所廣泛使用,而係使用清河 太平等名字,建議無需使用這種辨認度不... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. Sorry I don't understand that. The `addr:place=` on the `landuse=residential` is for addressing house-numbers. `place=village`, not `place=hamlet`, should be used when the inhabited population exceeds eg 100. 2. At least Google returns quite a lot of results when the query is refined loca... | |
| 104773406 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-05-16 15:12 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,882 | Hello! Short question why does the numerical value of a slope still have a name here? The value is identical to the local name of this path. See http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/17s0 |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,what does 'wheelchair:both' mean? Is that about using the sidewalks with a wheelchair? That would be sidewalk:both:wheelchair=*What does 'sidewalk=limited' mean? 'limited' is not a commonly used value. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | @user_5359 Previously I found someone using `incline:name=` for the name of a slope elsewhere. `loc_name=` doesn't really qualify what it is based on. `*:etymology=` would be off, and not correspond to any Wikidata item or Wikipedia. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | @mueschel That's only covers half of the story. I remember there are often some narrow edges to stand on (barely walkable in comfort but still navagiable) on some sections; not sure if these should be considered a sidewalk. On the mountain side, there are drainage holes, and a shallow channel... | |
| 101436357 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-03-21 12:07 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | Jeremy Liong ♦5 | I'm still quite new to map editing so I've still got a lot to learn. So for example, "Wong Nai Chung Tree Walk" happens to be overlapping with the first section of "Sir Cecil's Ride", how should it be handled? How could map readers get to know the information abou... |
| 99150493 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-02-12 06:08 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,the key 'variable_message' doesn't exist anywhere else. What does it mean? |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | Really? I know that `traffic_sign=variable_message` is used. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | There is this tag to define the type of message:https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/variable_message_informationBut in this case it seems that traffic_sign=variable_message would be the appropriate one. | |
| 97705285 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-01-18 14:28 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | tealeaf6 ♦9 | Hi Kovoschiz,I noticed that you added the `ref=NT842` tag of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/756052367 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/452269551, and this value is already in the `traffic_signals:ref` tag. Based on this communication where the tag was discussed previously, https://www.open... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | Oh this must be a mistake. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | Also I notice some applications render crosswalks with `ref=`. They will be removed in the future. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 years ago | tealeaf6 ♦9 | Hi Kovoschiz,Thank you for your response, and thanks for making the edit.-tealeaf6 | |
| 98122254 by Kovoschiz @ 2021-01-25 12:31 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,882 | Hello! Please use addr:city instead of addr:town. |
| 79679068 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-01-17 06:03 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | 小智智 ♦66 | WTF did you add "addr:street:carriageway_ref:kmb" and "addr:street:ref:kmb" into the bus stops?! These are undocumented and it seems meaningless. |
| 95051117 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-11-30 14:33 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,882 | Hello! What is the need to have a tag building:terrace=apartments? You also this information without these tag.building=terracebuilding:levels=12building:terrace=apartmentsbuilding:use=apartmentscount=10 |
| 89677003 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-08-20 08:36 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | Wright One ♦45 | 有必要保留舊記憶嗎? |
| 93333641 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-10-31 11:20 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | keilingha ♦9 | This changes makes numerous hiking apps stop working. This made a disaster to hiking teams in Hong Kong as they could not see all distance post from the app or even online OSM map and caused danger to them. Would you please revert such change?Please delete the name from the information node to let... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | Handled in message | |
| 93326928 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-10-31 08:33 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | keilingha ♦9 | This changes makes numerous hiking apps stop working. This made a disaster to hiking teams in Hong Kong as they could not see all distance post from the app or even online OSM map and caused danger to them. Would you please revert such change?Please delete the name from the information node to let... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | Handled in message | |
| 93323336 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-10-31 06:29 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | keilingha ♦9 | This changes makes numerous hiking apps stop working. This made a disaster to hiking teams in Hong Kong as they could not see all distance post from the app or even online OSM map and caused danger to them. Would you please revert such change?Please delete the name from the information node to let... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | Handled in message | |
| 93314239 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-10-30 23:21 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | keilingha ♦9 | This changes makes numerous hiking apps stop working. This made a disaster to hiking teams in Hong Kong as they could not see all distance post from the app or even online OSM map and caused danger to them. Would you please revert such change?Please delete the name from the information node to let... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | Handled in message | |
