Latest OSM notes of Hong Kong with complete log (Limit 500)
Id#Tmstmp UTCActionContributorComment
1385516 (iD)12018-05-07 10:15openedKing Nga Court Playground
22024-03-13 11:00closedCypp0847Location should be at 22.44032,114.16609 and marked already, resolved
32026-02-01 12:48reopenedkingkingHK
42026-02-01 12:49commentedkingkingHKThe aforementioned coordinates point to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/545203291 , which is "Tak Nga Court Playground", not "King Nga Court Playground" as mentioned in this note. There is probably really an unmapped playground/park here.
52026-02-01 14:53commentedvectorial8192Seeing it isn't open to the public (King Nga Court is probably walled with access=private ), I am leaning towards closing this note without survey.
62026-02-01 15:09commentedkingkingHKI doubt it is walled with `access=private`; "gated communities" are rare in Hong Kong other than a few posh low-density estates.
72026-02-01 15:32commentedvectorial8192Newer HOS estates (e.g. this) are not posh but are walled off and access=private . Try it yourself.
82026-02-02 04:59commentedkingkingHKI didn't know about that. But this is built in the 1990s, no? I wouldn't call this a "newer estate". Anyway, survey recommended, especially as this place is not "extra rural".
92026-02-05 09:18commentedvectorial8192This is already new in the grander scheme of things. Look at older designs e.g. Wang Fuk Court next door, that one is old because it has a semi-open access control, which allows surveying and therefore has public interest.
5116603 (iD)12026-01-04 09:45openedkingkingHKTodo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13076945683 descriptive name
22026-01-15 15:23commentedkingkingHKAlso https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13076945680 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13076945681
32026-02-01 11:46commentedvectorial8192This note now mentions 3 items.
42026-02-01 12:16closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177959180 ; closing.
52026-02-04 15:45reopenedMC0207429
62026-02-04 16:38closedvectorial8192If nothing to add, then closing.
5150707 (iD)12026-02-01 15:10openedvectorial8192todo: cleanup bus relations
22026-02-04 16:32closedvectorial8192Resolved via openstreetmap.org/changeset/178100219 ; closing.
5150715 (iD)12026-02-01 15:12openedkingkingHKtodo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164259073
22026-02-01 15:33commentedvectorial8192um, lgtm?
32026-02-02 05:00commentedkingkingHKBroken: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6607035 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6607037
42026-02-02 12:13commentedvectorial8192Then, how did you check whether the relations are broken?
52026-02-02 12:49commentedkingkingHK...sorry, do you mean "where is the broken part of the quoted relations" or "how did you notice the relations are broken" or "generally, how to determine if a relation is broken"?
62026-02-02 13:44commentedvectorial8192I presume you knew of a tool where you would type in the relation number and then the tool told you whether the relation was OK? I can roughly see there exists multiple possible ways/tools to "check" relations, and I am unsure which one you may be using. For example, https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=6607037&_noCache=on says t...
72026-02-03 07:35commentedKovoschizThis is not scalable. You should use JOSM when changing to a pair of lines. It may be preferable for you to not do this if you don't fix the routes yourself.
82026-02-03 07:36commentedKovoschizShort pair of lines at islands is not an absolutely strict expectation. It's even often debated when to do it. So it's easier to avoid it.
92026-02-03 16:55commentedvectorial8192My criteria is to split the ways so that we can have a clear mapping of the (staggered) pedestrian crossings. This doesn't happen regularly so I am not too concerned about scalability, though with continuing urbanization, we will find more and more of this "single -> double" case from irl-upgrading signaled crossings. With me starting to know how ...
5152477 (iD)12026-02-03 02:56openedHenryEKnode 5745603464 seems to no longer exist and is just a blank mount where the attraction once was as of yesterday https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5745603464
3149177 (iD)12022-04-23 18:52openedWhcohiThe ele is way off, don't think it a good idea to keep misinformation.
22022-04-27 03:35closedPoHKrefer CEDD (Civil Engineering and Development Department), Lo Han Tower top level is +819.8
32022-04-27 09:44reopenedWhcohi
42022-04-27 10:07commentedWhcohii know, but is it okay to said it out right the ele data is refer to the CEDD?
52026-01-18 17:50commentedvectorial8192Re Discord discussions, it seems that in general in OSM, we may not copy data from a database. The CEDD data is quite complete (every hill should have a height record there) and would count as a database, so we may not copy from it.
62026-01-19 03:25commentedkingkingHKFrom Discord discussion, the safest way would be to use out-of-copyright maps. Unfortunately, it seems like the maps from 1975 left this area as an uncontoured blank space simply labelled "Rock Outcrop".
72026-02-02 13:48commentedvectorial8192The government didn't care about Lantau Island until there was political need to build a new airport, which would mean that consideration and associated surveying happened in the 1980s. Worst case, by the 50-year rule, we would need to wait until 2035 or later to really find usable maps for this. I am unsubscribing from this note.
82026-02-02 14:16commentedkingkingHKUnfortunately, 819.8 m only started appearing in government maps from 1994, meaning we would need to wait until 2044. This note is virtually unactionable unless we somehow triangulate the elevation.
5150788 (iD)12026-02-01 16:01openedvectorial8192todo: clean up bus relations
22026-02-02 12:03closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178001499 ; closing.
5143296 (iD)12026-01-26 06:09openedvectorial8192todo: construction work review
22026-02-02 09:04closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177994751 ; closing.
5034332 (iD)12025-11-02 15:12openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-02-02 08:54commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here.
5043144 (iD)12025-11-08 11:13openedLkwokon賀龍汽車維修中心
22026-02-02 08:53commentedkingkingHKIndeed.
5043056 (iD)12025-11-08 09:19openedWright OneCLP substation
22026-01-09 12:21commentedvectorial8192Do you have more info for this? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1078782121 this describes the land as a "construction site for a future data centre". It seems extremely unlikely there would be a power substation right at this place, or perhaps this intends to describe a new substation to be built together with the data centre.
32026-02-02 08:41commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a power substation here, seemingly built with the data centre.
5034363 (iD)12025-11-02 15:20openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-02-02 08:21closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177993465 ; closing.
5065720 (iD)12025-11-24 09:23openedkingkingHKDoes this https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4349312890 actually exist? Which routes call here?
22025-11-25 15:44commentedvectorial8192could just be green minibuses with some "hail on ride" value (not too familiar with that kind of tagging)
32025-12-03 13:32commentedkingkingHKSee also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5065723
42026-02-02 08:10commentedvectorial8192By survey, there's nothing here.
5038052 (iD)12025-11-04 17:26openedvectorial8192individual buildings and streets, where name:en?
22026-01-02 23:01closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 03:41reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 03:41commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
52026-01-25 15:01commentedkingkingHKNot sure where the `name:zh` came from in the first place; can't survey due to `access=private` and can't find any useful info online.
62026-01-25 17:10commentedSkylark_H_CI believe these names are real. Refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5L_oSHKvck (vlog of the experience in this hostel)
72026-01-25 17:13commentedSkylark_H_Cbut yes, some of these streets have no English name. (4:50 in the video)
82026-01-26 03:25commentedkingkingHK1. copyright 2. If it cannot be verified without entering an `access=private` premise I believe it would cause problems verifiability.
92026-01-26 06:00commentedvectorial8192Re "copyright" I quote https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-a-youtube-video-an-acceptable-source/125692/5 > However, factual information in that video is probably not “the video or a non-trivial excerpt from it”. So, for example, if someone has gone for a leisurely walk around a town centre, filmed it, uploaded it to YouTube, and you spot...
102026-01-26 15:25commentedkingkingHK1. Anyway, as Kovoschiz said in Discord, Youtube videos can never be used to map OSM due to Terms of Services, regardless of copyright. 2. Imo this is too private, e.g. you wouldn't indoor map your home even though you are an OSM user who can verify it.
112026-01-26 18:43commentedKovoschiz1. " (And… then there’s terms of use to consider. Google Maps has a clause that says roughly “by using this site, you agree that you won’t use features like Street View to update your own map database”, no matter what copyright law might say. I haven’t looked to see whether YouTube has anything like this because I try to avoid YouTube ...
122026-02-02 05:57commentedvectorial8192I opened this note because it's highly unusual that we have streets in HK that have no English names. A san-check/survey may be needed. With the YT video, I can san-check that, indeed, the streets *not* having English names is normal. We can have a middleground where I add a note to 1331 stating that the streets really do not have English names.
132026-02-02 06:02commentedvectorial8192YT TOS https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8 : > You are not allowed to: > > access, reproduce, download, [...] Taking a single frame and then do stuff does not sound like reproducing. afaik updating the notes field brings no meaningful change to the map data (for other mappers only), so probably should not cause damage, but don't quote me o...
142026-02-02 06:23commentedkingkingHK> You are not allowed to use the Service to view or listen to Content other than for personal, non-commercial use Taking a single frame is certainly "viewing", and OSM's license does nothing to prohibit data consumers from using `note=` for commercial purposes.
152026-02-02 07:59closedvectorial8192well then
5151410 (iD)12026-02-02 05:45openedvectorial8192needs discussion: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963900
22026-02-02 05:52commentedvectorial8192the concern is whether "wall to wall connected houses but only 2 in house chain" count as "semi-detached house". See eg 103A and 103B. I think is no. from online picture examples of semi-detached houses, there should have a way for people to reach the backyard without entering the house. if no such method then is just regular rowhouse.
32026-02-02 07:46commentedKovoschizI don't think duplex has such a definition. They are structural only, without regards to sideyard in the lot. It should be further distinguished there, not changed to `=terraced` for this.
5151351 (iD)12026-02-02 02:31openedAAFmapper"Seems to be gone in favor of Lung Fung Mall" The place has gone or never existed. A user of Organic Maps application has reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2026-01-25T13:04:34Z POI name: 屈臣氏 Watsons POI types: shop-chemist amenity-pharmacy #organicmaps ...
5150565 (iD)12026-02-01 13:33opened散掉的冰块This place does not exist: "旁边有一个同名的建筑物，那么这个作为工业用地存在的同名区域应当被删除" A CoMaps user reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-12-27T02:09:53Z POI name: 機場空運中心 Airport Freight Forwarding Cen...
22026-02-01 13:41commentedkingkingHKProbably should change the `building=` `name=` to `addr:housename=`, as per changeset discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172051373
32026-02-01 18:04closedKovoschizAlready is. This is correct for single main building facility/site.
5145374 (iD)12026-01-28 04:37openedvectorial8192todo: by Government Notice 2025/8264, North Lantau Highway (eastbound) should have 80 kmh speed limit.
22026-01-28 04:38commentedvectorial8192while we are at it, also write down the notice number for easier future reference.
32026-01-29 13:35commentedvectorial8192This continues from https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5145054
42026-02-01 16:42closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177969541 ; closing.
5150276 (iD)12026-02-01 09:26openedvectorial8192todo: station is too small
22026-02-01 16:20closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177968557 ; closing.
3740751 (iD)12023-06-18 17:04openedos-emmerThis junction looks like a mini-roundabout but I am not sure. At the moment it's mapped with an area with turning_circle=yes which is wrong in any case. Can someone check if this is a mini-roundabout?
22025-01-06 03:19closedCypp0847Changed at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161042269
32026-02-01 12:53reopenedkingkingHK
42026-02-01 12:54commentedkingkingHKFrom aerial imagery, this is clearly not a mini-roundabout as there are no road markings prohibiting free travel, i.e. it is simply a widened circular road. It should be `highway=turning_circle`.
52026-02-01 14:58closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177964925 ; closing.
5150201 (iD)12026-02-01 08:04openedkingkingHKtodo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171944114 `access=yes` but `foot=no` `bicycle=no` `motor_vehicle=no`? So who can use it? If no gate as https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4104680 said , how is it `=no`? Which one is correct?
22026-02-01 12:19commentedvectorial8192I think there were ancient notes at this location which may be relevant to this. @kingkingHK seeing you can somehow know/check they exist and can revive them, go have a look at those ancient notes.
32026-02-01 12:57commentedkingkingHKThere are https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4104676 https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4104681 https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4104680 which are indeed relevant, but I don't see any additional value they provide in clarifying the current confusing tagging. P.S. to check ancient notes, try getting better-osm-org from https://github.com/deevroma...
42026-02-01 14:46commentedvectorial8192My armchair says that the road is ownership=private
4559591 (iD)12024-12-21 22:31openedDimitar155The 3 sets of 2 buildings each might be semi-detached.
22025-03-29 12:49closedvectorial8192OSM does not provide an easy way to see "polygon shape" history, but currently these buildings are now semi-detached. Therefore, closing.
32025-03-29 15:06reopenedDimitar155They aren't tagged as semi-detached. All of them have building=terrace + house=terrace, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1103846078 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1268486759 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1268486762 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1268486763 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1268486764 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12...
42025-03-30 14:13commentedvectorial8192Hi there! Sorry for misunderstanding the note. You may see me around closing notes to clean up the notes interface, to declutter them. This can be reviewed in detail later.
52025-09-12 14:27commentedkingkingHK@vectorial8192 has the "review in detail later" ever happened? Seems like it's still tagged as `building=terrace` and `house=terrace`. Also, you may be interested in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4559590.
62025-09-12 14:37commentedvectorial8192It never happened. I went to do something else. Also yes I know that similar note is placed at Sai Kung. The original plan was to deal with this first, and then deal with the Sai Kung one later.
72025-09-12 17:48commentedvectorial8192To clarify my situation, the blocker was/is that I am extremely unfamiliar with how individual buildings should be mapped. Me not touching this again was not due to anything bad happening. It's entirely my lack of knowledge.
82025-09-12 17:52commentedvectorial8192Another blocker would be to really manually review the several dozen (or hundred?) of buildings.
92026-02-01 12:48commentedvectorial8192By Overpass Turbo https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2jMo there are about 280 terrace buildings, most of which will likely need to be fixed as per this note.
102026-02-01 13:06commentedkingkingHKConfusingly, there seem to be quite a lot of `building=terrace` + `house=semi-detached`, which doesn't really make sense. Wiki recommends `building=semidetached_house`. Should we create separate notes for other semi-detached houses tagged as terraces for better management?
112026-02-01 13:22commentedvectorial8192Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177961308 by trying to identify the semi-detached houses.
122026-02-01 13:27commentedkingkingHK`building=terrace` + `house=semi-detached` improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177961520
132026-02-01 14:16commentedvectorial8192desync My personal opinion is to change terrace&semi-detached into the proper semidetached_house tag, because having house=semi-detached may subvert meaning of building=house or building=terrace .
142026-02-01 14:21commentedvectorial8192house -> semidetached_house with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963622
152026-02-01 14:28commentedvectorial8192Fixed mistagged semidetached_house with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963756 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963900
162026-02-01 14:29commentedvectorial8192Identified semidetached_house with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963931
172026-02-01 14:44closedvectorial8192Finally, lgtm; closing.
3154260 (iD)12022-04-27 10:26openedA building should be added here and known as "Wo Hop Shek Columbarium Phase II & IV". See pages 8 and 9 of https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr15-16/english/panels/fseh/papers/fseh20160412cb2-1220-3-e.pdf.
22024-02-13 10:29commentedvectorial8192Data (area) exists, but due to tree cover, if want to draw building outline, then need a site visit.
32025-01-15 11:14closedCypp0847This is not exactly a building but an open area. Closing https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161374422
42026-02-01 13:34reopenedkingkingHK
52026-02-01 13:34commentedkingkingHKGovernment maps say "Wo Hop Shek Columbarium Phase II & Phase IV" is a building, not an open area. Survey needed.
2926575 (iD)12021-11-07 17:23openedWright One條路似乎塞左
22026-02-01 13:32closedWright One可以行，但較容易滑到
5150539 (iD)12026-02-01 13:12openedvectorial8192todo: https://overpass-turbo.eu/?w=%22building%22%3D%22semi-detached%22+global&R
22026-02-01 13:21closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177961274 ; closing.
4559590 (iD)12024-12-21 22:28openedDimitar155The 3 sets of 2 buildings each might be semi-detached.
22025-10-06 04:01closedHenryEKfixed
32026-02-01 12:49reopenedvectorial8192
42026-02-01 12:49commentedvectorial8192Related note see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4559591 ; we can further improve this.
52026-02-01 13:00closedvectorial8192Some houses nearby are also semi-detached. Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177960588 ; closing again.
5096262 (iD)12025-12-18 15:41openedvectorial8192It seems the Golf Court extends to this area.
22026-02-01 12:41closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177959938 ; closing.
5052159 (iD)12025-11-14 07:54openedkingkingHKI think https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188837279 should be 132 kV and not 132 V?
22025-11-14 15:56commentedvectorial8192Also see https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/188837279 - no way any irl power cable runs with just 132V; now is not Victorian - past OSM history shows DWG intervention; possibly good faith but hit innocent changeset of fixing "132V" If we choose to trust changeset 171413551, then this is very obviously a 132kV power line.
32025-11-15 04:09commentedkingkingHKWell, the user who made changeset 171413551 (JacobPierce456) also changed a lot of 400 kV lines to 132 kV, even ones connecting to 400 kV substations, so I'm not sure if it's believable. See also https://openinframap.org/#10.68/22.3758/114.1147 for visualisation of power line and voltages.
42025-12-06 15:30commentedvectorial8192I am no electrical engineer, but I think 400 kV infra can be easily repurposed to become 132 kV infra. Unfortunately survey recommended to see what's going on; might be easier to check at Po Lam side.
52026-01-15 14:58commentedkingkingHKI vaguely remember reading somewhere (can't find it now) that CLP uses 400 kV while HK Electric uses 275 and 132 kV. This seems to largely correlate with existing osm data. Anyway, I tried to visit to poles to see if there are any signage indicating voltage, but failed. The Po Lam side is surrounded by construction works, while the Anderson side i...
62026-01-30 10:46commentedkingkingHKI went to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1994601826 , and disappointingly there were no indication of voltage at all.
72026-02-01 11:10commentedvectorial8192OK, consider this "unsubstantiated" tin-hat thought: We see this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/190728390 and we also see this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188837279 . Both are suspiciously and conveniently separated by Shun Lee Estate and Shun Chee Court. Could it be that the original HV overhead power line was split into two due to urba...
82026-02-01 12:33commentedkingkingHKAgree with your thought. Old maps show the power line being constructed in the early 1970s, around the same time Shun Lee Estate was being developed. I also doubt a large voltage change is possible without some structures visible from aerial imagery. However, the west side was also changed from 400 kV to 132 kV by the same DWG-blocked user in the ...
1684719 (iD)12019-02-18 04:54openedLi Ken隱藏路線，己變密林 17 FEB 2019
22025-01-17 15:10closedvectorial8192高空圖片亦已不能見到山徑, 由 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161456988 更新山徑狀況, 消除註記
32026-02-01 08:01reopenedkingkingHK
42026-02-01 08:02commentedkingkingHKReviving as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161456988 is insufficient to reflect latest state; see also discussion there.
52026-02-01 11:45commentedvectorial8192Honourable, but this is extra rural. Might not be worth it.
5148979 (iD)12026-01-31 05:13openedvectorial8192todo: http://www.primavilla.net/
22026-02-01 11:02closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177956887 ; closing.
5128925 (iD)12026-01-14 13:15opened優質乾洗會-大圍村 Quality Dry Clean - Tai Wai Village 洗衣店 翠欣街10號沙田 大 圍 村 7 號 地下
22026-01-20 05:50commentedvectorial8192See https://sunshinelaundry.com.hk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/LoveLaundry_013_Final.pdf
32026-01-28 16:05commentedvectorial8192Upon review, that PDF is from 2016. Not convincing.
42026-01-29 06:58commentedkingkingHKCan't find this feature IRL. However, note mentions Chui Yan Street, which is near Yu Chui Court. Misplace note?
52026-01-29 08:02commentedvectorial8192Feels like a paradoxical/invalid note to me. Yu Chui Court is addressed as "Ngau Pei Sha Street". Nearby Prima Villa doesn't have any shops at all. This note would be pointing at nothing.
62026-01-31 04:46commentedkingkingHKI can't even find a building addressed as 10 Chui Yan Street. Sounds like we can close as "note is not helpful"/"note is incomprehensible".
72026-02-01 10:58closedvectorial8192I was planning to close this note without survey by classifying this as an invalid note. I see we can agree on this. Therefore, closing.
5150364 (iD)12026-02-01 10:53openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1213995468 construction finished?
470359 (iD)12015-11-18 04:26openednevilcheung凱昇藝術中心
22015-11-18 04:26closednevilcheung
32015-11-18 04:26reopenednevilcheung
42025-03-28 08:59commentedvectorial8192Correct
52025-03-29 17:57commentedvectorial8192Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3841741635 , but it seems we don't have a tag for "arts school"...?
62025-07-07 06:15closedroylo5112
72025-09-05 15:46reopenedkingkingHK
82025-09-05 15:46commentedkingkingHKPerhaps `education=art_school`?
92025-09-11 16:13commentedvectorial8192I am half split between "yes let's do it" and "but it also targets school kids".
102025-09-11 16:15commentedvectorial8192I might understand this wrongly, but I feel like `education=art_school` is for adults and teens. Like, a higher-education school for future artists, and not for kids.
112025-09-17 06:25commentedkingkingHKThen, perhaps `amenity=prep_school` + `school=art`?
122025-09-17 10:01commentedKovoschiz`=prep_school` is preparing for exams. This is `=training`
132025-09-17 12:22commentedvectorial8192Agree in principle with @kingkingHK and @Kovoschiz, but also consider doing `education=*` instead of `amenity=*` as per latest OSM recommendation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:education
142025-09-17 21:13commentedKovoschizIt's both `amenity=` + `education`
152025-10-14 09:15commentedkingkingHKSo, `amenity=training` + `education=training` + `training=art`?
162025-12-20 11:23commentedvectorial8192Technically, `amenity=training` is correct, but that doesn't feel right. I feel like "training" is for adults / professionals, but this being a kid's school doesn't fulfill this requirement.
172025-12-20 14:46commentedkingkingHKI don't see why it must be for adults. The wiki defines it as "public places where you can get training". Precedent see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12428711030
182025-12-26 05:01commentedvectorial8192Good precedent; we can type this in later.
192026-02-01 10:53closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177956622 ; closing.
2414889 (iD)12020-11-08 14:33openedCvgUser強記士多
22020-11-08 14:51closedCvgUser強記士多
32021-01-10 21:38reopenedKovoschiz
42024-09-20 09:50closedCypp0847Added, but seemingly closed, pls confirm
52026-02-01 07:58reopenedkingkingHK
62026-02-01 07:59commentedkingkingHK...why would you resolve a note while admitting you don't have enough information to do so? Anyway, survey needed. But this might be difficult.
5150198 (iD)12026-02-01 07:51openedkingkingHKtodo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1002255941 etc descriptive name
5149136 (iD)12026-01-31 09:32openedPlease Change “ Hong Kong Student Aid Society Primary School“ to its newly changed named ‘Christian Pui Yan Primary School’ SInce I am a student that studying in that school
22026-01-31 19:27closedKovoschizhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/170061955/history/4
5149137 (iD)12026-01-31 09:33openedPlease Change “ Hong Kong Student Aid Society Primary School“ to its newly changed named ‘Christian Pui Yan Primary School’ SInce I am a student that studying in that school
22026-01-31 18:15closedKovoschizDupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5149136
5141255 (iD)12026-01-24 14:57openedvectorial8192Unstable speed limits at this junction; ?
22026-01-24 15:26commentedkingkingHKWhat's unstable? It makes sense, and the road markings visible from aerial imagery largely agree with the existing mapping, other than your https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177646947
32026-01-24 18:15commentedvectorial8192See https://openstreetbrowser.org/#map=19/22.40525/113.97796&basemap=osm-mapnik&categories=car_maxspeed ; then, see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1086693746 Ain't no way there is a tiny section with 50 kmh speed limit inside a whole stretch of 70 kmh speed limit.
42026-01-25 04:11commentedkingkingHK1. The speed limit ovals visible from aerial imagery do indeed show a 50 km/h marking there. 2. It makes sense that a sharp curve would have a lower speed limit than a straight highway, see also 30 bridge.
52026-01-29 19:06commentedvectorial8192I am not doubting the existence of "50 kmh"; I am doubting that it lasts only this short, hence "unstable". No details yet, but I am leaning towards "Tsing Tin Road probably is not 70 kmh".
62026-01-30 03:50commentedkingkingHKPlease see https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.405515038428973&lng=113.97723239856998&z=18.447655819974504&pKey=1451362138529520&focus=photo&x=0.4868516350424504&y=0.5564936033969253&zoom=0
72026-01-30 06:32commentedvectorial8192Images are from 2020; medium believable. Will also do a web search to see if the speed limit is somehow changed while we are not looking.
82026-01-30 10:44commentedkingkingHKSpeed limit changes will result in a gazette, which I can't find any of. Also, if the speed limit is somehow changed, why do we still see 50 km/h ovals from 2025 aerial imagery when exiting Tsing Tin Road?
92026-01-30 14:14commentedvectorial8192OK, no need to argue on the 50 kmh part, we got a traffic accident right at this place today and I can armchair-see clearly there is indeed a 50 kmh oval here. The concern was whether the bridge got demoted from 70 kmh to 50 kmh while we were not looking, which trusting you did not happen. Will make changeset soon.
102026-01-30 15:59closedvectorial8192Thanks for the help in finding out effective sources. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177893973 ; closing.
4852037 (iD)12025-07-12 21:07openedvectorial8192"Hung Shui Kiu" is only a tentative name, as per usual railway development practice.
22025-12-14 13:16commentedkingkingHKExcuse my ignorance on this topic, could you please elaborate on what the "usual railway development practice" is, why "Hung Shui Kiu" is only a tentative name, and how it affects osm mapping/tagging? Thanks in advance.
32025-12-15 05:29commentedvectorial8192Basically, the "correct" name is only decided very late into the construction process, which is essentially a month before usage. During construction, the station most likely has a technical but internal name, and ideally we should type that name into the name field, but obviously that's private info and we can't expect to know about that. I opted...
42025-12-15 05:30commentedvectorial8192However, imo the real station name will very likely be "Hung Shui Kiu" as most would expect, but right now that's unsubstantiated and would count as "original research"/"fabrication".
52026-01-30 15:50closedvectorial8192Discord discussion clarified that it's ok to use working names for the name field. In addition, the concept name "Hung Shui Kiu" has been known by the public for 25+ years now (original West Rail planning). Then, nothing to do here. Closing.
5146803 (iD)12026-01-29 10:24openedvectorial8192Duplicate funicular station "Garden Road". What is the standard for mapping funicular stations?
22026-01-29 13:17commentedkingkingHKI think the station was moved recently?
32026-01-29 14:03commentedvectorial8192Not sure if "moved" is the correct word. It be like this: For a long time the facility and the tram stop is co-located at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/636324517 . Then, afaik around 2020, the tram was closed for a major upgrade, which involved majorly extending the train formation for increased capacity. They found out the historic facility ...
42026-01-30 04:12commentedkingkingHKThen, sounds like this stop has simply expanded, and the platform moved.
5128919 (iD)12026-01-14 13:13opened洗衣博士順新洗衣 No 34, G/F, Mei Lam Shopping Centre, Tai Wai, Shatin
22026-01-20 05:50commentedvectorial8192See https://www.linkhk.com/tc/shop/21804
32026-01-29 07:06commentedkingkingHKIndeed, feature exists IRL.
42026-01-29 15:08closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177849787 ; closing.
5078240 (iD)12025-12-04 06:21openedvectorial8192Name of "house" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993221815 is very suspicious
22026-01-29 13:54commentedvectorial8192From satellite imagery, very likely a descriptive name + tag misuse. Squatter area should be tagged as some residential area, not as a building.
32026-01-29 13:56closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177846501 ; closing.
5034358 (iD)12025-11-02 15:19openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-29 09:57commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here.
5034359 (iD)12025-11-02 15:19openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-29 09:57commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here.
5034356 (iD)12025-11-02 15:19openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?)
22026-01-29 09:57commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here.
5034355 (iD)12025-11-02 15:18openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-29 09:57commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here.
5128923 (iD)12026-01-14 13:14opened哆啦洗衣 大圍積福街2-4號積福樓地下E號舖
22026-01-20 05:49commentedvectorial8192See https://www.storellet.com/story/KMe12xQYbXNoFAsi/%E5%93%86%E5%95%A6%E6%B4%97%E8%A1%A3%EF%BD%9C%E6%96%B0%E5%BA%97%E4%B8%8A%E6%9E%B6
32026-01-28 16:08closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177809549 ; closing.
5128924 (iD)12026-01-14 13:15opened清新洗衣大圍 大圍積富街富軒
22026-01-23 20:28commentedvectorial8192Might be this https://www.facebook.com/p/%E6%B8%85%E6%96%B0%E6%B4%97%E8%A1%A3-61573057642070/ but go walk it.
32026-01-28 15:23closedvectorial8192Indeed. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177807873 ; closing.
5128538 (iD)12026-01-14 04:30openedkingkingHKAre they really constructing https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/774964181 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/774964743 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/774965667 ? Can't see any signs of construction from aerial imagery.
22026-01-14 08:43commentedKovoschizYou can refer to the surroundings. Most if not all non-T2 `=construction` seems should be `proposed:highway=` actually.
32026-01-28 14:33commentedvectorial8192All three roads are changed to be "highway=proposed" with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177805982 ; close?
42026-01-28 15:15closedkingkingHKYeah, was gonna do it myself but you did it first, thanks. Closing.
5128926 (iD)12026-01-14 13:15opened金海洋洗衣店 大圍海福商場26號鋪
22026-01-28 15:07closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177807200 ; closing.
5025035 (iD)12025-10-27 14:48openedvectorial8192Sing Mun River has fixme, presumably about boat access. However, afaik, there are no legal restrictions about boat access.
22025-12-30 04:09commentedkingkingHKWell, if boats are not allowed, then https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493816164 would not exist.
32025-12-30 04:22commentedvectorial8192Indeed. My vibe is that, the guy is misunderstanding "physical constraints" with "legal restrictions". Clearly the river cannot support e.g. yacht-boats with their high sails, but one may always try.
42026-01-28 14:38commentedvectorial8192Wait, fixme was raised by Kovoschiz; discussion needed.
5122127 (iD)12026-01-08 16:20openeduser_10539745"wrong spot, there are 2 correct ones already added" The place has gone or never existed. A user of Organic Maps application has reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-12-14T02:16:23Z POI name: 鮨政 Sushi Masa POI types: amenity-restaurant #organicmaps ios ...
22026-01-28 14:14commentedvectorial8192This shop is probably closed; we got another one elsewhere (see https://www.taikwun.hk/en/lifestyle_enjoyment/shop/sushi-masa-black-and-masa-lounge/122 ).
5145054 (iD)12026-01-27 18:51openedvectorial8192todo: North Lantau Highway (westbound) probably should have 110 kmh speed limit.
22026-01-28 03:05closedkingkingHKIt's a medium-term temporary reduction due to nearby construction works. See Government Notice 2025/8264.
5144341 (iD)12026-01-27 07:34openedvectorial8192todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2935577631 pretty sure should be gone.
22026-01-27 19:04closedvectorial8192TIL the HD is not the same as the HA. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177774359 ; closing.
5141133 (iD)12026-01-24 12:55openedvectorial8192www.openstreetmap.org/way/446333287 First time in my life hearing about 60kmh speed limit; ?
22026-01-24 13:07commentedkingkingHKProbably simply typo? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104194774
32026-01-27 16:22commentedvectorial8192Anyway, survey does confirm "50kmh".
42026-01-27 16:23closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177767921 ; closing.
5141828 (iD)12026-01-25 05:18openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19120076 I think this has been completed? https://www.legco.gov.hk/tc/open-legco/press/yr2025/pr20251002-1.html
22026-01-27 10:47closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177755230
5117986 (iD)12026-01-05 04:15openedkingkingHKThere is no way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1459714974 is actually 30 degrees steep. (Also, `incline=` should be in percentage, not degrees.)
22026-01-08 07:28commentedvectorial8192Haven't been to this exact area before, but never say never. This "extreme" slope is half believable.
32026-01-08 11:09commentedkingkingHKNot believable imo; it's 30 degrees, not percent. That's 57.7%. Probably can't even stand if it is that steep.
42026-01-19 06:36commentedvectorial8192I will point out that some "sidewalks" in this area are more like "side steps" due to extreme slope, and that "extreme" slopes are somewhat believable. As in, perhaps not really 30 degrees, but more like 20 degrees to 25 degrees, which is still "extreme".
52026-01-19 07:12commentedkingkingHKI would like to point out that 30 degrees is basically the steepness of an escalator/a step without landings. Even the "side steps" still have significant landings (how else would frontage access work?) simply because they aren't that steep. Also, this is a vehicular road. Do you really think vehicles can travel up such a steep slope?
62026-01-27 05:39closedCypp0847Did a quick survey at the site. The incline should be around 10 degree only or at most 15 degree.
72026-01-27 05:41reopenedCypp0847
5095569 (iD)12025-12-18 03:55openedkingkingHKHas this construction https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1232397199 been finished? Aerial imagery seem to show a building here, although it is possible that the building shown is the one pre-redevelopment.
22025-12-18 10:55commentedkingkingHKIndeed construction finished.
32026-01-27 05:23closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177746856
5101282 (iD)12025-12-22 15:30openedvectorial8192todo: share_taxi cannot enter Nam Long Shan Road reinterpret the roads to allow for accurate traffic island mapping (use oneway streets)
22026-01-24 16:01commentedvectorial8192Scope is quite large. Note intent basically done via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177649672 Next step is to adjust the bus relations, etc.
32026-01-26 13:26commentedvectorial8192Work is further improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177677477
5141143 (iD)12026-01-24 13:13openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/947230526 I don't think this is really `maxspeed=60`.
22026-01-26 12:29commentedvectorial8192Turns out it's still 50 kmh.
32026-01-26 12:31closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177716084 ; closing.
5140535 (iD)12026-01-23 18:29openedvectorial8192todo/question: should this section of road get noname=yes or should they receive "Discovery Bay Tunnel" by scope extension?
22026-01-25 13:19commentedvectorial8192See https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap520B!en-zh-Hant-HK.pdf "Discovery Bay Tunnel Link Bylaw". The name would probably be derived from that. Maybe we can reference several other "ungazetted road names" cases elsewhere in Hong Kong.
32026-01-26 11:47commentedvectorial8192Upon review, I'm not gonna risk it. Cap 520 offers "Tunnel Link" as the descriptive name of the tunnel itself and the link roads connecting towards it. I will just interpret it as "the link roads have no name".
42026-01-26 11:59closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177715053 ; closing.
5128920 (iD)12026-01-14 13:14opened潔麗乾洗有限公司
22026-01-20 05:52commentedvectorial8192We have https://www.kleaners.hk/ , but it doesn't say anything about possible outlets.
32026-01-26 11:43closedvectorial8192Upon survey, no such thing here. Closing.
5139637 (iD)12026-01-23 03:57openedvectorial8192todo: review toll info
22026-01-23 18:31commentedvectorial8192specifically, looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/246153300 , because it can also provide access to the tunnel office itself, should it not get toll=yes (directional information notwithstanding)?
32026-01-25 04:28commentedkingkingHKImo roads that are highway restrictive as to who can use it (e.g. most tunnel administration building service roads) should not affect things like `highway=` or `toll=`, otherwise you would give factually incorrect information to the 99.999% of people who will never get to use such roads in their lives.
42026-01-25 04:29commentedkingkingHKhighly restrictive* sorry for the typo
52026-01-25 14:36commentedvectorial8192This is a good point. Let's keep it toll=yes
62026-01-26 11:42closedvectorial8192Then, nothing to do here. Closing.
5141260 (iD)12026-01-24 15:01openedvectorial8192todo: junction review
22026-01-25 10:04commentedvectorial8192Scope is quite large. Highway reviewed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177673057 , which involves a junction repositioning. So, next step is to clean up the bus relations, etc.
32026-01-25 15:43commentedvectorial8192Bus relations cleaned up with openstreetmap.org/changeset/177684530
42026-01-25 16:32closedvectorial8192Residue cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177686818 All done; closing.
5034400 (iD)12025-11-02 15:37openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-11-09 12:11closedZuborg2012
32025-11-09 12:57reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-25 15:03commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here.
5034406 (iD)12025-11-02 15:39openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (what should be happening here?)
22026-01-25 04:49commentedkingkingHKProbably at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1202258838 ?
32026-01-25 15:03commentedkingkingHKIndeed it is.
5105251 (iD)12025-12-26 08:14openedvectorial8192todo: use motorway_link for multi-exit end-of-line junctions (e.g. see Western Harbour Crossing).
22025-12-27 11:59commentedvectorial8192It turns out Route 6 is described as "merges into Route 3 (Kwai Chung Side)" (see https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/hk_strategic_route_and_exit_number_system/map/r6/index.html )
32025-12-27 13:34commentedKovoschizThis has no effect, as it's the same for others https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/hk_strategic_route_and_exit_number_system/map/r3/index.html
42025-12-27 13:38commentedKovoschiz(There's even Rt 3 end on both directions)
52025-12-27 13:44commentedvectorial8192Counterpoint: Route 7 states "merges into Route 5 (Tsuen Wan side)" (see https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/hk_strategic_route_and_exit_number_system/map/r7/index.html ); we map it as "trunk road all the way".
62025-12-27 13:45commentedKovoschizNorthern terminal is further complicated by Tsing Long Hwy being on Rt 9 between the Interchange and San Tin Hwy north of NU22. It would be as if CKB is on Rt 3 between WHC and WKH. On the other hand, here it's complicated by Rt 9 merges into `noref=yes` Lin Cheung Rd first.
72025-12-28 06:17commentedvectorial8192If we are willing to break the "one road physical cross-section -> one OSM way" rule, then the solution becomes trivial.
82025-12-28 06:30commentedvectorial8192Another counterpoint: Look at the Route 1 / Route 9 superposition near Racecourse. I think a solution is possible while staying inside the "one cross-section -> one way rule".
92025-12-28 19:39commentedKovoschiz1. That's unacceptable 2. I don't see what's the relevance here. There's no Rt 3 and 6 concurrency.
102026-01-02 23:00closedbpaz709394
112026-01-03 03:40reopenedkingkingHK
122026-01-03 03:40commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
132026-01-25 11:19closedvectorial8192I now see Route 3 -> Route 6 is using motorway; this makes sense because we have precedent for this in Route 5 -> Route 7, which contains an exit for Route 5 itself and also provide the (branching) starting point for Route 7. I see Route 6 -> Lin Cheung Road is also using motorway. Upon rethinking, I have no real proposals/ideas for the Lin Cheun...
5093604 (iD)12025-12-16 11:45openedvectorial8192Various "dots" exist in this area with nothing but "name=Yau Ma Tei Interchange"; what for?
22025-12-17 12:05commentedKovoschizSeems another user omission. In general, `junction=yes` can be used for named junctions, and the confusingly UK-named `=motorway_junction` for exits. However in this case, HK has the special practice of gazetting some roadways to be named "Interchange" as "streets", and it's not straightforward to determine the extent of YMT Interchange when it ove...
32025-12-21 13:09commentedvectorial8192What I mean is, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2861669105 this is just a named "dot". The meaning is unclear.
42026-01-02 23:00closedbpaz709394
52026-01-03 03:40reopenedkingkingHK
62026-01-03 03:40commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
72026-01-25 11:10commentedvectorial8192I remember seeing named dots in the subway tracks, and that's to help with identifying which rail path the node belongs to when the rail paths are overlapping. Here the shape is complex, but the overlapping is minimal, so we may just clear the names from the dots.
82026-01-25 11:12closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177674914 ; closing.
5132153 (iD)12026-01-17 04:13openedkingkingHKI vaguely remember https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341043773 does not exist anymore.
22026-01-17 09:52commentedvectorial8192Old imagery (Bing Maps) and new imagery (ESRI World) both say "no crossings here".