| 93314077 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-10-30 23:13 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | keilingha ♦9 | This changes makes numerous hiking apps stop working. This made a disaster to hiking teams in Hong Kong as they could not see all distance post from the app or even online OSM map and caused danger to them. Would you please revert such change?Please delete the name from the information node to let... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | Handled in message | |
| 93309662 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-10-30 20:27 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | keilingha ♦9 | This changes makes numerous hiking apps stop working. This made a disaster to hiking teams in Hong Kong as they could not see all distance post from the app or even online OSM map and caused danger to them. Would you please revert such change?Please delete the name from the information node to let... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | Handled in message | |
| 93309485 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-10-30 20:23 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | keilingha ♦9 | This changes makes numerous hiking apps stop working. This made a disaster to hiking teams in Hong Kong as they could not see all distance post from the app or even online OSM map and caused danger to them. Would you please revert such change?Please delete the name from the information node to l... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | Handled in message | |
| 93326658 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-10-31 08:24 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | __martin__ ♦2 | Hi Kovoschiz, adding "name" to distance posts will hide their no. It is better to display the no. instead of the trail name. |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | keilingha ♦9 | This changes makes numerous hiking apps stop working. This made a disaster to hiking teams in Hong Kong as they could not see all distance post from the app and caused danger to them. Would you please revert such change? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | Handled in message | |
| 4 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | @__martin__ Many renders show `ref=` after the name in brackets. | |
| 93481054 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-11-03 11:54 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | happychanbbb ♦2 | https://www.hkemobility.gov.hk/tc/route-search/drivinghttps://www.map.gov.hk/gm/map/Where is the official name ? |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. Please don't directly copy from copyrighted source2. One reason being official names or officially used names may not be used on maps either. 3. In common usage, it's already used in https://www.td.gov.hk/tc/traffic_notices/index_id_59657.html I.1 for example. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | 4. What you see are street names only, not necessarily the sole name for a road section. | |
| 92985365 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-10-24 11:24 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | 小智智 ♦66 | Please don't add invalid tags into bus routes.There is no "brand" for routes 960X / 968X. (It does exist for Cityflyer routes or H1 / H2)The designation should follow the schedule of routes order, i.e. "過海路線 Cross Harbour Route".The network should have th... |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. `brand=` is for the brand it is carrying. `operator=` or `netowkr=` isn't exactly the same as `brand=` 2. "Special Departure Route" is used. 3. `network=` isn't used for that. Some other tags could be used, including the legal `designation=` that could be applicable here. ... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | For example, how would you tag MTR Bus and MTR Feeder Bus? | |
| 4 | ~ 5 years ago | 小智智 ♦66 | type=routeroute=busref=K58network="港鐵巴士 MTR Bus"operator="香港鐵路有限公司 MTR Corporation" | |
| 5 | ~ 5 years ago | 小智智 ♦66 | The network tag here is debatable. Theoretically we should consider each franchise a network, but using this reasoning fails for jointly-operated routes. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. This fails to reflect that it is integrated in the PT network of MTR. 2. I don't see how it "fails". They are simply only partially integrated. | |
| 7 | ~ 5 years ago | 小智智 ♦66 | 1. The MTR Bus (港鐵巴士) routes are a separate network. They are not part of the MTR (港鐵). The MTR operates the following networks of routes:- MTR- Light Rail- MTR Bus- MTR Feeder Bus- Ngong Ping 360- High-speed railetc.2. What do you mean by partially integrated? For exam... | |
| 8 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. You are conflating system/mode and service. MTR, Light Rail, MTR Bus, and MTR Feeder Bus can be considered in the same "network". This is similar to considering transit agencies as a "network". 2. Again, what's the issue with a partially-integrated route in a network? | |
| 9 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | 2. You could even say it's not in any "network", for this example | |
| 10 | ~ 5 years ago | 小智智 ♦66 | 1. They are clearly not the same network according to the official usage. They are always listed out separately as MTR Bus, Light Rail, MTR, etc separately. Each of these are governed by different regulations. All these networks combined are called "綜合港鐵系統 Integrated MTR system"... | |
| 11 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. That's what the `brand=` could be for. | |
| 12 | ~ 5 years ago | Kovoschiz | 2. Yet again, it's a matter of degree and considerations. Rail-side-wise, Airport Express is obviously in the same "network"; PT-service-wise, your raised a good question, but yet again I don't find partial integration to be an issue denying consideration as one "network&quo... | |
| 90241718 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-09-01 11:11 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,what do these tags mean? Why are they a 'note' and not a regular tag? note:leaf = broadleaved note:leaf_cycle = evergreen |