32026-01-17 10:33commentedkingkingHKIirc the barriers prohibiting jaywalking were removed in 2019, which could justify `crossing=informal` as it is no longer illegal to cross. However the barriers were readded later, making it `crossing=no` again.
42026-01-17 10:39commentedvectorial8192"2019" has too much ambiguity to be helpful to OSM mapping. Informal crossings are disallowed within x meters from legal crossings https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1180365855 . I forgot/dunno what x is.
52026-01-17 11:49commentedkingkingHKI quote Cap. 374G (39)(a)(ii): > No pedestrian shall cross a road within 15 m of a light signal crossing otherwise than at the crossing where such lights operate. This is around 39 metres from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1180365855. We can probably do `not:highway=footway` + `not:footway=crossing` + `crossing=no` + `was:highway=footway` + `...
62026-01-17 13:15commentedKovoschizNo need to invoke other crosswalks, but you should measure from the crosswalks at this intersections, which is within 15m. It's illegal to climb over barriers, and cross within 15m of footbridges.
72026-01-17 13:17commentedKovoschizAt least that's my understanding. You must detour via the upstream intersection, or go C-shaped around the intersection.
82026-01-17 13:46commentedkingkingHKI was thinking the footbridge doesn't count because it goes to a different place, but from the wording of the law it seems like it counts anyway...
92026-01-25 10:19commentedvectorial8192I scoff at "it seems like it counts anyway". If laws are this expressively precise (I wish), then we don't even need the Judicial Review. e.g. I hear there is a JR case unrelated to pedestrian crossing arguing that it's unclear/ambiguous which "right hand side" the law is talking about. Hardcore theoretical physics in the legal system, yay. A reas...
102026-01-25 10:26closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177673697 ; closing.
5098788 (iD)12025-12-20 14:48openedkingkingHKAre https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/515864719 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2404144136 duplicates?
22026-01-25 08:52commentedvectorial8192More context: This https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2406459615 points to this https://www.ylsyk.edu.hk/ , which seems embedded into the church.
5141115 (iD)12026-01-24 12:38openedvectorial8192This https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/394542126 does not seem like should be primary_link .
22026-01-24 12:58commentedkingkingHKProbably simply forgotten to change after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157459541
32026-01-25 08:36closedvectorial8192Believable. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177671084 ; closing.
5139696 (iD)12026-01-23 07:36openedvectorial8192todo: Confucian religion landuse? We build a new temple here? What even is this?
22026-01-24 20:18commentedvectorial8192Apparently, is this https://www.hk01.com/18%E5%8D%80%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E/815590/%E9%91%BD%E7%9F%B3%E5%B1%B1%E7%AB%99%E5%95%9F%E7%BF%94%E8%8B%91%E6%97%81%E6%93%AC%E5%BB%BA5%E5%B1%A4%E9%AB%98%E5%AD%94%E5%BB%9F-%E5%AD%94%E6%95%99%E5%BB%A3%E5%A0%B4%E4%BD%9C%E7%B7%A9%E8%A1%9D-%E9%A0%82%E5%B1%A4%E8%A8%AD%E5%A4%A7%E6%88%90%E6%AE%BF
32026-01-25 08:33closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177671030 ; closing.
2434008 (iD)12020-11-20 16:19openedDogistic Limited 一寵愛有限公司
22025-05-12 09:54closed楊展博
32025-05-13 10:13reopenedvectorial8192
42025-05-13 10:14commentedvectorial8192Not done yet; please don't resolve!
52025-09-01 07:45commentedkingkingHKAccording to the Company Registry, a company with the same name has been dissolved in October 2020.
62026-01-24 15:21commentedvectorial8192Then, it seems we may close this?
72026-01-25 03:57commentedkingkingHKDepends on your attitude towards closing notes without surveying. Although I know you might be leaning towards armchair-closing notes from previous discussions elsewhere, there are notes nearby that cannot be armchair-mapped e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5128521 , so if someone decides to visit there they can visit this place too to check...
82026-01-25 08:17commentedvectorial8192The armchair thought is, if the company is closed, then it can't possibly have any in-use features irl. What remains would be e.g. abandoned:building=yes Then, if we don't already have their info on OSM, then we might as well don't do it, and e.g. close the relevant notes. I rather add in-use features in urban areas than to add possibly abandoned ...
5034341 (iD)12025-11-02 15:15openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?)
22026-01-08 07:38commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here.
32026-01-24 16:20commentedvectorial8192Any updates to this note? (semi regular regional note review, to try to close low-hanging notes and declutter the map)
42026-01-25 04:24commentedkingkingHKI will make a changeset soon. You might have noticed I am making less changesets recently, mainly due to exhaustion from real life. There are around 30 notes which I have surveyed and can make a changeset to resolve it anytime I wanted to, but haven't.
52026-01-25 08:06commentedvectorial8192I mean, I have also slowed down. I now convince myself to don't look at new notes until the previous batch is cleared. Or just create short-lived notes.
5141822 (iD)12026-01-25 05:05openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/444187633 feels like a descriptive name, but I'm not sure. (Also, it should probably be "Ventilation")
3654302 (iD)12023-04-22 14:36openedNumber of storeys: 22 Units per floor: 10 Population: 589
22024-03-11 16:44commentedvectorial8192Number of storeys already in OSM data. We don't store population; it is too volatile. We do not have "units per floor"; however, we do have "total units in building". But is it a good idea to store the total?
32024-03-12 09:09commentedKovoschizWhat do you mean? `building:flats=` is a standard, and I haven't seen any question about its usefuleness. Not having units per floor now doesn't mean it can't be created. Also it would be useful to have an `addr:flats=` per floor to show how they are numbered on each floor, as the format is not scalable to list all reliably.
42025-01-16 19:26closedhersonsl
52025-01-17 03:41reopenedvectorial8192
62025-09-24 11:47commentedkingkingHKWill there be any further discussion on this note? Discussions regarding units per floor and address format notation isn't very relevant to this note and is probably better suited elsewhere.
72025-09-24 16:14commentedvectorial8192imo population should not be stored in osm, but I am not too familiar with how that works. can use this opportunity to recheck Tsui Chuk Garden building level/unit correctness, I guess.
82025-09-25 13:03commentedHenryEKwhy is this note still active
92026-01-25 05:03commentedkingkingHK`population=` exists, and the 2021 census gives Tsui Chuk Garden population as 10071. However, the wiki says `population=` should only be used on `place=`.
4113548 (iD)12024-02-15 08:54openedLandslide
22025-12-31 08:11commentedvectorial8192It seems the note tries to describe landslide locations marked with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4113544 and also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4113546 From aerial imagery (ESRI) it seems the landslide did happen, and then was dealt with by some concrete cover.
32025-12-31 08:53commentedkingkingHKBut then, what happened to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171937875 ? Is it still traversable? Survey recommended. Can also check things like details and extent of concrete cover, state of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109195927 etc.
42025-12-31 12:13commentedvectorial8192Aerial imagery can be used to guesstimate the extent. It being concrete cover (i.e. no trees) enables this. My vibes are that the (vehicular) roads are still traversable. Otherwise, they can't do effective maintenance along the pond edge.
52025-12-31 12:35commentedvectorial8192It being this rural I personally strongly prefer armchair edits. Looking this in more detail, with the cleanliness of the concrete cover, I think the relevant section of the country trail is gone for good. Then, it seems survey is not needed.
62025-12-31 12:47commentedvectorial8192I am satisfied with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176668318 ; may close this.
72025-12-31 12:54commentedkingkingHKIf the middle half is cut off by the two landslides, then it should be non-accessible (unless you climb the concrete cover), which, given it is a dirt road (see online info), should result in changes in `trail_visibility=`, `=obstacle`, or even `disused:highway=` or `abandoned:highway=`. Still need to survey to check this. c.f. e.g. https://www.ope...
82026-01-01 05:00commentedvectorial8192It being a dirt path left untouched for two years, I would just assume it's been reclaimed by nature and would become `was:highway`. I don't trust GraphHopper (or any other electronic calculator) when it comes to mountain walking. Also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5112232 to check whether the country trail was redesignated.
92026-01-01 15:14commentedkingkingHKAnyhow, `access=no` is not appropriate for "reclaimed by nature" imo. What's stopping you form using it? And why did you make part of it `was:highway=` and part of it `highway=` + `access=no`?
102026-01-02 04:05commentedvectorial8192The blocked section became unobservable, and therefore gets `was:highway`. The unblocked sections are hopefully still observable but became dead paths, and therefore gets `access=no` to (at least visually) indicate the path is dead. Anyhow, you may always irl-check it.
112026-01-02 13:59commentedkingkingHKI feel like you are confusing "physical constraints" with "legal restrictions". No matter the state of the path, one may always try. Anyway, I went there today. Findings: - There is actually a third landslide between the Lower Reservoir dam and Lakeview Garden that you can kind of see from aerial imagery. - The section of the Country Trail east of...
122026-01-03 08:23commentedvectorial8192How to say it, it somewhat triggers me to see unfinished tasks lying around. If it can be somewhat reasonably finished by armchair (e.g. this, by aerial imagery + a bit of thinking) then I will do it by armchair. Sometimes it cannot be by armchair but can easily do irl-visit (e.g. various urban area notes). Then, I normally would shut and wait un...
132026-01-25 04:38commentedkingkingHKImo the problem is that you are closing a note alongside with it, which makes it much harder for everyone else to spot potential rooms for improvement. Like, if I weren't here when you closed this note, would anyone notice changing the Country Trail to `access=no` is completely incorrect? Personally I prefer to make as little guesswork/thinking a...
3980686 (iD)12023-11-10 03:46opened粉嶺沙頭角公路DD39, Lot 2645
22026-01-08 11:10commentedkingkingHKIs this information useful for OSM?
32026-01-09 12:16commentedvectorial8192I mean, we can't really just say "this is useless" (this note hints towards a brownfield and therefore can be added to OSM), but obviously it seems we don't know how to "properly" use this information.
42026-01-09 13:04commentedkingkingHKThis doesn't feel any more useful than the spam/private notes typing in an address. Imo the most we can do is mapping/improving features in this area.
52026-01-24 16:06commentedvectorial8192Back then I would instant-close notes that only contain addresses. However imo a plot name/ID is stronger than an address, so these cannot be instant-closed.
62026-01-25 04:16commentedkingkingHKImo a plot name is just a fancier/more formal address.
5126001 (iD)12026-01-12 06:31openedvectorial8192todo: now that reclamation is (probably) mostly complete/stabilized, review/partition into greenfields
22026-01-12 08:48commentedKovoschizThere's nothing to be partitioned. Already done inside. TCE can be discussed as a `boundary=administrative` depending on definition.
32026-01-12 16:25commentedvectorial8192TCE feels like some sort of "urban block", but afaik no such urban block specification for HK OSM.
42026-01-13 07:57commentedKovoschizWhy is it a "block"? I have already used `city_block` for numbered planning areas, but it's not always correct. TC E would be worse, as it's totally not one street block only.
52026-01-16 15:53commentedvectorial8192Anyway, the first step is to move the TCE naming from the reclamation work area to the place=suburb as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177301892
62026-01-18 12:33commentedvectorial8192The next step is to make almost everything in this area a greenfield as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177369360 . The thought is, land plots that are planned but not allocated yet should remain as greenfields until someone acquire them and start construction.
72026-01-24 17:33closedvectorial8192Should be good now. Closing.
5108020 (iD)12025-12-28 11:24openedvectorial8192todoL I think MilMill is located here?
22026-01-08 07:39commentedkingkingHKSeems like it is; while there are no names signposted, there is a "39 Ng Chow South Road" sign, same with MilMill's website.
32026-01-24 16:13closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177650137 ; closing.
5141141 (iD)12026-01-24 13:06openedkingkingHKtodo: this has been converted to a roundabout
5133341 (iD)12026-01-18 05:45openedkingkingHKTodo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177303927
22026-01-24 12:33commentedvectorial8192Bus relation cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177642107
32026-01-24 12:34closedvectorial8192Residue stuff cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177642161 Therefore, resolved, and closing.
5105750 (iD)12025-12-26 15:28openedkingkingHKMost towers on podiums are tagged with `building=`, not `building:part=`. Then, is it appropriate to use `building:part=` for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142662166 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142662162 ? Personally I don't see a tower as being the same building as its podium, but maybe that's just me.
22025-12-27 08:32commentedKovoschizThat was Apple doing it without consulting us. Many others, eg TKO. The problem with `building:part=` is towers or podiums can have their own parts, meaning there's nothing in between to group those parts. (I'm guessing the proposal discussions didn't consider such complexities) They are considered as buildings by people too. Therefore practically ...
32026-01-24 09:43commentedvectorial8192So, ultimately, is this a "todo" note or is this a "it do be like this" note?
42026-01-24 09:57commentedkingkingHKTodo. My plan is to change all `building:part=` towers in Hong Kong to `building=`, then close this note.
5140972 (iD)12026-01-24 09:44opened4
22026-01-24 09:56closedkingkingHKNote is not helpful; closing.
5140971 (iD)12026-01-24 09:43opened3
22026-01-24 09:56closedkingkingHKNote is not helpful; closing.
5034357 (iD)12025-11-02 15:19openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-24 09:42closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177637595 ; closing.
5036161 (iD)12025-11-03 13:52openedkingkingHKFamily Medicine Clinic
22026-01-24 09:08closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177636835 ; closing.
5027512 (iD)12025-10-29 04:25openedklorydryk"invisible from the road" The place has gone or never existed. A CoMaps user reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-09-06T09:48:08Z POI has no name POI types: highway-path #CoMaps android
22025-12-03 12:47commentedvectorial8192Does this mean, there is no perimeter foot path?
32025-12-04 00:19commentedklorydrykYes if is what I mean
42026-01-22 10:17closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177555528 ; closing.
52026-01-23 18:08reopenedKovoschiz
62026-01-23 18:09commentedKovoschizThis is unclear. It may be `trail_visibility=no` / `obstacle=vegetation` / `disused=yes` / `abandoned:highway=`
72026-01-23 18:14commentedKovoschizAs in the connection https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1002239786/
5139307 (iD)12026-01-22 18:51openedHong Kong
22026-01-23 06:57closedkingkingHKNote is not helpful; closing.
2598829 (iD)12021-03-29 08:10openedHang Tone恒通渠務工程有限公司 Hang Tone Drainage Engineering Limited 新界元朗錦田吳家村400號
22025-05-03 11:26commentedvectorial8192Website http://www.hangtone.com.hk/ agrees with this note
32025-08-13 10:21commentedkingkingHKCorrect, feature exists IRL.
42025-10-08 14:40commentedvectorial8192But is it located here? Ng Ka Tsuen is located north of this note, and I am unfamiliar with rural addressing. It would seem to me, if the company really is located here, then it should probably take the address street as Kam Sheung Road.
52026-01-22 13:55commentedkingkingHKYeah, I think it is here. No idea why it's so far from Ng Ka Tsuen.
5043137 (iD)12025-11-08 10:09openedLkwokon河背營地
22026-01-22 13:51commentedkingkingHKIndeed.
4306096 (iD)12024-06-24 13:55opened此處並沒有廁所
22026-01-22 13:51commentedkingkingHKIndeed.
4917522 (iD)12025-08-19 04:02openedkingkingHKTraffic signals have been added to this junction.
22025-09-15 15:31commentedvectorial8192Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705213882 exists for many years, but I suppose the quoted node has nothing to do with this new situation.
32025-10-08 14:36commentedvectorial8192Future reference https://www.cedd.gov.hk/tc/our-projects/major-projects/index-id-70.html
42026-01-22 13:48commentedkingkingHKYeah, traffic signals have been added, and it seems like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705213882 is removed.
5034335 (iD)12025-11-02 14:14openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-22 13:45commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here.
5036242 (iD)12025-11-03 13:46openedkingkingHKNow that "錦田診所 Kam Tin Clinic" has been renamed to "錦田家庭醫學診所 Kam Tin Family Medicine Clinic", has there been any changes to the bus stop's naming?
22025-11-03 15:11commentedvectorial8192It being KMB they probably won't even care about that.
32025-11-03 15:19commentedvectorial8192Also, now that I looked a bit deeper into the renaming, I am not sure whether it's the entire building being renamed, or that only the clinic (might not be in OSM) being renamed.
42026-01-22 13:45closedkingkingHKNo change; closing
5115416 (iD)12026-01-03 10:30openedvectorial8192node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1704464465 ; see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5101540
22026-01-22 11:08closedvectorial8192By survey, it's still closed. Closing.
5080639 (iD)12025-12-06 08:06openedvectorial8192What is the name of this park https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1346575800 ?
22026-01-22 10:51closedvectorial8192Turns out it has no name. Fun times. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177558946 ; closing.
5034389 (iD)12025-11-02 14:33openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-02 22:01closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 02:41reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 02:41commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
52026-01-22 10:47closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177558823 ; closing.
5123548 (iD)12026-01-09 19:37openedawhchk* The playground is mostly over the rooftop of KTSPS, but a section closest to Wai Yip Street is outside of the building and close to ground level. It seems the outline of the eastern part of the building is wrong. * The playground is part of Cha Kwo Ling Promenade, but confusingly some information boards also has the name "茶果嶺海濱公園�...
22026-01-20 14:57commentedvectorial8192This https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16555245 already has the name Cha Kwo Leng Promenade.
32026-01-20 15:05commentedvectorial8192I can see the situation is complicated with the following: - Went there before, the building actually gently slopes to ground level, making it difficult to determine actual shape - The building is not actually a park; the park is at rooftop of building
42026-01-20 15:08commentedvectorial8192Shape improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177480531 The deck is now mapped as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13452291567 Not sure how to do the pet access part; will leave open for now.
52026-01-22 08:46commentedKovoschiz`name=茶果嶺海濱公園（園景平台） Cha Kwo Ling Promenade (Landscaped Deck)` should be wrong. That's a label for the part inside. Brackets should be presumed not proper names, only descriptive. Cf Scheduled https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap132?xpid=ID_1438402664274_001
5129818 (iD)12026-01-15 05:17openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2247720552 should probably be deleted
22026-01-19 08:56commentedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177413789 wikidata relocated
32026-01-22 05:08commentedvectorial8192"Skylineblick" doesn't refer to any feature in Hong Kong, and is also a German descriptive name. Node can be deleted.
42026-01-22 05:09closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177548991 ; closing.
5137708 (iD)12026-01-21 12:46openedkingkingHKtodo: station is too small, and does not match track position.
22026-01-21 15:52commentedvectorial8192The hard part about this (and Sai Ying Pun Station) is that when the station is deep enough, the usual tunnel-building avoidance rule does not apply.
32026-01-22 02:31commentedkingkingHKHowever, one may walk in the pedestrian tunnels, allowing for dead reckoning. The hard part would be accounting for elevation change in the footways, which might not be uniform.
5137470 (iD)12026-01-21 09:26opened4
22026-01-21 12:44closedkingkingHKNote is not helpful; closing.
5137453 (iD)12026-01-21 09:15opened2
22026-01-21 12:44closedkingkingHKNote is not helpful; closing.
5137443 (iD)12026-01-21 08:57opened1
22026-01-21 12:44closedkingkingHKNote is not helpful; closing.
5134801 (iD)12026-01-19 06:13openedkingkingHKtodo: Yau Tong Road ugly curves
22026-01-20 16:24commentedvectorial8192Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177483693 ; would that be OK?
32026-01-21 12:44closedkingkingHKLooks good, thanks. Closing.
5137464 (iD)12026-01-21 09:24opened3
22026-01-21 12:40closedvectorial8192Yes, this is Route 3. Closing.
5087538 (iD)12025-12-11 17:08openedvectorial8192todo: Some clinics have generic names, which may be improved.
22026-01-02 22:00closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 02:40reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 02:40commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
52026-01-21 12:13closedKX675Just unified the tagging of those constituent clinics to reflect their full name with "Yau Ma Tei", and corrected "衛生" to "衞生".
5137391 (iD)12026-01-21 08:07openedFlorist
5034390 (iD)12025-11-02 14:34openedvectorial8192Is this a Family Medicine Clinic?
22026-01-02 22:01closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 02:41reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 02:41commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
52026-01-20 15:10commentedvectorial8192This looks like an amalgamation of two facilities.