| 90197810 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-08-31 14:37 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Please fix the spelling of keys, it's 'carriageway', not 'carraigeway'. |
| 89521107 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-08-17 13:15 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Please check your tagging.You introduced a huge amount of new keys here, which seem to be copies of each other:carriageway:ref=左ルートcarriageway:ref:en=Left Routecarriageway:ref:ja=左ルートcarriageway:ref:ja-Hira=ひだりルートcarriageway:ref:ja-Latn=Hidari Rūtocarriagew... |
| 88949845 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-08-04 22:10 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | hey kovoschiz, which satellite global imagery will be clearer? bing or esri? |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | Seems that esri have clearer satellite global imagery. But is it accurate? | |
| 87579525 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-07-06 06:15 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,882 | I disagree with your statement: in one case there is no definition of open_date and in another case a time in the future is a logical open_date for the key start_date |
| 87236484 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-06-27 21:34 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,882 | Hello! What is the meaning of key addr:plot? |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | At a glance, I saw it has been used before in https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4380701777/history and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7130431683/history. It's a direct application of `place=plot`. Not sure if it is considered in addressing (by geocoders and editiors alike), so thought I sh... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | It's not a `place=city_block` btw. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,882 | I understand the tag place=plot, but in an address only the country specific address components that the post office needs to deliver the mail belong to it. So only if the same street name (addr:street) exists on two different plots (different addr:plot) with the same postal code (addr:postcode) on ... | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Please observe this territory. Here there's no lower administrative boundaries implemented, so these are information needed and commonly used (more so than street + house number) to describe the place. `landuse=` and `place=plot` areas alone aren't reliable or explicit enough. | |
| 6 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | "in an address only the country specific address components that the post office needs to deliver the mail belong to it." Yes, so I would invite you to get to know how things work here. | |
| 86610403 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-06-13 21:40 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Reminder: Please be so kind and discuss and document new tags before introducing them - there is just nobody who is able to use all this information without proper documentation!destination:bridge:namedestination:bridge:name:endestination:bridge:name:ja\tdestination:bridge:name:zh\tdesti... |
| 86473273 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-06-10 16:34 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | Noted that the tunnel area (north bound)starts near sinopec and the south bound ends near alice court. It should be trunk road but not highways. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Note the use of `highway=motorway_link`. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86356680 | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | If use this concept I need to change a bunch of roads | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | because some main tunnels in hong kong haven't used motorway link for tunnel areas | |
| 6 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | No you don't, and they shouldn't. Do you know what you are talking about? | |
| 7 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | I just go to check but I found that many of them are corrected by you already. | |
| 86418915 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-06-09 16:55 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | yes, just like this road. You have changed it. |
| 86368765 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-06-08 19:12 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | hey please check airport road. I think using highway=motorway_link isn't suitable for this road. Airport Road should be a separate road, just like Ma On Shan Road, as the highway section is ended in north lantau highway. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | I have changed a little part of this road. you can go to check if there is any problem, as I consider the first part of airport road as the link road with some forks. | |
| 86354471 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-06-08 12:19 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | please just don't reverse my changes. Tell me where the problem so I can solve it immediately |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | you always reverse my changes and add my changes again by yourself, wasting of your time. Better let me know and correct the problem by myself. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | YOU are the one wasting everyone's time by making edits you don't understand, starting edit wars, and not correcting yourself. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | I told you countless times in the past. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | You didn't try to give me time to correct them, just change them immdiately. | |
| 6 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | If you feels annyoing about it you can just list out the problem. I can change it myself | |
| 7 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | you can't say I'm going to make edit wars, as you didn't give me enough time to change them back. | |
| 8 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | As you see, you always go to reverse that changes and change it yourself, then tell me about the problem. How can I correct myself? | |