62026-01-20 15:22commentedvectorial8192It turns out this is not a FMC, but more like an "outlet hospital".
72026-01-20 15:30closedvectorial8192Nonetheless, resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177481541 ; closing.
5134731 (iD)12026-01-19 04:09openedvectorial8192todo: review/calibrate this
22026-01-20 11:37closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177471698 ; closing.
5101540 (iD)12025-12-22 16:51openedvectorial8192https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6395436890 troll-tagging; is it a barrier or not?
22025-12-22 16:52commentedvectorial8192While we are at it, also check https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1704464465
32026-01-20 05:03closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176295649 ; closing.
5128922 (iD)12026-01-14 12:14opened白馬乾濕洗衣店 大圍村第一街1D地下
22026-01-20 04:48closedvectorial8192Not here; closing.
5099138 (iD)12025-12-20 19:02openedvectorial8192https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39550532 , etc., ?
22026-01-02 22:01closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 02:40reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 02:40commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
52026-01-19 02:47commentedkingkingHKIt seems like this is difficult to survey on foot. Might need to take a bus that uses https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113146414 e.g. 13X, 28, 213X, 224X, 297, X6C.
62026-01-19 03:36commentedvectorial8192To clarify this note, this really feels like duplicate mapping. eg this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1205404050 has construction=motorway_Link but then https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113146414 already exists. This might be an armchair mistake. I think I tried to delete this in the past, but it was reverted.
72026-01-19 19:45commentedKovoschizUpdated (had already marked what they are supposed to be)
82026-01-19 19:46closedKovoschiz
5109879 (iD)12025-12-29 15:09openedvectorial8192todo: now, what has happened to this school?
22025-12-29 15:09commentedvectorial8192it would seem they have moved elsewhere, but where to?
32025-12-30 02:32commentedkingkingHKAccording to https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202512/20/P2025122000245.htm , here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/191713473 .
42026-01-18 17:04commentedvectorial8192Part 1: set up the new place as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177382819
52026-01-19 15:28commentedvectorial8192Part 2: disuse the old place as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177434989
62026-01-19 15:31closedvectorial8192All done; closing.
5134778 (iD)12026-01-19 05:34openedvectorial8192todo: station is too small
5063775 (iD)12025-11-22 14:30openedvectorial8192Re note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5056582 , see whether this Saigon Street becomes "eastbound only" later.
22025-11-30 12:48commentedkingkingHKAs of yesterday (2025-11-29) it's still oneway westbound, but just in case it changes in the future, I will leave this note open until the nearby works are complete, presumably when the Central Kowloon Bypass opens.
32026-01-02 22:00closedbpaz709394
42026-01-03 02:40reopenedkingkingHK
52026-01-03 02:40commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
62026-01-17 08:03commentedkingkingHKOk, it really is oneway eastbound now...
72026-01-17 08:53commentedkingkingHKWait, I think I made a mistake. Need to recheck.
82026-01-17 11:19closedkingkingHKNevermind, it is still oneway westbound. Somehow, I messed up my sense of direction. Nothing to do; closing.
92026-01-18 15:02reopenedvectorial8192
102026-01-18 15:03commentedvectorial8192https://www.td.gov.hk/en/traffic_notices/index_id_83986.html It seems it's lasting longer than expected. We can recheck this later.
5109341 (iD)12025-12-29 08:31openedkingkingHKThis section of Central Kowloon Route has been completed. Then, what is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/895849386 for?
22025-12-29 15:32commentedvectorial8192Probably indeterminate/limbo; afaik later give to Metro Park. Can defer as "haven't done that yet".
32026-01-17 12:11commentedkingkingHKIt's still fenced and has construction equipments inside, but can't see any activity. Probably `landuse=brownfield`? Or just do nothing and wait long enough it starts to become part of Metro Park.
42026-01-18 13:36commentedvectorial8192How to say it, afaik the government isn't fully sure whether there will be a Metro Park. The plans related to that kept changing.
52026-01-18 13:46commentedkingkingHKI think `landuse=brownfield` can be used for undetermined landuse?
62026-01-18 14:37commentedvectorial8192Yes, we may do landuse=brownfield here.
5080646 (iD)12025-12-06 08:16openedkingkingHKIs Lantau Link Visitors Centre (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12271148) really a `highway=rest_area`?
22025-12-10 10:50commentedvectorial8192Hong Kong does not have rest areas. At most this is a park.
32025-12-13 14:15commentedkingkingHKBut then, the park already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158307216, the relation merely includes it and the parking nearby (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903452942). Maybe that means the relation is useless?
42026-01-03 06:00closedbpaz709394
52026-01-03 06:04reopenedvectorial8192
62026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
72026-01-18 13:13commentedvectorial8192Not entirely useless. Using the American interpretation, a feature must have its "main building" plus its car park. Here, both sub-components are separated by the highway. I can see the mappers decided to use separate polygons to establish each component, then use a multipolygon (in OSM this would be a relation) to join them and describe the full...
82026-01-18 13:39closedkingkingHKAfter consulting the international osm Discord server ( https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/428214296695144458/1453748562541154472 ), it seems like this can be considered a rest area. Then, really nothing to do here. Closing.
5133661 (iD)12026-01-18 11:22openedvectorial8192todo: Area 122 to be transferred to HKHS for construction
22026-01-18 11:50closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177370060 ; closing.
5133340 (iD)12026-01-18 04:45openedkingkingHKTodo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176212586 , see also discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177303927
5133338 (iD)12026-01-18 04:43openedkingkingHKTodo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175908155 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175908590 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175908754 , see also discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177303927
5125630 (iD)12026-01-11 17:45openedvectorial8192todo: bad railway curves
22026-01-12 07:01commentedkingkingHKWhile the existing curve are indeed ugly/odd, with what you said in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175836968 in mind, I don't see what one can confidently do other than perhaps smoothening curves. The current ones are believable enough (buildings and tunnels avoid each other; curve not very sharp).
32026-01-12 08:41commentedvectorial8192Correct. We can beautify/smoothen the railway curves.
42026-01-12 14:23commentedvectorial8192To clarify, I was surprised there could be an update to rail curves here. The previous version seem reasonable enough to not need refining.
52026-01-17 09:17closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177327642 ; closing.
5034387 (iD)12025-11-02 14:33openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-02 22:01closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 02:40reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 02:40commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
52026-01-06 11:15commentedvectorial8192/rant I swear to god, every time I went to Kwun Tong (Yue Man Square), every time I got bamboozled by irl, because every time the OSM data is somehow wrong.
62026-01-17 08:41closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177326598 ; closing.
5132180 (iD)12026-01-17 05:41openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/902497658 etc still under construction?
22026-01-17 08:03commentedkingkingHKSomehow, yes.
32026-01-17 08:16commentedvectorial8192Seems nothing to do here. For some reason there are a bunch of areas in HK that are apparently "completed" but just blocked off as if still "constructing".
5130601 (iD)12026-01-15 14:21openedkingkingHKTodo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1419082513 descriptive name, etc
22026-01-17 08:15commentedvectorial8192It mentions McDonald's. This https://mcdonalds.com.hk/en/find-a-restaurant/ says they have a McDonald's here but it isn't open 24/7. It then becomes "how should we map non-24/7 foot paths".
5035617 (iD)12025-11-03 03:37openedkingkingHKDoes https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4442544111 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1102985991 really exist? Why are there traffic signals in the middle of nowhere with no junctions?
22025-11-04 06:52commentedvectorial8192Could be "road too narrow" so they set up traffic signals to ensure mutex access. Not every traffic signal needs to be at a junction (e.g. also see tunnel entrance traffic signals).
32025-11-04 10:22commentedkingkingHKCould be, but then there are many roads in Hong Kong narrower and busier than this road that still doesn't have traffic signals, and afaik this road is actually wide enough for two light vehicles to pass by each other. Would still recommend a survey to prove/disprove their existence.
42025-11-08 07:04commentedvectorial8192To add to this, aerial imagery (ESRI World Imagery) (see northeast) shows a section which is single-lane only. We may also faintly see a "stop here" line that often indicates a traffic signal. OSM also has `lanes=1` here. Mutex access is very very likely. It really isn't *that* wide. Perhaps survey is not needed because there is nothing to do.
52025-11-08 08:38closedkingkingHKWell, that sounds believable. Then, situation clarified via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174362311 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174363905 ; closing.
62026-01-17 05:46reopenedkingkingHK
72026-01-17 05:47commentedkingkingHKI recently heard that this traffic signal is disused/malfunctioning with no plans of repair. This might be `disused:highway=traffic_signals`. Survey recommended.
5132152 (iD)12026-01-17 03:11openedkingkingHKTodo: add residential entrances, more indoor footways, indoor details, etc. (continuing from https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5104381)
4958371 (iD)12025-09-12 11:02openedvectorial8192Quarry Bay station, Exits B1, B2, and B3 are original research.
22025-09-12 11:07commentedvectorial8192*also exit B4
32025-09-12 11:20commentedvectorial8192These B "subexits" are not signposted irl and do not appear in irl official diagrams. IRL only denotes "B". This is different from East Tsim Sha Tsui Station where the J "subexits" are delegated to be under the management of an external party, currently the manager of Victoria Dockside, and each have their own ref. I can personally attest these J ...
42025-09-12 12:04commentedvectorial8192Detected faulty changeset as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/16819169 .
52025-09-24 12:14commentedkingkingHKFrom Discord discussion, it seems like this note is a false positive? If so, perhaps we can close it.
62025-09-24 13:53commentedvectorial8192The next step is to check/confirm the railway protection details, and I haven't done that yet.
72025-09-30 12:58commentedvectorial8192So, there really are official documents that write down exist B1 to B4, but they are no longer signposted irl. Then, need to determine the proper next step. Should we keep only the B exit or somehow mix in the preexisting B1 - B4 exits with the newly-mapped B exit?
82025-09-30 13:42commentedkingkingHKImo if it's no longer signposted irl then I don't see why it should still be kept. Official documents can still be outdated or simply wrong.
92025-11-26 06:36commentedkingkingHKAlso, `old_ref` can be considered if you really want to keep the B1-B4.
102025-12-14 12:28commentedkingkingHKWould there be any disagreements if I make all of them `ref=B`, change the `=B1` to `=B4` to `old_ref=`, and close this note?
112025-12-15 04:25commentedvectorial8192I don't know the details, but it seems there can only be 1x `ref=B` as specified by the OSM schema.
122025-12-15 09:55commentedKovoschizIt should be acceptable to have multiple `ref=B`
132026-01-03 05:58closedbpaz709394
142026-01-03 06:04reopenedvectorial8192
152026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
162026-01-16 15:48commentedvectorial8192Upon rethinking, we can do was:ref as if it is lifecycle. Some of us were there when it was still B1 to B4, and some of us (e.g. me) noticed it is now only B.
172026-01-16 16:31closedvectorial8192Finally resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177305619 ; closing. Once again, I apologize for the false allegations stemming from confusion.
5125024 (iD)12026-01-11 08:18openedawhchkPlease split the crossing on Ko Ling Road into two sides (separated by traffic island)
22026-01-16 15:43closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177303927 ; closing.
5104381 (iD)12025-12-25 10:01opened1F616EMOEntrance to Kwai Lam Court and the mall here at surface level
22025-12-29 09:18commentedvectorial8192We don't usually do entrances into individual (residential) buildings, but we can do entrances to the mall.
32025-12-29 13:57commentedkingkingHKThe residential entrances sound like they could be `entrance=yes` + `addr:unit=` + `access=private`. They are verifiable after all. I intend to map some basic indoor footpaths in this area soon, so I guess I will also deal with the mall entrances.
42025-12-29 15:49commentedvectorial8192While we are at it, some indoor paths in this area are mapped as "indoor corridors" so OSMCarto doesn't render them.
52025-12-29 18:45commentedKovoschizIt's not "don't usually do", but "usually not done yet"
62026-01-16 15:28closedvectorial8192This time I am not gonna accidentally champion the addition of residential entrances. Such a large scope work is best left for later. Foot paths added via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177303341 ; closing.
5129081 (iD)12026-01-14 13:36openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/889581234 construction probably finished, according to aerial imagery.
5128950 (iD)12026-01-14 12:21openedMissing Location: 保仕 乾洗公司 地舖, Shun Pont Commercial Building, 9號 Thomson Rd, Wan Chai
5128949 (iD)12026-01-14 12:20openedMissing Location: 保美洗衣 灣仔盧押道11-13號修頓商業大廈
5128947 (iD)12026-01-14 12:20openedMissing Location: 天天洗衣 Daily Laundry 灣仔莊士敦道36-42號聯發大廈地下36A1舖
5128946 (iD)12026-01-14 12:19openedMissing Location: Sunshine Laundry Convenience Store 自助洗衣店 http://www.sunshinelaundry.com.hk/
5128944 (iD)12026-01-14 12:19opened清深洗衣專門店 Oceanic Laundry Shop 灣仔晏頓街1號安定大廈
5128943 (iD)12026-01-14 12:19openedMissing Location: British Dry Cleaners 英商乾洗 灣仔月街7號 http://www.britishdrycleaners.com/
5128917 (iD)12026-01-14 12:12opened海豚洗衣24h（堅尼地厚和街店）Dolphin Laundry 24h（Hau Wo Street Store） 堅尼地城厚和街41號厚和閣地下c(41)鋪
5128916 (iD)12026-01-14 12:12opened域是乾洗 堅尼地城吉席街
5128915 (iD)12026-01-14 12:12opened晴天專業洗衣服務 堅尼地城厚和街49號Shop A2
5128914 (iD)12026-01-14 12:11openedGoodwins of London (Kennedy Town Shop) 乾洗店 堅尼地城卑路乍街183號
5128913 (iD)12026-01-14 12:11opened家寶洗衣 西環域多利道1-15 號百年大廈一座地舖 C
5123432 (iD)12026-01-09 16:54openedvectorial8192todo: this section of Route 2 probably should not have toll information.
22026-01-10 03:14closedkingkingHKIt should as it can only be accessed from EHC. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11180794
32026-01-10 04:29reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-10 04:31commentedvectorial8192However: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/799005738 this has no tolls. My interpretation of OSM data meaning is that, if I am traveling on Route 2 here, I have to pay toll twice, which is wrong. First toll section is the EHC itself. Second toll section is this.
52026-01-10 05:04commentedkingkingHKI quote https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:toll > In any case `toll=yes` should be used on any section of road where a toll must be paid to access it. This supports tagging toll information on this section of Kwun Tong Bypass. Maybe we can do `toll:lanes=` for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/799005738. Precedent see e.g. https://www.open...
62026-01-10 09:18commentedvectorial8192tbh sounds like "consequential mapping". Need not even do `toll:lanes=` imo. I see this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/799005738 is outside of tunnel area. Then, this section of Route 2 should be toll-free. In the off chance traffic is temporarily redirected onto this section of Route 2 (e.g. traffic accident) they pay no tolls here.
72026-01-11 04:04commentedkingkingHKI don't get your point. Are you trying to say that if a toll road shares a cross-section with a non-toll road then it isn't a toll road? If tagging `toll=` on roads that can't be accessed without paying a toll is "consequential mapping" (I don't know what you mean by this tbh), then what is `toll=` for? > I see this way/799005738 is outside of tun...
82026-01-11 11:37commentedvectorial8192I may have missed synonyms, but afaik I coined the term "consequential mapping" in the past few years. Basically, this attempts to describe a situation where features are getting tags and information not because of themselves, but because of something other than themselves. For example, if the right side road is a bus terminus, then creating "cann...
92026-01-11 12:26commentedkingkingHKWouldn't tagging toll information for and only for the tunnel area be "consequential mapping" as well, as you are basing it on whether "some other feature" (in the case, tunnel area) exists? And as I said, what will do if a non-tunnel area is tolled? Imo whether a road is tolled or not is a property of its own, and not a consequence of anything. E...
102026-01-11 16:53commentedvectorial8192imo `lit=yes` is not consequential because currently OSM streetlamps (and other lighting features) cannot specify which OSM features are being lit by them. I was preparing for a longer response on what `toll=*` really is, but then I suddenly noticed: e.g., https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37669889 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111048502 b...
112026-01-12 07:51commentedKovoschizHammer Hill Rd off-slip seems an editing omission. You shouldn't assume it must be perfect.
122026-01-12 08:07commentedkingkingHKYeah, @vectorial8192 I don't know why you assumed that existing data must be perfect with no inaccuracies or omissions (if it were we as editors would not need to exist in the first place...). You can extend the tagging yourself if you notice it is missing. I have done it before https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341301696/history/3 so have you ht...
132026-01-14 03:07commentedvectorial8192Socratic method. I will elaborate later, but my theme is that, for the toll tag, it should match the exact area and not do the "continue until junction" rule.
142026-01-14 03:53commentedkingkingHKI will patiently wait for your elaboration, but just as a reminder my point is that "the exact area" is identical to "continue until next junction".
152026-01-14 07:56commentedvectorial8192I will early-hint that my "exact area" is different from "continue until junction".
5128521 (iD)12026-01-14 02:50openedkingkingHKTodo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813803780 name
5113015 (iD)12026-01-01 08:31openedvectorial8192https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4796652881 It seems this is gone.
22026-01-13 12:08closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177176986 ; closing.
5126008 (iD)12026-01-12 05:36openedvectorial8192todo: new district semi-regular follow-up
22026-01-12 16:17commentedvectorial8192Scope is quite large. Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177144994 .
32026-01-12 16:25commentedvectorial8192Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177145390
42026-01-13 04:39commentedvectorial8192Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177162911
52026-01-13 05:03commentedvectorial8192Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177163281
62026-01-13 05:27commentedvectorial8192Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177163676
72026-01-13 10:36commentedvectorial8192Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177173231
82026-01-13 10:55closedvectorial8192lgtm; closing.
5126741 (iD)12026-01-12 14:24openedvectorial8192todo: see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177092801
22026-01-12 15:10closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3180387171 ; closing.
5057844 (iD)12025-11-18 03:02openedkingkingHKAre https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8010179249 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3070117404 duplicates? Why is one of them `place=quarter` and the other `=village`? Any relevancy with https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4435507882 `=hamlet`?
22025-11-18 07:30commentedKovoschizYes, the upper village is addressed as TKO Village. So it should be considered part of one somehow, for `addr:place=` to be logical. The most complicated cases are eg So Kwun Wat villages.
32026-01-12 06:49commentedvectorial8192With reference to e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/308770173 , can't there just be one/two node(s) with just place=hamlet with name "Tsueng Kwan O Village"?
42026-01-12 07:46commentedKovoschizWhat's the difference of 2 points with existing?
5123826 (iD)12026-01-10 04:59openedvectorial8192todo: see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6183613879 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6183614044 which one is real?
22026-01-11 17:47commentedvectorial8192Apparently, there really are two of them.
32026-01-11 17:49closedvectorial8192Nothing to do; closing.
758446 (iD)12016-10-24 00:50openedO Leesmall stream (OSM data version: 2016-09-19T14:38:03Z) #mapsme
22022-01-21 17:24closedkenny leung
32022-01-21 17:24reopenedkenny leung
42026-01-03 11:31closedvectorial8192A stream already exists nearby as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323624592 ; I presume this is already done. Therefore, closing.
52026-01-03 11:38reopenedkingkingHK
62026-01-03 11:39commentedkingkingHKOut-of-copyright maps say that there is stream at the exact location of this note that eventually drains into the quoted way. There is really an unmapped stream here.
72026-01-03 17:00commentedvectorial8192Unexpected, but can take a look at them; I think the latest free map is from 1975 as mentioned in Discord.
82026-01-09 15:41commentedvectorial8192It turns out the old map mentioned in Discord does not have data for this area. @kingkingHK may you provide more info?
92026-01-11 04:28commentedkingkingHKI was looking at https://www.hkmaps.hk/viewer.html and selected the "1975.1" map. Now after looking into this deeper, I think the "year n" maps on that website actually means "latest map available by year n" instead of "maps drawn on year n" as government map tiles don't update yearly. Looking at https://www.hkmapservice.gov.hk/OneStopSystem/map-se...