| 9 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | Also seems that only you show disappointment of my edits, but not the other editors. You can just leave down a message for my edits, not using your time to edit it back again. If you think I'm making trouble, leave down that trouble for me to solve. | |
| 10 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | As I see, you always just point out some of my problems and immediately delete all changes I make. you are just doing edit-map regulators. Better leave down your claims in the comments to let me change myself. | |
| 11 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Do you know why? Because you are changing perhaps the most important and defining aspect of map data. | |
| 12 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | >As you see, you always go to reverse that changes and change it yourself, then tell me about the problem. How can I correct myself?By not making more wrong edits? | |
| 13 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | I mean, tell me the problem and leave it down the for me solve, maybe I will learn more from it. Otherwise, if every time i make wrong changes and you immediately correct it I may easily forget that mistake and make trouble again. | |
| 14 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | Due to lack of examples, I can't define the meaing of fork of roads. Nevermind, thanks for a lot of reminders. I will check carefully before editing. | |
| 86354319 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-06-08 12:16 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Temp fix --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86354319 |
| 86310634 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-06-07 14:58 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | Seems that the meaning of highway=trunk_link isn't the same in our mind. Please can you explain detaily so that I wont make wrong changes afterwards.As I know, highway=trunk_link is the link road to highway=trunk. So I edit the only road to highway=trunk to be highway=trunk_link, not including ... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | As I think that before that U turn road near dorset cresent, the road shouldn't be trunk link. please explain the meaning of fork of highways. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | In my observations, If I use your meaning of highway=trunk_link, there are a bunch of wrong road in hong kong. Thousands of forks disappeared, and some roads after leave the trunk road haven't be mentioned as highway=trunk_link. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | Also, I find one serious problem in osm is, there are millions of missing pedestrian roads. So should I add them? | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | Amd also there are a bunch of highway signs that is for the traffic lights. So is there missing of traffic lights? Should I also put in ref=K_ _ _in the information of the traffic lights? | |
| 6 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | Also can you explain what is" fix me", | |
| 7 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | Also, Chattham Road north near fat kwong street, highway=trunk_link is missing. | |
| 8 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | Also in hkisland, hing fat street has a link to highway, but editors make it become secondary roads. Is that wrong? | |
| 9 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | I don't want to ask a bunch of questions, but just I don't have a guideline. | |
| 86302962 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-06-07 10:01 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Fix /changeset/86297381 |
| 86292038 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-06-06 21:23 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Fix /changeset/85779178 |
| 86147803 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-06-03 17:37 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | I understand what you are saying, but i think trunk link maybe more suitable for kwai chung road, as it is a fork between kwai chung road (route 5) to kwai chung road (一級道路)。 |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | take eastern corridor as an example. In route 4 exit 3C there is a road which is linking between oi shun road and the highway. And this road already changed as highway link. similar case of kwai chung road. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | also can you write chinese? | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | For historic reasons, `highway=motorway` is special, so it has to be handled by `highway=motorway_link`. Oi Shun Rd ends at Tai Hong St, and this is a four-way intersection. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | but i will say kwai chung road is a spevial case. it is highway=motorway in kwai chung section, but in route 5 section it is highway=trunk. therefore we can describe it as highway=trunk_link(my suggestion) and highway=motorway_link(your suggestion). | |
| 6 | ~ 6 years ago | Free gems 8 ♦38 | oi shun road was similar case but have difference here. oi shun road ends and the road linking to highway is called eastern corridor. but kwai chung road is same name with 2 totally different roads | |
| 85746937 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-05-26 06:31 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Whcohi ♦3 | Locked by local resident with electric gate. Also, the local state he do not want people trespass that path. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Whcohi ♦3 | Blocked by local farmer or fish man with wired gate, a sign stated no entry as well. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Thanks https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85804139 | |
| 85341395 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-05-17 16:44 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,could you please take some time and document the huge amount of new keys you invent every day? All this information is useless if no user of the data is able to interpret it.E.g.crossing:island=separatecrossing:island:separate=yescrossing:island:tactile_paving=contrastedcrossing:i... |