5123768 (iD)12026-01-10 02:31openednew lift completed last week
22026-01-10 15:08closedHenryEK
5123769 (iD)12026-01-10 02:32openednew lift completed last week
22026-01-10 15:08closedHenryEK
5123186 (iD)12026-01-09 14:20openedvectorial8192todo: improve layering
22026-01-09 15:45closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177031485 ; closing.
5078637 (iD)12025-12-04 13:03openedvectorial8192Anyone know what this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1455730544 is named?
22025-12-11 01:09commentedHenryEKLung Cheung Road Sitting Out Area
32025-12-11 01:14commentedHenryEKzh 龍翔道休憩處 https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1503005523
42025-12-11 02:22commentedkingkingHK@HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright?
52025-12-11 04:20commentedHenryEKIm not sure what you mean by that sorry Do you mean the place name cannot be used due to copyright or the source?
62025-12-11 04:46commentedvectorial8192OSM has very high standards on what can/cannot be included. One of these standards is "non-copyrighted data". e.g., "do not copy from other maps, e.g. Google Maps". Problem: sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a certain information is copyright-protected.
72025-12-11 10:05commentedkingkingHKIndeed, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#Can_I_trace_data_from_Google_Maps/Nokia_Maps/...? If you are unsure whether a map can be copied, it would be the safest to assume that it can't. For this specific case, the easiest solution would be just visiting the site, as park names are usually signposted, and this location is not inco...
82025-12-11 18:12commentedKovoschizhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5083046 https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question
92025-12-15 06:48commentedvectorial8192> and this location is not inconvenient to get to Technically, you are correct, but it just doesn't feel right.
102025-12-17 10:35commentedHenryEKchecked today, it is one to one with the name i provided
112025-12-29 15:31commentedvectorial8192@HenryEK If you know the name, then you may add them into the system.
122026-01-09 13:47closedHenryEKResolved - (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177026868) Sorry for the delay as I don't check things on OSM as often
5034392 (iD)12025-11-02 14:35openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-02 22:01closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 02:40reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 02:40commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
52026-01-03 02:56commentedvectorial8192too clumsy; I would silent-reopen and then forward to DWG
62026-01-09 12:27closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177023883 ; closing.
5122892 (iD)12026-01-09 10:48opened1
22026-01-09 11:58closedkingkingHKNote is not useful; closing.
5037695 (iD)12025-11-04 12:28openedkingkingHKHas this construction https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/767852603 been finished? It was last modified almost six years ago, and aerial imagery does not seem to show any signs of construction.
22026-01-08 10:10commentedkingkingHKSeems like it has.
5036103 (iD)12025-11-03 12:46openedkingkingHKFamily Medicine Clinic
22026-01-07 14:41closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176947922 ; closing.
5119800 (iD)12026-01-06 14:25openedvectorial8192https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/598538108/ I don't think we have a wetland here.
22026-01-06 15:10closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176907495 ; closing.
5038051 (iD)12025-11-04 16:26openedvectorial8192where name:zh?
22025-11-04 16:26commentedvectorial8192*area
32026-01-02 22:02closedbpaz709394
42026-01-02 22:02reopenedbpaz709394
52026-01-06 05:01closedvectorial8192It seems this is resolved. Closing.
4973182 (iD)12025-09-21 14:27openedKeithlo31Incredible Residences has been sold. The building name has been changed to Y36.
22025-09-24 14:08commentedvectorial8192From online sources, Y36 is a "student accommodation" and because this is a new concept in Hong Kong, tagging method is not finalized yet. Should bring to discussion.
32025-09-24 14:10commentedkingkingHK`amenity=student_accommodation` or `building=dormitory`?
42025-09-24 14:31commentedvectorial8192Could/Might actually be `tourism=hostel`. Go ask more people.
52025-11-12 15:28commentedvectorial8192Website for future reference: https://ydotx.com/about/
62026-01-05 15:08commentedvectorial8192It cannot be a tourism=hostel because the bathrooms etc are per-flat. It also cannot be a building=dormitory because this is privately-run, and doesn't belong to any specific university. It therefore must be simply amenity=student_accommodation .
72026-01-05 15:10closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176866169 ; closing.
5034412 (iD)12025-11-02 14:41openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?)
22025-12-13 14:10commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a family medicine clinic here.
32026-01-05 13:08commentedvectorial8192Please see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176861170 works.
42026-01-05 13:58closedkingkingHKYeah, it does; closing. (Supposedly we can also add e.g. `opening_hours=`, but we can leave that to a future clean-up.) (And I suppose it is partly my fault that I didn't map it myself despite having surveyed it a month ago... and I still haven't mapped the Shing Mun Reservoir landslide from half a week ago..)
5112196 (iD)12025-12-31 11:32openedkingkingHKTodo: no turn from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1188528919 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1193775427
22026-01-05 13:37closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176862297 ; closing.
5112166 (iD)12025-12-31 11:17openedvectorial8192https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85201002 I vaguely remember this has `share_taxi=no` ...?
22026-01-05 13:33closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176862151 ; closing.
5112165 (iD)12025-12-31 11:17openedvectorial8192https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12373210037 afaik this is not open yet.
22025-12-31 11:29commentedkingkingHKBelievable; https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1337663584 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1337663585 has `=construction` and `opening_date=2026-06-30`.
32026-01-02 21:59closedbpaz709394
42026-01-02 21:59reopenedbpaz709394
52026-01-02 22:00closedbpaz709394
62026-01-03 02:39reopenedkingkingHK
72026-01-03 02:39commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
82026-01-05 13:31closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176862072 ; closing.
5083046 (iD)12025-12-08 03:20openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404367919 feels like a "descriptive name"
22025-12-11 04:14commentedvectorial8192How to say it, sometimes plots (esp brownfields) don't have obvious names. We may sometimes guess names from newspapers (e.g. new brownfield available for bidding) but that's mostly it.
32026-01-05 13:18closedvectorial8192Improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176861563 ; closing.
5113094 (iD)12026-01-01 10:40openedvectorial8192todo: deprecation
22026-01-04 13:57closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176820161 ; closing.
1450246 (iD)12018-07-10 12:21openedtrack position is incorrect; the siding is about halfway between yau tong and tiu keng leng stations
22025-09-30 08:09closedCypp0847The current version is now depicting the siding in the midway between the two stations
32025-09-30 10:15reopenedkingkingHK
42025-09-30 10:16commentedkingkingHKThere does not seem to be any changes to the siding's geometry from the date of the note?
52025-12-08 15:45commentedvectorial8192I mean, sometimes we may find notes that simply repeat the OSM situation at time of writing. Looking at the history, this seems like one of them. In terms of engineering, assuming the track curves are correct/accurate, then "midway between stations" is indeed the most likely configuration/position of the siding. We may close this.
62026-01-02 22:01closedbpaz709394
72026-01-03 02:41reopenedkingkingHK
82026-01-03 02:41commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
92026-01-04 07:45commentedvectorial8192Upon detailed review: what a mess. Also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5082020
102026-01-04 09:06closedvectorial8192lgtm resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176809908 ; closing.
5082020 (iD)12025-12-07 12:04openedvectorial8192Kwun Tong Line: The upper and lower rails are stitched together in OSM, which is incorrect; both rails should be separate irl.
22026-01-02 22:01closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 02:41reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 02:41commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
52026-01-04 09:05closedvectorial8192Largely resolved; closing.
5115498 (iD)12026-01-03 11:42openedbpaz709394 您好: 在這地圖中所有顯示註記的Ｘ點.都不是我的. 煩請 貴公司代為清隊. 謝謝
22026-01-03 17:39closedKovoschizPlease turn off "map notes" on the right from "Layers"
5115217 (iD)12026-01-03 06:19openedvectorial8192special note: note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/758446 is covered by other notes; this note is to help with note management.
22026-01-03 07:59closedNeisReviewNo actionable information was provided for editing OpenStreetMap data. Please feel free to reopen this note with more details. #noeditinfo
32026-01-03 08:07reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 08:08commentedvectorial8192Meta-Note: this note helps others to more conveniently notice/click other notes.
52026-01-03 11:31closedvectorial8192Referenced note is closed. Therefore, closing.
62026-01-03 11:39reopenedkingkingHK
72026-01-03 11:39commentedkingkingHKReviving with parent note.
5037709 (iD)12025-11-04 12:33openedkingkingHKHas this construction https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/507734827 been finished? The only source seem to be https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2327347 , a note from five years ago. Aerial imagery also does not seem to show any signs of construction.
22026-01-03 06:10closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:46reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
52026-01-03 10:09commentedvectorial8192Alternatively, there is a chance the construction was quick and was completed while we were not looking. Aerial images are not clear enough to determine whether the rebuilding took place.
62026-01-03 11:25commentedkingkingHKYes, that's why I made this note so that someone in the future can check the current state when they pass by.
5034379 (iD)12025-11-02 14:29openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-03 06:10closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:46reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
52026-01-03 10:41closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176775943 ; closing.
5083727 (iD)12025-12-08 15:51openedvectorial8192Building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/505913501 has descriptive name.
22026-01-03 05:41closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:05reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 06:06commentedvectorial8192@bpaz709394 you have been reported to the DWG. Justice be served.
52026-01-03 06:10closedbpaz709394
62026-01-03 06:46reopenedkingkingHK
72026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
82026-01-03 10:22closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176775441 ; closing.
5034376 (iD)12025-11-02 14:27openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-03 06:00closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:04reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
4025846 (iD)12023-12-13 03:40opened盛水式加水機 2部 [飲用水] 洗手間下一層
22026-01-03 06:01closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:04reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
2046829 (iD)12020-01-05 08:03openedWright One此入口已封
22021-05-19 03:38closedSylvester77
32021-05-19 03:39reopenedSylvester77
42025-08-21 18:23commentedvectorial8192Another path nearby was marked as inaccessible https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/154333345 ; related?
52026-01-03 05:57closedbpaz709394
62026-01-03 06:04reopenedvectorial8192
72026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
4015897 (iD)12023-12-05 13:26openedIan HoThe pylons are under the project "Removal of 132kV Overhead Line and Pylons for P-Line". Project started 2022. Total 24 pylons will be removed.
22024-02-07 04:24commentedHighlandPaddyHKConfirmed, I went to visit Osborn's Cairn and the pylon was gone!
32024-11-02 13:05commentedvectorial8192I guess this means the towers are now physically gone? Will need to update OSM data to reflect this (eg there is still a tower area https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448005785 )
42024-11-02 15:16commentedIan HoWhen I add the notes, the removal project was still work in progress. Some of the pylons were not removed yet. I did visit 1 or 2 removed pylon sites. Only the base concrete structure (no more than 1 meter high) remains after removal. So I think when the project is complete, we can update OSM.
52025-10-28 16:01commentedvectorial8192Also see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4015896 It seems the towers are now gone?
62025-10-29 03:14commentedkingkingHKSee also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173778439 But I guess can still verify if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448005785 exists?
72026-01-03 06:01closedbpaz709394
82026-01-03 06:04reopenedvectorial8192
92026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
2690777 (iD)12021-05-30 04:30opened懸崖洞
22026-01-03 05:58closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:04reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
4137978 (iD)12024-03-03 15:44openedAlbert Tam"練靶場" POI name: 大潭郊野公園（鰂魚涌擴建部份） Tai Tam Country Park (Quarry Bay Extension) POI types: boundary-national_park OSM data version: 2020-02-09T04:19:23Z #mapsme
22026-01-03 05:58closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:04reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
4978548 (iD)12025-09-25 09:45openedCypp0847the bridge area got divided up into various pieces as to differentiate opening dates and features. this made the rendering of name is quite clumsy over here. could we try and hide some of the names?
22025-09-25 12:40commentedkingkingHKThis is more of a renderer discussion rather than an osm one, isn't it?
32025-09-26 06:56commentedKovoschizFor implementation, there's `bridge:part=` proposed long ago without much attention, only mass added to a hundred. The fundamental conceptual problem here is how to define a `man_made=bridge` for twin , long, and multi-stage `bridge=viaduct` , as the eastbound on the west is new far apart, and longer span.
42025-09-26 06:57commentedKovoschiz(`bridge:part=` is not a good format either, as `bridge=` isn't a feature, unlike `building=` )
52025-09-26 07:37commentedKovoschiz3. The `start_date=` is difficult to define. In OHM, the object's existing status is used. In OSM, often the oldest applicable is used.
62025-09-26 07:39commentedKovoschiz4. Minor note: I didn't bother to draw the whole IEC western `=viaduct` , so doing this is also a lazy hack
72025-09-26 07:40commentedKovoschiz5. `ref=` is another factor that needs to be considered to define a `man_made=bridge` , aside from `name=` and `start_date=` (etc)
82026-01-03 05:58closedbpaz709394
92026-01-03 06:04reopenedvectorial8192
102026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
5034435 (iD)12025-11-02 14:48openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-03 05:58closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:04reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
4015896 (iD)12023-12-05 13:25openedIan HoThe pylons are under the project "Removal of 132kV Overhead Line and Pylons for P-Line". Project started 2022. Total 24 pylons will be removed.
22025-09-25 11:05commentedHenryEKwhat change is wanted here then
32025-09-25 12:32commentedkingkingHKRelevant note: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4015897 It seems like the latest state has been somewhat reflected afterhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150035446 etc, I guess still can review the latest state of the towers e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448005785
42025-10-28 16:00commentedvectorial8192Also see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4015897
52025-12-10 03:30commentedvectorial8192I see the pylon nodes are deleted from OSM some time ago.
62025-12-10 03:33commentedkingkingHKYeah, but there are still some left e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448005785 , would need to check if they still exist to decide the next steps.
72026-01-03 05:57closedbpaz709394
82026-01-03 06:05reopenedvectorial8192
92026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
5034434 (iD)12025-11-02 14:48openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-03 05:57closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:05reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
2087499 (iD)12020-02-12 14:40openedMapping different floors of the station, the depot, the mall, and the residential buildings
22020-02-12 14:42commentedThis Is A Display Name Desu* Indoor mapping tools needed
32026-01-03 05:57closedbpaz709394
42026-01-03 06:05reopenedvectorial8192
52026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
5086249 (iD)12025-12-10 15:34openedvectorial8192todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6143117229 descriptive name
22026-01-03 05:57closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:05reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
4029950 (iD)12023-12-15 23:36opened2023年11月走過這條路線，由水壩至接近石澳道樓梯一段，這並不是山徑，而是一條有水的石澗。
22025-12-18 10:01commentedkingkingHKIndeed.
32026-01-03 05:57closedbpaz709394
42026-01-03 06:05reopenedvectorial8192
52026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
1655004 (iD)12019-01-19 12:53openedThis Is A Display Name Desucheck and map all stairs and other paths accessible along the way, including those that are not open to general public
22026-01-03 06:01closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:05reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
861105 (iD)12017-01-24 08:52openedBattlealvin2009There should be a footway in this area.
22025-08-08 13:24commentedkingkingHKCorrect, feature exists IRL.
32025-08-22 11:18commentedvectorial8192May you clarify how this footway is aligned? eg connects Stadium Path to somewhere else?
42025-09-30 13:49commentedkingkingHKSorry for the uninformative comment earlier - honestly I'm not sure either, there's a very twisty and turny stair starting from the south-west end of Stadium Path, and most of it is behind a locked gate (slope maintenance path iirc), making it harder to survey. Also I'm pretty sure there's a whole unmapped footway network in this area that's much ...
52025-10-02 16:22commentedvectorial8192Well understandable; if it's a slope maintenance path, might as well pretend it doesn't exist at the moment. It wouldn't affect general map usage.
62026-01-03 06:12closedbpaz709394
72026-01-03 06:21reopenedvectorial8192
82026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
3055825 (iD)12022-02-17 22:51openedStart of this path is full of thorns and dense vegetation.
22026-01-03 06:01closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:07reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
939664 (iD)12017-03-25 10:02openedKoala888(可能)日軍手掘洞 (OSM data version: 2017-03-06T16:48:02Z) #mapsme
22026-01-03 06:01closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:44reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
1036042 (iD)12017-06-20 16:58openedRichy_B"The path from 'Lai Tak Tsuen' to 'viewpoint' is impassable and dangerous. Please remove it from the map" POI has no name POI types: landuse-forest OSM data version: 2017-05-11T13:22:09Z #mapsme
22026-01-03 06:02closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:44reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
4019647 (iD)12023-12-08 09:22opened閘門，開放時間05:00-21:30
22026-01-03 05:57closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 06:05reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 07:35closedvectorial8192temp-close to see what's underneath this note
52026-01-03 07:35reopenedvectorial8192
62026-01-03 07:35commentedvectorial8192seems no note is underneath this note
72026-01-03 09:33commentedkmpoppeThis note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists.
5017883 (iD)12025-10-22 11:20openedvectorial8192Possibly another eminent domain
22026-01-03 08:55closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176772941 ; closing.
5034395 (iD)12025-11-02 14:36openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22026-01-03 08:43closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176772659 ; closing.
5115204 (iD)12026-01-03 06:08openedvectorial8192special note: note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1036042 is covered by another note; this note is to help with note management.
22026-01-03 08:00closedNeisReviewNo actionable information was provided for editing OpenStreetMap data. Please feel free to reopen this note with more details. #noeditinfo
32026-01-03 08:07reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 08:09commentedvectorial8192Meta-Note: this note helps others to more conveniently notice/click other notes.
5115205 (iD)12026-01-03 06:09openedvectorial8192special note: note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/939664 is covered by other notes; this note is to help with note management.
22026-01-03 07:59closedNeisReviewNo actionable information was provided for editing OpenStreetMap data. Please feel free to reopen this note with more details. #noeditinfo
32026-01-03 08:07reopenedvectorial8192
42026-01-03 08:09commentedvectorial8192Meta-Note: this note helps others to more conveniently notice/click other notes.
2218616 (iD)12020-06-05 07:45openedkleeahPublic transport Routing at Lam Tin to be added
22026-01-02 22:01closedbpaz709394
32026-01-03 02:41reopenedkingkingHK
42026-01-03 02:41commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
2218614 (iD)12020-06-05 07:45openedkleeahPublic Transport Routing at Ping Tin to be added.
22022-02-16 14:46commentedAWX4Pls help thx
32022-04-20 22:19closedMPatrick1013
42022-04-20 22:19reopenedMPatrick1013
52026-01-02 22:01closedbpaz709394
62026-01-03 02:41reopenedkingkingHK
72026-01-03 02:41commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
5036094 (iD)12025-11-03 12:42openedkingkingHKFamily Medicine Clinic somewhere around here supposedly, but unclear how it is affected by the redevelopment works.
22025-11-16 11:04commentedvectorial8192I went there recently, and saw it's in the old building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429468747 I would guess it's gonna be relocated into Phase 2 later, so we may choose to ignore this for now.
32026-01-02 22:00closedbpaz709394
42026-01-03 02:40reopenedkingkingHK
52026-01-03 02:40commentedkingkingHKNot done yet; please don't resolve!
5113311 (iD)12026-01-01 14:07opened將軍澳尚德村尚禮樓
22026-01-01 14:19closedkingkingHKNote is not useful; closing.
5110097 (iD)12025-12-29 17:24openedvectorial8192https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9578057493/ I don't understand. It would seem the place should be located near 22.454678, 114.028548 .
22026-01-01 13:51closedvectorial8192Upon further review, the quoted coordinates mention "new village", implying the "old village" is somewhere else. Then, this place makes sense. Therefore, closing.
5108018 (iD)12025-12-28 10:21openedvectorial8192todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/496333026 this is obviously not MilMill; then, what is this?
22025-12-29 17:08commentedvectorial8192Should be this https://www.hkstp.org/zh-hk/rental/space/advanced-manufacturing/mec
32026-01-01 11:26closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176699459 ; closing.
5108015 (iD)12025-12-28 10:19openedvectorial8192todo: inconsistent access tags; also review/improve the parking lots
22026-01-01 11:03closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176698797 ; closing.
5108014 (iD)12025-12-28 10:19openedvectorial8192todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/958636576 this is disused.
22026-01-01 10:47closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176698355 ; closing.