| 85106366 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-05-12 21:19 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Added resort areas (also a bunch of other additions and fixes for them) |
| 78489168 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-12-16 19:25 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | feta2 ♦24 | Hi Kovoschiz,I noticed you added junction:ref= NT405 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158584374, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158584309, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158584377, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/524742248. Based on the Key:junction:ref wiki : https://wiki.openstre... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | First of all, I think there's some issues with the Wiki. It is a "in use" key only, and the associated proposal is only in draft stage and is very old. If you compare definitions, you will see there are some inconsistencies. "junction" itsel refers to a junction, nothing m... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | (You will see J-numbers being used to refer to the entire interchange in the UK. Exit numbers are meaningless to use in this respect, and they don't cover entrances and entry-only connector roads.) | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | To be consistent, for the time being I feel like one should use `motorway_junction:ref=` to go with `highway=motorway_junction` when referring to exits. Shockingly, apparently `highway=motorway_junction` is also de facto only. You will some discussion on this topic. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | * You will some discussion on this topic in the talk page | |
| 6 | ~ 6 years ago | feta2 ♦24 | Hello Kovoschiz,Thanks for the quick and detailed response. It is interesting to learn about the numbering of junctions and crosswalks. I noticed on taginfo (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/traffic_signals%3Aref#values) more of them that are tagged with `traffic_signal:ref=` in Hong Kong... | |
| 7 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | I made an HK-wide tidy. openstreetmap.org/changeset/84772139 | |
| 82717291 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-03-27 13:41 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,could you explain this new 'carriageways' tag you used here?What is its relationship to 'carriageway' and 'lanes'?Please, spend some time and document these new tags, otherwise the information is useless for every other user. |
| 81628041 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-02-29 19:26 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,do you have an imagr of this fountain? I don't understand what the 'note:...' and 'separate' tags mean.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/777334030Thanks! |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. They look like blocks that can be sit on. Although they are only adjacent to the mist nozzles, I'm not sure if they are actually used as a bench. So I left those tags there. 2. It is more of a POC. I found that someone asked a few months ago how to map fountain amenity and nozzles separate... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | * (2. I also don't know if people map the walls of a fountain that can be sit on, or assume most fountains have an edge that allows sitting) | |
| 80645162 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-02-06 13:40 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,you added two recreations grounds on rooftops and used name spaced tags for this:landuse:landcoverlanduse:levellanduse:locationlanduse:surfaceThere's a problem with that, because no software expects this and can't interpret it correctly. We could simply disentangle the t... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | I'm not sure if a `landuse=`, or `landuse=recreation_ground` specifically is allowed to be put on a roof. I see its uses are either indoor or on top of terrain, which seem to suggest they are not entirely correct. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | (from an Overpass query on its combination with `location=` or `level=`) | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | I could have added a `fixme=` | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | I think that most people just don't tag the 'location'. 'level' is only for indoor tagging, so it doesn't really apply here. It seems more common to say the building is underground and put a layer=-1 there (or a layer=1 on the landuse). I would decide this based on how ... | |
| 80203324 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-01-28 13:56 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,I have two question about the tags on bus stops:- 'addr:street:name:en' - this tag is not used in other places, the common one is 'addr:street:en'.- Is this a real postal address or more a location marker? It's rather common to give these a special tag instead of ... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Oh sorry, this must be a copy and paste error. I wish editing tools catch these better. | |
| 80083494 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-01-25 20:34 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Partial revert / fix |
| 79781776 by Kovoschiz @ 2020-01-20 07:25 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Wright One ♦45 | OSMCha tag: Irrelevant tags on highwayJOSM warning: suspicious tag combination - highway together with addr:* --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79781776 |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Please go ahead to add the name of this road if you know. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79781776 | |
| 78540897 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-12-17 18:24 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Wright One ♦45 | JOSM Warning Message: origin:country:conditional 語法有誤 |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | 1. It's proof of concept 2. `*country:=` and `*:conditional` should be valid. | |
| 78935324 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-12-27 17:07 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | prelim |
| 75595998 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-10-12 09:36 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Wright One ♦45 | You moved buildings of On Shing Terrace SW 5 meters against its actual position |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Wright One ♦45 | Use offset to rectify them la | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Explain? | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | What's your ground? | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Why would you only correct On Shing Terrace if you think this area is wrong? | |
| 6 | ~ 6 years ago | Wright One ♦45 | My edit was made from smartphone gomap app | |
| 7 | ~ 6 years ago | Kovoschiz | Ok so you can upload your repeated gps tracks first? | |
| 75594910 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-10-12 08:39 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | Wright One ♦45 | Offset found: moving 3 meters north may be better in accuracy |
| 71053763 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-06-08 15:43 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,you used the key 'coach' on several ways - OSM doesn't use this tag in other places. There is 'bus' and 'tourist_bus' as documented tags. Which one is correct?Jan |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | That's a good question. I see it used in OSM and documented on Wiki. Meaning-wise, status quo of `bus` (for local public transport) compared to `coach` (long distance intercity) and `tourist_bus` (private use) seem different enough. However, I would like to resolve this situation as well. | |
| 70676035 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-05-27 22:03 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | CC_Simon ♦9 | hello，Did you delete the bridge layer？香園圍公路 |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | CC_Simon ♦9 | in the past | |
| 3 | ~ 7 years ago | CC_Simon ♦9 | coz i cant find the data | |
| 4 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | What do you mean? | |
| 5 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | They are still there, no? | |
| 6 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | @ZIV OSM I know now. There's a de facto edit war between you two: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70614348. I restored your `man_made=bridge`s for now. | |
| 70838503 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-06-01 16:01 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,can you check this way, the tag "tertiary_link = 2" looks like a mistake.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/213530992Jan |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | @mueschel Oh thank you very much! | |
| 71056671 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-06-08 18:28 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | Partial revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71005746 after agreeing discussion https://discordapp.com/channels/550009593468813312/550324691001147422/586589922228568084 |
| 70767359 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-05-30 12:07 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,what is the meaning of the tags 'ref:HyD' and 'ref:Hyd'? Where's the difference between the two?Jan |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | Oops spelling mistake, should be "HyD". It's the Highways Department. | |
| 70626008 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-05-26 07:46 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,could you explain why you added the tag "motorroad:tunnel=yes" here? If it's a tunnel, "tunnel = yes" and a layer tag is sufficient.ThanksJan |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | Sorry mueschel I missed your message. In Hong Kong, there are major road tunnels and their highways designated as "Tunnel Area" with motorway-like restrictions. Currently those are classified as `motorway`. However, a mapper recently edited contrary to this convention. I have been wantin... | |
| 3 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | It's a temproary stop-gap until we sort it out. HK has a OSM Discord server. You can join if you are interested in editing here: https://discord.gg/ZdQzz7b | |
| 69423114 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-04-21 12:07 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | mueschel ♦7,396 | Hi,could you explain the meaning of the "coach" tags? OSM only knows the categories 'bus' and 'tourist_bus'.ThanksJan |
| 68924892 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-04-05 14:48 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | *Road alignments |
| 67766389 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-03-04 13:01 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | Shun Long Road main line will be Route 10 `highway=trunk` in the future. |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | Tunnel Area (highway=motorway as of current guideline) to start at under construction section. | |
| 67734314 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-03-03 11:21 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | >* Lai Yip St - Elegance Road fixing. |
| 67581939 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-02-26 13:05 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | jc86035 ♦201 | Does the slip road actually have a name? I'm fairly sure it doesn't, but I'm not sure. (Also, the Chinese name should be before the English name.) |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | You are right. Thx for comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67417570. 1. Bus gates and bus lanes don't, except busways like Canal Road. But this one particularly is locally recognized as important, and I was trying to make a point to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/6741... | |
| 3 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | So it may be partitioned to be unnamed. | |
| 67054913 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-02-09 17:27 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | jc86035 ♦201 | Partially reverting to fix way 171224622. |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | That's not the right way to fix. It's a tunnel area. | |
| 66765129 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-01-30 10:12 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | WIP |
| 66764510 by Kovoschiz @ 2019-01-30 09:48 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Kovoschiz | WIP |