5109358 (iD)12025-12-29 09:05openedIgor Mishota"Borsch Spot – 真正的罗宋汤" POI name: Borsch Spot – 真正的罗宋汤 POI types: amenity-restaurant cuisine-russian internet_access-wlan OSM data version: 2025-03-18T16:35:26Z #mapsme
22025-12-29 15:31commentedvectorial8192Convenient https://borschspot.hk/
32026-01-01 09:58closedvectorial8192Reviewed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176697036 ; closing.
5112010 (iD)12025-12-31 08:13openedvectorial8192todo: this is not a turning circle
22025-12-31 13:18closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176671843 ; closing.
5112232 (iD)12025-12-31 11:49openedvectorial8192https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17147569 Country trail is split in half after 2023 rainstorms (notice the concrete retaining covers); see if it has been redesignated / respecified.
4113544 (iD)12024-02-15 07:52openedLandslide
22025-12-31 07:12commentedvectorial8192See https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4113548
32025-12-31 11:47closedvectorial8192
4113546 (iD)12024-02-15 07:53openedLandslide
22025-12-31 07:12commentedvectorial8192See https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4113548
32025-12-31 11:47closedvectorial8192
5110608 (iD)12025-12-30 03:29openedvectorial8192todo: quick hospital review
22025-12-30 13:39closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176628698 ; closing.
5109792 (iD)12025-12-29 14:11openedvectorial8192todo: no speed limits?
22025-12-30 02:44closedkingkingHKProbably just omission of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70550168 ; if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492053167 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492053166 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492053151 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492053149 are all `maxspeed=80`, then obviously https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492053143 and https://...
5077060 (iD)12025-12-03 07:46openedvectorial8192I think this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243755413 is actually a dam? Is this accessible?
22025-12-29 15:27closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176583606 ; closing.
4465291 (iD)12024-10-05 06:09openedvectorial8192Ref 太湖花園 Serenity Park, recommend checking whether 帝欣苑 Parc Versailles may be retagged as separate "Phase 1" and "Phase 2" polygons
22024-12-18 08:50commentedCypp0847太湖花園 was divided into two polygons likely because a sign erected suggests an area known as 太湖花園第一期 and 太湖花園第二期 separately
32024-12-18 11:19commentedvectorial8192The motivation behind this note was that, at some point, someone (not me) was thinking "why is the southern part not marked as Parc Versailles?" and posted a map note about it Granted, we should not be "giving in" too much to rendering; we are mapping to capture the true essence of the features. That's why I was thinking whether we can discover Pa...
42024-12-19 10:11commentedKovoschizThis isn't true either. `residential=apartments` should represent the whole housing estate first. Both of them are numbered together across phases.
52024-12-19 10:12commentedKovoschizThere's no standard solution for phases. Using `landuse=residential` again would cause conflicting meaning against housing estates, and result in overlapping or nested `landuse=residential` .
62025-12-29 15:08closedvectorial8192With more experience in OSM, I see having a multipolygon feature is acceptable. It then largely falls onto the problem/responsibility of the renderer. Closing.
5109370 (iD)12025-12-29 09:16openedvectorial8192todo: this has a perimeter wall.
22025-12-29 14:03closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176579414 ; closing.
5104565 (iD)12025-12-25 12:55openedvectorial8192todo: name wrong format
22025-12-28 11:06closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176521791 ; closing.
3600978 (iD)12023-03-17 03:17opened現稱為 I ∙PARK 1 [源 ∙ 島]
22025-01-16 17:55commentedvectorial8192They say the incinerator will be initiated some time in 2025
32025-12-26 04:50commentedvectorial8192Trial runs began on 22 Dec 2025.
42025-12-28 06:35closedvectorial8192I have no clear idea what to do with the supposed Chinese name. Leave for later. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176514512 ; closing.
5106613 (iD)12025-12-27 10:41openedvectorial8192todo: this does not look like a mini-roundabout; can also irl-review nearby features.
22025-12-27 12:26commentedkingkingHK> this does not look like a mini-roundabout Agreed, there's even a physical island. > can also irl-review nearby features Such as? I see the features in this area seem fine, at least.
32025-12-27 14:42commentedvectorial8192For example: Look at ESRI imagery. It shows a west-side construction yard road into the Testing Institute. Does this still exist? The Married Quarters bus stop seems like a bus bay. Is this true? Construction is largely finished, which means the jersey barriers (aerial imagery) should e gone. What replaces them (if exists)? etc.
5082019 (iD)12025-12-07 12:04openedvectorial8192Yau Tong Station: Review the layering; should probably be `layer=0` or `layer=1`.
22025-12-13 14:19commentedkingkingHKDoes `layer=` need to correspond absolutely to its surrounding features, though? Afaik `tunnel=` can be used as long as it's long and full covered, and `tunnel=` requires a negative `layer=`, but maybe I am wrong.
32025-12-14 09:12commentedKovoschiz`layer=` absolute number has no meaning, and can be anything. Only the relative order matters, and preferably be consistent with the surroundings.
42025-12-25 14:02commentedkingkingHKYeah, I don't think there are any problems with the `layer=`s here. @vectorial8192 do you have anything to add? If not I think we can close this note.
52025-12-25 15:16closedvectorial8192Alright, it seems I only had a wrong interpretation of what layering really means. Closing.
5058584 (iD)12025-11-18 16:07openedvectorial8192Should Tai Hang Sai Estate still retain landuse=residential? afaik judicial processes are withholding reconstruction, which means this estate is technically still inhabitable.
22025-11-19 09:34commentedKovoschizHave they not lost all the cases?
32025-11-19 09:56commentedvectorial8192This is the part which I am out of the loop. The verdicts and the judicial arguments are convoluting. afaik the Company convinced a significant majority of tenants to leave, but the few remaining made a JR/appeal, which "pins" this estate as `landuse=residential` despite "obviously a construction yard".
42025-11-19 10:45commentedvectorial8192OK, I read the news. Basically, the Company eventually got all the flats back after some verdicts + arbitration. de jure the Estate is still `landuse=residential` until (I think) Dec 2025, but me discovering this situation this late to the story, it would just be a technicality issue, and can't justify an OSM edit. I will just hold this note open...
52025-12-25 14:01commentedkingkingHKHi there, we are long into December, I guess that means we can close this note with no actions to take?
62025-12-25 14:34commentedvectorial8192I have no idea why, but I seem to keep reading about new judicial resolutions way into December. I do not know whether there are more ongoing judicial cases.
5091914 (iD)12025-12-15 06:57openedvectorial8192todo: bus stop placeholders, etc.?
22025-12-25 13:52commentedkingkingHKSomeone else dealt with the bus stops in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176007230 , but I guess we can also reroute the bus relations.
32025-12-25 14:33commentedvectorial8192Community guides suggest doing it in JOSM, not in iD editor. I will leave this to the public transport mappers.
5076281 (iD)12025-12-02 13:38openedkingkingHKIs "Permeant" Aviation Fuel Facility supposed to be Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility instead?
22025-12-11 01:37commentedHenryEKcannot find anything relating to the former so it most likely was a typo
32025-12-25 14:08closedkingkingHKWell, "permeant" does not make sense in this context, and the name was added by a relatively inexperienced user, so a typo is not unlikely. Official websites e.g. http://hkpaff.com/ https://www.hongkongairport.com/en/the-airport/aviation-logistics-services/ https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/sites/default/files/epd/english/boards/advisory_council/files/ace...
5091813 (iD)12025-12-15 02:03openedBGhksB&G HK-SERVICES Hey! Great news a New Company located at G/F, Kam Heung Building, 128 Aberdeen Main Road, Aberdeen, Hong Kong. Call/Chat: +85261850133
22025-12-18 09:58commentedkingkingHK...what? 1. The location of this note (and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175941134) is not 128 Aberdeen Main Road 2. No such feature exists both here and at 128 Aberdeen Main Road Appears to be entirely made-up.
32025-12-18 10:17commentedkingkingHKNever mind, I'm stupid. It's addressed as 128 Aberdeen Main Road, but the shopfront is not facing Aberdeen Main Road.
42025-12-18 10:20commentedBGhksHi Bro, updated. Thanks
52025-12-25 13:51closedkingkingHKResoled via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176097940 ; closing.
5102613 (iD)12025-12-23 14:47openedvectorial8192todo: name sus
22025-12-24 03:06commentedkingkingHKI am almost certain the name:en is "Argyle Street Playground", see e.g. nearby bus stops and https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202409/05/P2024090500265.htm Also the current name "Argyle Street Park Playground" is added almost 15 years ago, so I would not expect much.
32025-12-25 13:46closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176395457 ; closing.
5104573 (iD)12025-12-25 13:03openedvectorial8192todo: inconsistent access tags
22025-12-25 13:43closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176395326 ; closing.
5099408 (iD)12025-12-21 05:54openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1240353927 construction probably almost finished, according to aerial imagery.
22025-12-25 13:01commentedvectorial8192still pretty raw imo
5102015 (iD)12025-12-23 06:44opened1
22025-12-23 07:12closedkingkingHKMeaning is unclear, closing.
5102016 (iD)12025-12-23 06:45opened1
22025-12-23 07:12closedkingkingHKMeaning is unclear, closing.
5099365 (iD)12025-12-21 03:00openedvectorial8192todo; layering
22025-12-21 13:45closedvectorial8192lgtm; closing.
5099133 (iD)12025-12-20 18:58openedvectorial8192todo: regular cleanup
22025-12-21 13:45closedvectorial8192lgtm; closing.
5099134 (iD)12025-12-20 18:58openedvectorial8192https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1419431791
22025-12-20 18:58closedvectorial8192Upon review, my bad; closing.
32025-12-20 18:59reopenedvectorial8192
42025-12-20 18:59closedvectorial8192
52025-12-20 19:00reopenedvectorial8192
62025-12-20 19:00commentedvectorial8192No. If https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/564207414 , then why https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1419431791 ? Therefore, reviving.
72025-12-20 19:01commentedvectorial8192Also, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1419431789
82025-12-21 02:58commentedkingkingHK...what? Can you elaborate?
92025-12-21 12:04closedvectorial8192For a brief moment, the endings of Route 6 have `access=no`, which is a blunder because those were unused road stubs that was forgotten to be updated. I see this is now fixed. Therefore, closing.
5098623 (iD)12025-12-20 11:40openedkingkingHKHas this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/780190087 been reopened?
22025-12-20 18:18closedKovoschizhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176191677
5034394 (iD)12025-11-02 14:36openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-20 12:35closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176178994 ; closing.
5085937 (iD)12025-12-10 11:17openedvectorial8192Locate where "大寶冰室" is located, and map it as a tourist attraction.
22025-12-10 12:12commentedkingkingHKDisagree with tourist attraction, it feels like just a fad. But of course we can still map the restaurant itself which seems to be unmapped in osm currently; online information says it is located somewhere near https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/515279343
32025-12-10 12:44commentedvectorial8192I have no comments on "is fad" or not, but indeed, at minimum we can map that restaurant into OSM. When memes and copypasta leak into irl, even us at OSM can't possibly ignore them. The "fad" might just result in a new tourist attraction.
42025-12-10 13:52commentedkingkingHKImo meme/copypasta is not sufficient to justify a tourist attraction; at least it needs to have a significant sustained group of people visiting it for the sake of it. While this might be true now, it is still too early to tell if this will last long enough to satisfy the "don't map temporary features/properties on osm" rule.
52025-12-20 09:39commentedkingkingHKSomeone else added the restaurant via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176169271 , I guess we can close this note?
62025-12-20 11:55closedvectorial8192I suspect it has an English name, but whatever. Eventually someone will deal with that. Therefore, closing.
5080918 (iD)12025-12-06 11:27openedkingkingHKDoes Tai Shue Wan https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8791675465 really deserve to be `=suburb`? I don't feel like it's that important.
22025-12-06 19:56commentedKovoschizIt's enough if it stands on its own, cf Sham Wan, Shouson Hill. You thinking it should be in Wong Chuk Hang?
32025-12-07 12:28commentedkingkingHKI feel like it is not really that important when it appears to be unpopulated. But nevermind if the standard is just "standing on its own". I originally noticed this when I saw Carto render Tai Shue Wan over Ap Lei Chau at zoom 12 even though I personally consider Ap Lei Chau to be much more "important", so I wondered if that is caused by the over...
42025-12-07 16:37commentedKovoschiz1. The definition of populated can be debated. If there are hotels, or jails (need to do revision on census definition), are those really "unpopulated"? That's not the same as census definition of populations. Eg Penny's Bay, or Chek Lap Kok may have no residents either. 2. Carto doesn't always work. `population=` is not the only factor in what's ...
52025-12-10 12:49commentedvectorial8192tbf renderers have their choice on picking what to render. Them picking Tai Shue Wan over Ap Lei Chau is their L. Still, specifically for Ap Lei Chau, supposedly renderers should prioritize Ap Lei Chau because it's an island. I would expect "island > suburb".
62025-12-19 10:41commentedvectorial8192It seems we can close this.
72025-12-20 09:39closedkingkingHKThen, this note is simply due to my misunderstanding on how renderers work. Closing.
5086890 (iD)12025-12-11 08:10openedvectorial8192Footpaths / service roads are very close to each other. Are these actually connected somehow?
22025-12-11 08:11commentedvectorial8192Seems unlikely from the looks, but intend to irl-walk there.
32025-12-19 15:44commentedvectorial8192West side improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176146136
42025-12-19 16:46closedvectorial8192East side improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176148703 Therefore, resolving.
5052406 (iD)12025-11-14 11:42openedvectorial8192Tourist attraction for Kowloon Walled City (movie props) should be somewhere inside here.
22025-11-14 14:50commentedvectorial8192In case this is not clear, I am referring to "inside this park".
32025-12-19 15:16closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176145102 ; closing.
5034404 (iD)12025-11-02 14:38openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?)
22025-12-19 14:38closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176143480 ; closing.
5034402 (iD)12025-11-02 14:38openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-19 12:34closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176139091 ; closing.
5089784 (iD)12025-12-13 13:15openedvectorial8192todo: name:zh of feature?
22025-12-18 14:42closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176098592 ; closing.
5055198 (iD)12025-11-16 11:24openedkingkingHKFamily Medicine Clinic
22025-12-13 14:11commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a family medicine clinic here, and it seems like it already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13207734034 (but outdated)
32025-12-18 02:42closedkingkingHKResolved by someone else via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176053188 ; closing.
42025-12-18 12:58reopenedvectorial8192
52025-12-18 12:59commentedvectorial8192While we are at it, `healthcare:specialty=family_medicine` does not sound like an actual specialty, but more like "consultancy method" instead.
62025-12-18 13:44commentedkingkingHKI agree. I just thought it is a rather minor problem that can be fixed in a future territory-wide family medicine clinic clean-up in which we also fix e.g. `=clinic` for clinic grounds, generic names, etc.
72025-12-18 13:52closedvectorial8192Yes indeed; I didn't think of the big picture. Indeed we can clean them all up later. Sorry for the disturbance.
5079402 (iD)12025-12-05 02:49openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8742956918 should probably be deleted
22025-12-16 14:53commentedvectorial8192Normally "movie scenic location" can be a tourist attraction, but to be frank I have no idea what is being referred to here.
32025-12-17 02:35commentedkingkingHKSeeing that it was created by maps.me, I don't have very high expectations (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/MAPS.ME#Questionable_edits). Ideally we should also review his other edits (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Steven%20Lam%20Hiker/history), I just don't have time yet.
42025-12-18 10:04commentedkingkingHKAfaik if there's something physical (e.g. a monument) saying that it is a movie filming location, it might pass at a tourist attraction. However, I could not find anything here, so I think we can simply delete it.
5034471 (iD)12025-11-02 14:55openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-18 09:56commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a family medicine clinic here.
5034469 (iD)12025-11-02 14:55openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-18 09:56commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a family medicine clinic here.
5034468 (iD)12025-11-02 14:54openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-18 09:55commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a family medicine clinic here.
4922555 (iD)12025-08-21 18:27openedvectorial8192todo: review roundabout mapping
22025-09-16 12:37commentedkingkingHKCould you please elaborate on what the issue this here/what is to be reviewed? I do notice that the mapping around here is a bit odd and most certainly wrong
32025-09-16 13:56commentedvectorial8192The roundabout feels wrong, but aerial imagery cannot see if this is an actual roundabout with an actual concrete kurb or simply just a turning circle.
42025-09-16 14:13commentedkingkingHKThe central island is traversable, so I think it should be `highway=turning_circle`.
52025-09-17 19:14commentedKovoschizThere's a `=give_way` , so not entirely the most common `=turning_circle` , similar to `=mini_roundabout`
62025-09-24 09:23commentedkingkingHKIs the presence of a give way a factor in determining whether something is a turning circle though? I feel like its main purpose is to let buses from the bus terminus do a u-turn and leave, fitting the definition of "a widened area of road that allows vehicles to turn more easily".
72025-09-24 14:10commentedvectorial8192I think the distinction is whether a "central circle" is visible. If a "central circle" is visible then it's basically a `=mini_roundabout`. The problem is, satellite imagery cannot see whether such "central circle" exists.
82025-09-24 14:17commentedkingkingHKNot sure what you mean "visible", but there is indeed a painted circle in the middle: https://imgur.com/a/5uJE9Qi
92025-10-06 01:41commentedHenryEKthis looks more like a mini roundabout than a turning circle
102025-12-18 07:34closedCypp0847seems we could close this one - with the imagery evidence confirming this to be a mini roundabout instead of a turning circle
5093695 (iD)12025-12-16 12:08openedvectorial8192https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13161373501 Disconcerting. What is this?
22025-12-18 07:30closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176080494; changed to common name, see https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20210202-hong-kongs-guardian-of-the-gods
5037516 (iD)12025-11-04 10:24openedkingkingHKI suspect that traffic signals might have been/will be added to this junction.
22025-12-16 08:41commentedkingkingHKIndeed.
32025-12-17 13:44closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176051565 ; closing.
5077389 (iD)12025-12-03 12:18openedkingkingHKName of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/674242942 is dubious.
22025-12-08 17:22commentedvectorial8192sounds like "disused parking spot (capacity=5)"
32025-12-17 08:35closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176038162 ; closing.
5034378 (iD)12025-11-02 14:28openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-16 15:25closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176011051 ; closing.
5034371 (iD)12025-11-02 14:26openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-16 15:17closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176010663 ; closing.
5034377 (iD)12025-11-02 14:28openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-16 15:10closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176010290 ; closing.
5025131 (iD)12025-10-27 14:50openedOctoberFifteenthThe path is gone. One cannot reach this path from the pier.
22025-12-16 15:03commentedvectorial8192It's now disconnected, but to make it more obvious I will just move the path further inland.
32025-12-16 15:04closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176010011 ; closing.
829942 (iD)12016-12-27 09:16openedWanderer GoGounpaved 45 degree slope between hill top and camp site (OSM data version: 2016-11-05T13:55:03Z) #mapsme
22025-12-10 12:53commentedvectorial8192No campsites found near this note in OSM; seems like "private note", and may then be closed.
32025-12-16 14:51closedvectorial8192Note not too useful; closing.
5093701 (iD)12025-12-16 12:13openedvectorial8192todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/99295275 descriptive name
22025-12-16 13:14commentedkingkingHKWith the changeset discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172441090 in mind, I think it is safe to just change it to `description=` without further investigation.
32025-12-16 13:57closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176007063 ; closing.
5093778 (iD)12025-12-16 13:31openedvectorial8192I see Tuen Mun LRT is elevated. Then, how may passengers access these elevated platforms?
22025-12-16 13:57commentedkingkingHK1. Escalator from ground level 2. Eastbound platform is at the same level and is connected to Tuen Mun MTR Station. I am not sure if passengers can go from the westbound platform to Tuen Mun MTR without going to ground level first, though. IIRC no at-grade crossing across the tracks.
5089790 (iD)12025-12-13 13:17openedvectorial8192todo: name of feature?
22025-12-14 12:13commentedkingkingHKProbably "屯門高爾夫球中心 Tuen Mun Golf Centre" https://www.lcsd.gov.hk/en/golf/tuen_mun.html
32025-12-15 04:26commentedvectorial8192100%; I just don't have time to type it.
42025-12-16 13:28closedkingkingHKThen, resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176006047 ; closing.
5034465 (iD)12025-11-02 14:54openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-14 11:43closedvectorial8192Someone else did it via https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13310973675 ; closing.
5034440 (iD)12025-11-02 14:51openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?)
22025-12-14 09:35closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175911639 ; closing.
5034442 (iD)12025-11-02 14:52openedvectorial8192Should this be a Family Medicine Clinic?
22025-11-02 14:53commentedvectorial8192Seems like it; the placement makes it very unobvious.
32025-12-14 09:33commentedvectorial8192Interestingly, it seems there are 2 entrances: one at the low side (Queen's Road), and another at the high side (Hospital Road). Will need to look at this again.
5078621 (iD)12025-12-04 12:52openedkingkingHKIs https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7134763060 supposed to be `amenity=waste_basket` instead?
22025-12-14 09:31commentedvectorial8192Well, actually I can't find anything like this here. If hypothetically there was a "mobile waste disposal container" (aka "斗") then it still shouldn't be in OSM.
32025-12-14 09:32closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175911547 ; closing.
5034463 (iD)12025-11-02 14:53openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-14 08:09closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175909693 ; closing.
4957859 (iD)12025-09-12 03:33opened停車場入口
22025-09-12 09:26commentedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12784120427 ?
32025-09-30 13:09commentedvectorial8192I think the key point is to determine the actual driving direction. This might also be a car park entrance.
42025-10-22 07:32closedIGCHK
52025-10-22 08:29reopenedkingkingHK
62025-10-22 12:36commentedNeisBotHi kingkingHK, Thank you for reopening the note. I noticed there wasn't a comment explaining the reason for reopening. Could you please provide more details or context behind the decision? This will help us better understand and address the note appropriately. #ReopenedWithoutComment
72025-12-13 13:39commentedvectorial8192As suspected, the irl is complex.
82025-12-13 14:17commentedvectorial8192The actual correct "parking entrance" node is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12784120428, but this area/path *can* *lead to* the parking entrance. This stuff is stacked. I don't expect the usual kind of navigation software can interpret this correctly.
92025-12-13 14:22commentedkingkingHKNormally, it would be fine to not indoor map multi-story car parks when the parking entrance node is mapped. However, I heard that there is also a parking entrance from Kennedy Road westbound, can you confirm that? (it seems like you surveyed this recently so I suppose you know)
102025-12-13 14:26closedvectorial8192It doesn't help that some of the access roads on different levels were wrongly stitched together. Still, resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175885484 ; closing.
5036097 (iD)12025-11-03 12:44openedkingkingHKFamily Medicine Clinic
22025-12-13 14:12commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a family medicine clinic here.
5034350 (iD)12025-11-02 14:16openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-13 14:10commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a family medicine clinic here.
5034352 (iD)12025-11-02 14:17openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-13 14:10commentedkingkingHKIndeed there is a family medicine clinic here.
5034354 (iD)12025-11-02 14:18openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-11-04 06:28closedJinYe777Tuen Mun Wu Hong Clinic
32025-11-04 06:48reopenedvectorial8192
42025-11-04 06:48commentedvectorial8192@JinYe777 does this mean the building is unnamed?
52025-12-13 14:07closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175884864 ; closing.
5034516 (iD)12025-11-02 15:21openedGULU Greek Yogurt
22025-12-04 14:33commentedvectorial8192Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6378290625 is referencing a difficult-to-load webpage.
32025-12-13 12:57commentedvectorial8192irl does see shop replaced by this note.
42025-12-13 13:00closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175882355 ; closing.
5034439 (iD)12025-11-02 14:50openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?)
22025-12-13 12:52closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175882080 ; closing.
5034373 (iD)12025-11-02 14:27openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?)
22025-12-12 09:57closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175838401 ; closing.
5078742 (iD)12025-12-04 14:21openedkingkingHKname:zh of park? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/576655997
22025-12-11 01:49commentedHenryEK赫蘭道／淺水灣道花園 https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1810025496
32025-12-11 02:23commentedkingkingHK@HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright?
42025-12-11 18:11commentedKovoschizNo https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question
5087537 (iD)12025-12-11 17:07openedvectorial8192todo: Some clinics have generic names, which may be improved.
5016776 (iD)12025-10-21 14:30openedvectorial8192Super overlapped pedestrian paths?
22025-11-26 06:44commentedkingkingHKCould you please elaborate?
32025-11-26 15:58commentedvectorial8192Elaboration: Latest satellite imagery (and therefore irl) shows the sidewalk has been moved north, but then it is super close to an unrelated foot path. What might be happening irl?
42025-11-28 14:26commentedkingkingHKI think they are not at the same vertical level? Ie there might be some sort of retaining wall/cliff between https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/763946005 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/964606433 . Disclaimer: I have never visited this place after the TCL extension works began, but I still vaguely remember there was a retaining wall/embankmen...
52025-12-11 12:33commentedkingkingHKOk, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/964606433 is really on an embankment, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/763946005 is lower than it. However, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/763946007 simply does not exist. Anyway, there is no "super close footpath" problem then. If you have nothing to say then I will close this note.
62025-12-11 14:05commentedvectorial8192Not much to add; if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/763946007 doesn't really exist then might as well delete it.
72025-12-11 14:06commentedvectorial8192Hold on, if the way doesn't exist, then what is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/763943098 ?
82025-12-11 14:17commentedkingkingHKUpon rechecking, my initial statement was wrong. But the actual situation is too complicated to explain in words so I will just make a changeset.
92025-12-11 14:24closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175805782 ; closing,
5074895 (iD)12025-12-01 09:55openedPablo Strubell"No bus stops here" The place has gone or never existed. A user of Organic Maps application has reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-10-21T03:35:21Z POI name: 東涌（達東路） Tung Chung (Tat Tung Road) POI types: public_transport-platform highway-bus_s...
22025-12-11 12:48closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175801448 ; closing.
5034432 (iD)12025-11-02 14:47openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-11 09:43closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175791540 ; closing.
5036089 (iD)12025-11-03 12:34openedkingkingHKFamily Medicine Clinic
22025-12-10 15:18closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175764666 ; closing.
5077338 (iD)12025-12-03 11:45openedvectorial8192Village areas https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188488683 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188488680 probably should not have names, but have `addr:*=*` instead.
22025-12-03 12:37commentedkingkingHKSee also the changeset discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145486557 .
32025-12-03 12:47commentedvectorial8192oh yeah; it me this is more like a todo / coordination note
42025-12-10 14:18closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175762046 ; closing.
4756215 (iD)12025-05-13 02:47opened[飲用水] 此處設有加水機
22025-12-10 12:56commentedvectorial8192Very believable, but that's gonna be very difficult to irl-verify.
4622400 (iD)12025-02-11 07:17openedprodevpUnable to answer "What are the opening hours here?" – Motor Mech (Car Repair Shop) – https://osm.org/node/4845847910 via StreetComplete 60.1: Golden World Motors
22025-09-01 13:39commentedkingkingHKCorrect.
32025-12-10 03:39commentedvectorial8192Any updates to this note?
42025-12-10 12:52closedkingkingHKApologies for always surveying without mapping. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175758186 ; closing.
5077746 (iD)12025-12-03 18:04openedvectorial8192Rare data incompleteness: name:en of street https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243663400 ?
22025-12-09 14:38commentedvectorial8192irl totally no signage, and yet osm history insists this street has name.
32025-12-10 12:34commentedkingkingHKCan be "informal name" / "loc_name", commonly used by people from that area but not officially recognise. However, this might be difficult to verify.
5034323 (iD)12025-11-02 14:10openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-10 11:08closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175753614 ; closing.
5079398 (iD)12025-12-05 02:13opened4
22025-12-05 02:29closedkingkingHKMeaning is unclear, closing.
32025-12-10 03:30reopenedvectorial8192
42025-12-10 03:31closedvectorial8192just a PS: I can contextually guess it tries to write down Wilson Trail sections (also see another highly related note on the east side), but again, these sections already exist.
5034380 (iD)12025-11-02 14:29openedvectorial8192feels like should be "funeral home" with `abandoned=yes`
22025-11-24 17:21commentedvectorial8192I vaguely remember seeing the introduction of this place a few years ago; something like "this place holds dead bodies until ready for burial".
32025-12-08 15:50closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175673864 ; closing.
5078524 (iD)12025-12-04 11:03openedChinese/English mismatched; should be 宏顯樓
22025-12-04 12:46commentedkingkingHKIt is currently tagged as 宏顯樓? Could you please elaborate?
32025-12-08 10:15closedkingkingHKI have no expectations that an anonymous user would reply to questions. I have tried to identify any tagging issues in this area but I just can't find any. Note is not helpful; closing.
5052324 (iD)12025-11-14 10:04opened康明苑 Cumine Court
22025-12-08 10:12closedkingkingHKResolved via changeset/175658316 ; closing.
5052322 (iD)12025-11-14 10:02opened康和苑 Cornwall Court
22025-12-08 10:12closedkingkingHKResolved via changeset/175658316 ; closing.
5052323 (iD)12025-11-14 10:04opened康麗苑 Cornell Court
22025-12-08 10:12closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175658316 ; closing.
4957095 (iD)12025-09-11 11:40openedvectorial8192By pure coincidence, it is discovered that MTR is quite possibly using "vibe routing" here: TKL LOHAS branch LOHAS bound takes distinct paths per the vibes of the signaling system. Some instances may take the upper path while remaining instances take the lower path. This is highly unusual. Then, would the current mapping be correct? How should we...
22025-12-06 12:39commentedkingkingHKSorry I am not too sure what you mean, could you please elaborate? Specifically, which paths does the trains take? Which paths are the "upper path" and "lower path"?
32025-12-06 14:20commentedvectorial8192So basically, one day in September I was irl-reviewing some stuff and noted that the train took the upper path https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485648069/history/8 Later, something else happened irl and I decided to visit this area again, but this time, the train took the lower path https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1428978599/history/1 This is ...
42025-12-06 14:22commentedvectorial8192I want to add that the OSM track layout near LOHAS Park has been confusing/wrong for a long time until the fateful 2-visits discovery that finally resulted in the current OSM track layout.
52025-12-07 09:27commentedkingkingHKDisclaimer: I am not very familiar with railway tagging It seems like the direction of travel of railways is tagged with `railway:preferred_direction` and `oneway=reversible` (only on tracks with a clear normal direction of travel. Then, based on what you said, it seems like www.openstreetmap.org/way/32226078 is used for both train to and from LO...
62025-12-07 09:36commentedkingkingHKSee https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175614946
72025-12-07 10:32commentedvectorial8192Not too familiar with railway mapping myself, but it seems almost all segments implicitly have `oneway=reversible`; why this needs to be stated clearly idk. The idea is that at this moment, `oneway=?` is some value, but for another moment, `oneway=?` becomes another value, therefore `=reversible`. Trains may use "the opposite rail" depending on dep...
5081772 (iD)12025-12-07 06:59openedvectorial8192todo: name of feature https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/208701496
22025-12-07 09:19closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175614463 ; closing.
5076230 (iD)12025-12-02 12:47openedkingkingHKWhat is this? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6546140
22025-12-04 14:28commentedvectorial8192Seems like someone tried to add indoor paths. However, no idea what "NRG" means. These might be 24/7 paths, but idk about this.
32025-12-07 08:53closedkingkingHKI do not know what it means either. It is the only instance of `NRG=` in the entire database, so it's safe to assume that it can simply be deleted. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175613659 ; closing.
5080805 (iD)12025-12-06 10:00openedvectorial8192Dakota Drive ...??? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1235498284
22025-12-06 11:53commentedkingkingHKNot sure what you were complaining about exactly, but does https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175582314 resolve this note?
32025-12-06 11:56commentedvectorial8192Nope. The quoted section of Dakota drive is hanging as `highway=secondary`, but satellite imagery is unclear whether it should be `highway=residential` as hinted by previous `construction:highway=residential`.
42025-12-06 12:05commentedkingkingHKAfaik for junctions like this, the higher-ranking one of the intersecting roads would be applied to the intersection, which in this case should mean that the quoted section would be `=secondary` (please correct me if this is wrong). Then, I have removed `construction:highway=residential` in the aforementioned changeset as the road has been opened,...
52025-12-06 14:13commentedvectorial8192I will clarify how to map junctions (but feel free to ask/confirm in the Discord for better confirmation, in case I can't explain it cleanly). Basically, the junction is formed first by intersecting the roads together with their "base highway class"; in this case Dakota Drive should be `=residential`. It largely follows the "maintain throughout hi...
62025-12-07 04:31closedkingkingHKOk, upon rethinking, you are right, it should indeed be `=residential`. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175609092 ; closing.
5080645 (iD)12025-12-06 08:10openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1134758320 should probably be deleted.
22025-12-06 08:22closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175575513 ; closing.
5080613 (iD)12025-12-06 07:33openedvectorial8192Roundabout ...?!
22025-12-06 08:08closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175575183 ; closing.
5065814 (iD)12025-11-24 10:13openedvectorial8192I think there is a lanes expansion project here?
22025-12-01 08:14commentedkingkingHKHi there, does https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175303638 resolve this note?
32025-12-06 05:14closedvectorial8192It does. Thanks for the review. Closing.
5000307 (iD)12025-10-11 07:01openedpppcPerm. CLOSED #OsmAnd
22025-10-28 15:59commentedvectorial8192Probably referring to this node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10129934870
32025-11-14 08:50commentedvectorial8192doesn't seem like should be here; also can't find it
42025-11-16 16:56commentedvectorial8192Wait, I feel like I made a mistake somewhere. Gotta recheck it.
52025-12-05 11:50commentedvectorial8192Upon review, I do not think there is such thing as "32D".
62025-12-05 11:54closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175544530 ; closing.
5061240 (iD)12025-11-20 16:19openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-05 11:39closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175543950 ; closing.
5079399 (iD)12025-12-05 02:14opened5
22025-12-05 02:29closedkingkingHKMeaning is unclear, closing.
4957938 (iD)12025-09-12 06:07opened足感謝 Fanny Family Massage & Beauty
22025-09-30 09:56commentedkingkingHKCorrect
32025-12-04 13:29commentedvectorial8192Any updates to this note?
42025-12-04 14:05closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175496104 ; closing.
5049048 (iD)12025-11-12 04:48openedvectorial8192Path https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1100844361 was mentioned to be difficult to use; delete? or mark as hazard?
22025-11-15 11:36commentedvectorial8192afaik this was previously closed due to construction works; it could be that the path was reclaimed by nature. We should first determine how bad the path is. If the path was reclaimed by nature, or it ain't a "slope maintenance path", or any other reason to believe that anyone would care to maintain this path, then we can just straight up delete t...
32025-12-03 12:17commentedkingkingHK1. Re construction works, yes indeed the northern entrance of a footpath here is still being obstructed by construction, but there's an informal bypass. 2. The upper section of the footpath (close to Lung Cheung Road) is actually a slope maintenance path on an artificial slope. 3. The lower section of the footpath (close to Beacon Hill Road) is c...
42025-12-04 12:43closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175491462 ; closing.
5062245 (iD)12025-11-21 12:47openedkingkingHKIs Lantau Link BBI really `access=customers` when https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/457969673 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/727099908 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/762041854 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172848370 exist?
22025-11-24 17:12commentedvectorial8192probably not; seems like "extremely rural" but not fully self-enclosed like "Shing Mun" and "Tuen Chek". similar vibes also see "Lion Rock" where it's also "extremely rural" but still not fully self-enclosed. ref https://www.oasistrek.com/fa_peng_teng.php ; the BBI is mentioned as some place which can be walked away to trivially reach the wildern...
32025-12-04 09:48closedkingkingHKIndeed it is possible to easily walk to the wilderness. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175480960 ; closing.
5065716 (iD)12025-11-24 08:20openedkingkingHKDoes this https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4349317489 actually exist? Which routes call here?
22025-12-04 09:33closedkingkingHKNope, nothing here. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175480398 ; closing.
5061750 (iD)12025-11-21 02:59openedkingkingHKHas this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/900202005 been reopened?
22025-12-04 09:28closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175480217 ; closing.
5077351 (iD)12025-12-03 11:55openedvectorial8192Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11530071569 should probably be deleted
22025-12-03 12:40commentedkingkingHKThe changeset that created that node (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146429453) has tags " Unintentional Severity: High Unresolved", presumably about this. That person (Russkii) has also added other seeming dubious features, I would recommend reviewing them all.
32025-12-04 09:13closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175479675 ; closing.
5078375 (iD)12025-12-04 09:12openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11620433769 What is this? Does this actually exist?
5078374 (iD)12025-12-04 09:12openedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11620433869 What is this? Does this actually exist?
5038060 (iD)12025-11-04 16:29openedvectorial8192I feel like this mall should have a name, but maybe I am wrong.
22025-12-03 14:16closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175449009 ; closing.
5039442 (iD)12025-11-05 14:28openedkingkingHKI suspect that it is legal to cycle from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116287569 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/835665902
22025-11-05 14:29commentedkingkingHK* and all the way to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/718063548 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/149908331 , but not https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/227648518
32025-11-05 14:32commentedvectorial8192I don't know the details yet, but bold claim to be allowed to walk/cycle in numbered highways.
42025-11-05 14:40commentedvectorial8192ok, so you mentioned https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/227648518 , but this already has `bicycle=no`.
52025-11-06 06:37commentedkingkingHKNumbered highway does not mean anything. Strategic routes have no legal implication. See Lung Cheung Road. Afaik, there are only four situations where cycling is prohibited: 1. on expressways (Cap 374Q (4)(1)) 2. in tunnel areas (Cap 368A (10)(a)) 3. in country parks (Cap 208A (4)(1)) 4. beyond no cycling signs (Cap 374G Sch 1 Fig 126 & 127) Obvi...
62025-11-06 18:56commentedKovoschizIndeed you can legally bike on many roads dangerously without signage. It's likely forgotten to be exempted, as it's at least inconsistent with `=trunk_link` https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/850148615
72025-11-06 19:05commentedKovoschiz@vectorial8192 Try to find no bike sign on all `=trunk` fully (Lung Cheung Rd, Kwun Tong Rd, Tseung Kwan O Rd, Lei Yue Mun Rd; former Gloucester Rd, Connaught Rd C)
82025-12-03 12:49closedkingkingHKMy suspicion is correct. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175445268 ; closing.
5065723 (iD)12025-11-24 08:25openedkingkingHKDoes this https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4349317190 actually exist?
22025-12-03 12:05commentedvectorial8192probably public light bus hail-and-ride
32025-12-03 12:31commentedkingkingHKSee also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5065720 However, hail and ride is tagged with "hail_and_ride" role on the way in the light bus restriction, not with a bus stop node. Afaik `highway=bus_stop` should only be used when there's something physical there e.g. a pole.
42025-12-03 12:32commentedkingkingHK* So the intention of this note is to check if there's anything physical indicating a (mini)bus stop at this location
4691875 (iD)12025-04-01 16:24openedKenkton"Capsule hostel." OSM snapshot date: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: Sleep HKG POI types: tourism-hostel internet_access-wlan #organicmaps android
22025-04-04 12:07commentedvectorial8192We don't seem to have a standard tag for capsule hotels.
32025-04-04 16:47commentedKovoschizIt has been decided to use `=hostel` https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Tag:tourism=hostel Not literal `=hotel` as they are communal, mostly shared facilities https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/hostel=capsule
42025-04-05 00:12closedKenktonAh, I'll know for the future then. Thanks.
52025-04-05 04:53reopenedvectorial8192
62025-04-05 04:54commentedvectorial8192Still, we can use this opportunity to improve the tagging of this feature.
72025-09-24 09:36commentedkingkingHKWill there be any further discussion on this note? It seems like the current tagging of the feature is fine (already has `tourism=hostel`), and any further improvements of tagging probably isn't very related to this note.
82025-09-24 14:12commentedvectorial8192Don't close it yet. Highly relevant to forum discussion; see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-should-we-tag-capsule-hotels/128371 The intention / end goal is to somehow get this through the OSM wiki / approval process.
92025-09-24 21:08commentedKenktonI believe they should be tagged separately. They are not hostels, where rooms are shared, but they are also not hostels as facilities are shared.
102025-09-24 21:09commentedKenktonI believe they should be tagged separately. They are not hostels, where rooms are shared, but they are also not hotels as facilities are shared.
112025-12-03 11:14closeddiosdios
122025-12-03 11:46reopenedvectorial8192
5074863 (iD)12025-12-01 09:19openedvectorial8192Wang Fuk Court: ref=A to ref=G needs to be reviewed whether they are actually `abandoned=yes` or `ruined=yes`. Preliminary reports by structural engineers are indicating `abandoned=yes`, but full report is not out yet.
22025-12-02 09:27commentedKovoschizIt's no immediate danger, only meaning it will not collapse very soon, not no major damage. It's much more broken than the usual `abandoned=` which can easily be renovated
32025-12-03 08:53closedvectorial8192Yeah, recent close-ups show as if the buildings were from an actual warzone. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175435505 ; closing. RIP.
5070064 (iD)12025-11-27 13:08opened1F616EMOFrom the news, Wang Chi House is mostly unaffected. I doubt that marking it as ruined (as with the other seven) is appropriate.
22025-11-27 13:09commented1F616EMOSee also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5068721
32025-11-27 15:40commentedvectorial8192Local Hong Kong idiom: never follow the car too closely. Technically the fire is not under control; we have no definite proof Wang Chi House is OR is not `=ruined`.
42025-11-27 22:18commentedKovoschizI multi-edited them all for convenience. You can always correct it.
52025-11-27 23:54commented1F616EMOI agree with vectorial8192’s points, that we should put it on hold before things settle down. Relevant discussion on the English Wikipedia on the future of the other seven buildings: https://w.wiki/GLf6
62025-11-28 01:53commentedvectorial8192Indeed. Reading the link to the English Wiki, yes my general point is basically "WP:TRUE". Now, as of writing, I think all fires from ref=A to ref=G are gone for good (await official confirmation). But even then, ref=H (Wang Chi House) is still covered in scaffolding. We need direct visual confirmation to the building itself (e.g. how are the actu...
72025-11-28 06:45commentedKovoschiz@1F616EMO OSM is not Wikipedia. Immediate action is often done for disasters, and it works based on iterative refinement.
82025-11-28 06:46commentedKovoschizIe there's no ban on breaking news https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper
92025-12-01 09:16commentedvectorial8192Things should have settled down. I am hopeful Wang Chi House is entirely unaffected, but someone go look under the scaffolding?
102025-12-03 08:25commentedvectorial8192Latest news hint towards the building remains healthy because residents are allowed to retrieve some of their stuff.
112025-12-03 08:42closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175434791 ; closing.
5072015 (iD)12025-11-29 07:29openedmaxso216new pedestrian crossing open #OsmAnd
22025-12-03 08:05closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175434034
5071092 (iD)12025-11-28 11:45opened严苑nnn鮨政 x 大湖 eng：SUSHI MASA 日料餐廳
22025-12-01 03:39closed3an
32025-12-01 03:39reopened3an
42025-12-01 03:45closed3an
52025-12-01 03:53reopenedkingkingHK
62025-12-03 04:06closedCypp0847Closing https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175339293
5076926 (iD)12025-12-03 02:43openedfredrtd3抗日英烈紀念碑轉右進入大網仔路
22025-12-03 03:19closedkingkingHKYes, the memorial exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4308252302 , but this note is not helpful; closing.
5002038 (iD)12025-10-12 09:06openedAbandoned, in disrepair. Survey.
22025-12-03 02:03closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175425995
5065714 (iD)12025-11-24 08:19openedkingkingHKAre https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4349334590 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3484066233 referring to the same bus stop?
22025-11-24 17:01commentedvectorial8192seems like it in particular, this https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3484066233/history/1 came first, and is at the (afaik) correct position.
32025-12-03 01:50closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175425755
5034408 (iD)12025-11-02 14:40openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-12-01 14:16closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175360353 ; closing.
5056582 (iD)12025-11-17 09:24openedkingkingHKTodo: Kansu Street between Ferry Street and Battery Street will be reopened on 2025-11-29 https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_13/WCO/reopen%20of%20kansu%20street_eng.pdf
22025-12-01 12:50closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175356383 ; closing.
5074572 (iD)12025-12-01 02:48opened3an鮨政x大湖 ENG：SUSHI MASA 日式料理店，該位置缺失商家
22025-12-01 03:45closed3an
5068317 (iD)12025-11-26 05:03openedvectorial8192is the name this https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4844606091 or this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/450102863 ?
22025-11-26 05:07commentedvectorial8192it turns out, the building is already gone.
32025-11-30 14:24closedvectorial8192Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175315457 ; closing.
5068316 (iD)12025-11-26 05:02openedvectorial8192https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/450102864 what is with this name?
22025-11-30 14:24closedvectorial8192Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175315457 ; closing.
5063739 (iD)12025-11-22 14:12openedkingkingHKWhat is this? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4921686325
22025-11-22 14:16commentedvectorial8192share_taxi
32025-11-22 14:17commentedvectorial8192*afaik I think this is share_taxi survey recommended.
42025-11-30 12:46closedkingkingHKIndeed there is a red minibus terminus here. Then, comparing franchised bus tagging where `amenity=bus_station` isn't used for a simple terminus with no further amenities, this probably shouldn't be `=bus_station` either. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175311307 ; closing.
5073245 (iD)12025-11-30 05:54openedHenryEKExplosives dumping ground here
22025-11-30 06:03commentedHenryEKThe hydrographic office writes that "航海人員不宜在爆炸品傾倒區內錨泊、拖綱或進行其他水低或海床作業。Mariners should avoid anchoring, trawling or carrying out any submarine or seabed activities in the explosives dumping ground." on their "charts for local vessels"
5071079 (iD)12025-11-28 11:27openedHenryEKJust curious, how are some roads classified as motorways on OSM yet they are not classified as such by bodies such as the Transport Department and instead considered trunk roads? https://www.td.gov.hk/en/road_safety/road_users_code/index/chapter_5_for_all_drivers/expressways_and_trunk_road_/ I apologise if I am mistaken
22025-11-28 13:54commentedkingkingHKhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hong_Kong/Transport/Road#%E8%A1%97%E9%81%93%E5%88%86%E9%A1%9E_Classifications_of_streets Currently, tunnel areas are considered `highway=motorway`.
32025-11-29 11:28commentedKovoschiz`highway=` is a functional class. Although `=motorway` is quite an exception, it can be argued for following closely. Tenatively, they are distinguished by `motorway=no` + `motorroad=yes` to reflect their function and status. HK is complicated by Tunnel Area appearing in the middle of Expressway, as in here, and Cheung Tsing Tunnel; as well as Tsi...
42025-11-29 11:30closedKovoschizAlso there's no legal traffic classification as a "trunk road". That's engineering standard, and for census. Expressways, or Tunnel Area, are designated on Trunk Road, and Primary Distributor. Strategic Routes can be routed on Trunk Road, and Primary Distributor.
5068721 (iD)12025-11-26 11:38openedvectorial8192Great fire; we may need to observe the irl situation and update OSM when needed, this seems like a full loss. Worst case the whole estate is condemned and needs to be rebuilt.
22025-11-27 12:13closedKovoschizUnlikely to become `landuse=residential` directly, changed to `ruined`
5065844 (iD)12025-11-24 10:36openedEmoriaUnable to answer "Which direction leads upwards here?" – on bridge: Steps – https://osm.org/way/102441834 via StreetComplete 62.0: For both up and down
22025-11-24 15:12commentedvectorial8192...perhaps this is a question too technical for the average user.
32025-11-24 15:18closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175071676 ; closing.
5034310 (iD)12025-11-02 14:06openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-11-23 13:04closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175024981 ; closing.
5060658 (iD)12025-11-20 05:58openedvectorial8192It seems this now has a name.
22025-11-21 14:52closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174952423 ; closing.
5034414 (iD)12025-11-02 14:42openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?)
22025-11-20 16:30closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174914313 ; closing.
5034415 (iD)12025-11-02 14:42openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-11-20 15:52closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174912611 ; closing.
5060660 (iD)12025-11-20 05:59openedvectorial8192This https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/208702429 seems abandoned.
22025-11-20 15:46commentedvectorial8192School is now at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/444417819
32025-11-20 15:47closedvectorial8192Leftover facility marking as abandoned. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174912402 ; closing.
5034431 (iD)12025-11-02 14:46openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic...? What should be happening here?
22025-11-03 12:49commentedkingkingHKOnline information says the Family Medicine Clinic has been relocated to 201B, 2/F, Mei Hei House, i.e. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/775540630
32025-11-20 15:45closedvectorial8192Indeed it's moved to the other side for now. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174912282 ; closing.
5034424 (iD)12025-11-02 14:45openedvectorial8192Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4417156937 What even is this?
22025-11-03 12:51commentedkingkingHKOnline information says there's a Family Medicine Clinic here, but unsure if the current location of the osm node is correct (can very well be some unrelated private clinic)
32025-11-03 13:57commentedvectorial8192It lacking any identifying information (even a `name=[zh]` would be acceptable) is just disappointing. Gotta go there and have a look sometime.
42025-11-03 14:08commentedkingkingHKGiven that the node has been largely untouched for a decade, it's not surprising to lack basic information. However, I did find https://gia.info.gov.hk/general/202510/10/P2025101000532_515333_1_1760100285157.pdf which says there a "南山家庭醫學診所 Nam Shan Family Medicine Clinic" at this location, but it's unsure whether we can just copy f...
52025-11-19 15:29commentedvectorial8192Multiple irl matches. For clarity, I will just delete + remake the node.
62025-11-19 15:34closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174864945 ; closing.
4985564 (iD)12025-09-30 13:56openedkingkingHKTodo: this roundabout will be converted to a signal-controlled junction starting 2025-10-26 06:00
22025-10-08 08:14commentedvectorial8192I am out of the loop, but I think this is only about adding traffic signals to the roundabout?
32025-10-08 12:18commentedkingkingHKSee https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/sk/doc/2024_2027/tc/committee_meetings_doc/TTC/29515/SK_TTC_2025_026_TC.pdf especially page 5.
42025-10-08 14:20commentedvectorial8192oh, then that's essentially a full remake. huh. Thanks for the info anyways!
52025-11-02 14:22commentedvectorial8192I am once again out of the loop; I think this will be gradually converted into a signalled intersection? So, for a short while, this might be a roundabout with traffic signals?
62025-11-03 02:02commentedkingkingHKWell, when I went there a few days ago, it was already a normal signal-controlled junction and not just a roundabout with signals.
72025-11-19 12:55closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173766938 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173767473 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174804596 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174818679 ; closing.
5042826 (iD)12025-11-08 00:55opened德華中心De Hua Tower
22025-11-19 12:31closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174857147 ; closing.
5034429 (iD)12025-11-02 14:45openedvectorial8192Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4417156940 What even is this?
22025-11-19 11:11commentedvectorial8192Multiple irl matches; none will "replace" this clinic.
32025-11-19 11:12closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174854179 ; closing.
5036091 (iD)12025-11-03 12:40openedkingkingHKFamily Medicine Clinic
22025-11-17 15:27closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174777411 ; closing.
5034398 (iD)12025-11-02 14:37openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-11-17 13:27closedKX675
5034407 (iD)12025-11-02 14:39openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-11-16 17:00closedvectorial8192No such thing; I must have read something wrong. Closing.
5021566 (iD)12025-10-25 01:31openedklorydryk"En travaux, pas d'info" The place has gone or never existed. A CoMaps user reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-09-06T09:48:08Z POI has no name POI types: shop-bakery #CoMaps android
22025-10-28 15:58commentedvectorial8192Probably referring to this node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5193656121
32025-11-12 15:26commentedvectorial8192Google Translate: Under construction, no information available.
42025-11-14 08:38commentedvectorial8192no such bakery
52025-11-16 16:48commentedvectorial8192Also, store list https://jcodonuts.com/hk/en/stores agrees there is no such bakery. With the lack of general "anchoring" information, I will just delete the node.
62025-11-16 16:49closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174736137 ; closing.
5020924 (iD)12025-10-24 13:26openedklorydryk"Boutique de nourriture " The place has gone or never existed. A CoMaps user reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-09-06T09:48:08Z POI has no name POI types: shop-laundry #CoMaps android
22025-10-28 15:59commentedvectorial8192Probably referring to this node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4496330689
32025-11-12 15:27commentedvectorial8192Google Translate: Food shop
42025-11-14 08:32commentedvectorial8192no laundry shops here
52025-11-16 13:55commentedvectorial8192To be clear, there are multiple "food shops" here, but there being multiple of them would mean none of them "replaces" this laundry.
62025-11-16 13:56closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174728470 ; closing.
5040687 (iD)12025-11-06 12:34openedSkylark_H_C76K to LONG PING Estate #OsmAnd
22025-11-06 14:21commentedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6588082 ?
32025-11-06 14:27commentedSkylark_H_CThe stops are not in the relationship. Add the stops if you/simeone have time. Thank you for the help
42025-11-16 12:22closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174724169 ; closing.
5049266 (iD)12025-11-12 08:51openedvectorial8192Is it true that Shanghai Street really only allows "straight on"?
22025-11-14 07:59closedkingkingHKFrom Mapillary imagery (which I believe we can use in OSM), Shanghai Street does indeed prohibit right turns to Waterloo Road, so the current mapping is correct; closing. (Note that https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1455282 does not prohibit left turns to Waterloo Road since its "via" is set to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/308473180)
32025-11-14 12:10reopenedvectorial8192
42025-11-14 12:12commentedvectorial8192Wrong. I am not here to judge the methodology of using Mapillary Imagery. I'm here to point out that, looking at the Mapillary records saying 2017, it's just too ancient for convincing fact-checking. And irl says "if length > 8m, then no right turns". Therefore we have wrong/outdated info in OSM.
52025-11-14 12:18commentedvectorial8192Also, ignoring the problems with the ancient relics, the (outdated) data on OSM was still wrong. It on OSM being "straight ahead only", while practically equivalent to irl "no right turns", was semantically inconsistent from irl.
62025-11-14 12:30commentedkingkingHKMy apologies for misunderstand this note earlier. It seems like you know more about this situation than I do, so feel free to update the situation based on your knowledge. But re the straight-ahead-only vs no-right-turn problem, I don't see why it's "wrong" when they are functionally equivalent for this specific junction. A semantic difference won...
72025-11-14 13:32commentedvectorial8192Could just be me, but I view highly of semantic correctness.
82025-11-14 14:22commentedkingkingHKI still don't see how any one of them is more correct than the other, unless your definition of "correct" is "uses the same phrasing as the sign". But still, as they are equivalent, it would of course be fine to change it to a no-right-turn restriction. Do what you like.
92025-11-16 11:43closedvectorial8192Hopefully I got the OSM restriction format correct. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174722788 ; closing.
5036092 (iD)12025-11-03 12:41openedkingkingHKFamily Medicine Clinic
22025-11-15 13:25commentedvectorial8192Well, for starters, this is a multi-storey building with many clinics.
32025-11-16 10:59closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174721133 ; closing.
5034364 (iD)12025-11-02 14:21openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-11-02 14:24commentedvectorial8192It seems there might be two such clinics right here?
32025-11-03 13:56commentedkingkingHKNot sure why you think it seems there might be two clinics here, could you please elaborate?
42025-11-14 14:59commentedvectorial8192Basically, I somehow saw 2x Family Medicine Clinics listed in some clinic listing I was looking at. It somehow felt wrong, but one of them should be correct, so someone can check this when they pass by this place.
52025-11-16 07:23commentedkingkingHKJust curious, what clinic list did you use?
62025-11-16 10:31commentedvectorial8192This https://www.ha.org.hk/visitor/ha_visitor_index.asp?Content_ID=200250&Lang=CHIB5&Dimension=100&Parent_ID=10052 The government announcement for the renaming eventually led to this page. Upon rechecking, it seems I might have misread the list... But still, this location is likely to have a Family Medicine Clinic.
5052676 (iD)12025-11-14 15:22openedtsheyd"No 711 in this mall" The place has gone or never existed. A user of Organic Maps application has reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-09-13T21:01:41Z POI name: 7-Eleven POI types: shop-convenience #organicmaps android 2025.10.23-22-Google
22025-11-15 02:42commentedkingkingHKhttps://www.7-eleven.com.hk/en/store agrees.
32025-11-15 15:58commentedvectorial8192Node was added in 2015 with no meaningful update in subsequent years. 2015 this place should have been a construction yard/abandoned building. No idea why they would add it in the first place.
42025-11-16 05:41commentedvectorial8192Alternatively, it may be trying to describe something in the E.T.S.T. station, but then the station is not here. Indeed this feature can't possibly exist.
52025-11-16 05:42closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174713168 ; closing.
5036087 (iD)12025-11-03 12:32openedkingkingHKFamily Medicine Clinic
22025-11-14 15:02closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174046358 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174652502 ; closing.
5034410 (iD)12025-11-02 14:41openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-11-14 12:05closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174645250 ; closing.
5052151 (iD)12025-11-14 06:51openedOur hotel
22025-11-14 07:26closedKovoschizhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing inf...
5034311 (iD)12025-11-02 14:07openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-11-12 15:48closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174566072 ; closing.
4997596 (iD)12025-10-09 08:56opened西九碼頭 WestK Quay
22025-10-09 15:52commentedvectorial8192See https://www.cedd.gov.hk/tc/our-projects/major-projects/index-id-160.html
32025-11-12 15:28closedvectorial8192I see this is now mapped alongside the ferry service. Therefore, closing.
5034272 (iD)12025-11-02 14:01openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic; we can take this chance to find out where these clinics are located in OSM.
22025-11-03 14:50commentedvectorial8192It seems this family medicine clinic is located inside the clinic building...
32025-11-09 16:40closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174426046 ; closing.
5034312 (iD)12025-11-02 14:07openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-11-09 16:38closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174425942 ; closing.
5043135 (iD)12025-11-08 10:07openedLkwokon石崗燒烤區二號場
22025-11-08 11:33closedkingkingHKFeature exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12828322182 ; closing.
5043133 (iD)12025-11-08 10:05openedLkwokon石崗燒烤區一號場
22025-11-08 10:06commentedLkwokon石崗燒烤區一號場
32025-11-08 11:32closedkingkingHKFeature exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12828322181 ; closing.
5043252 (iD)12025-11-08 11:21openedsutoutou2
22025-11-08 11:32closedkingkingHKNote is not helpful; closing.
5043129 (iD)12025-11-08 10:04openedLkwokon石崗燒烤場一號場
22025-11-08 10:05closedLkwokon
5034478 (iD)12025-11-02 15:01openedvectorial8192We got two separate sets of traffic signals this close to each other?
22025-11-03 03:33commentedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705233211 seems to be a poor import from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73295866 , made by the same person who caused https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5004149 . https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4773727035 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8451657984 are probably just mapping mistakes from https...
32025-11-07 14:11closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174336106 ; closing.
289507 (iD)12014-12-21 15:32openedK H FungTrails have been submerged weeds and shrubs this area.
22015-04-23 03:07closedmasahiro57
32015-04-23 03:08reopenedmasahiro57
42019-03-26 14:54commentedр
52019-03-26 14:54commentedд
62025-10-06 01:30closedHenryEKand now it isnt
72025-10-14 10:25reopenedkingkingHK
82025-10-14 10:26commentedkingkingHK@seurish Could you please elaborate? What "isn't"? Is the note information wrong?
92025-10-14 23:56commentedHenryEKi had a hike here not so long ago it got cleared
102025-11-05 16:27commentedvectorial8192If it's cleared, then perhaps this note should be closed.
112025-11-06 03:05closedkingkingHKYeah, I just thought "now it isnt" is not really clear enough to understand why the note is closed, so I reopened it. Now with further clarification, then note information is no longer correct, closing.
122025-11-06 03:13reopenedK H Fung
132025-11-06 03:14closedK H Fung
5038058 (iD)12025-11-04 16:28openedvectorial8192I vaguely remember this land has two names: Wai Wah Centre and Chanway Plaza; one for residential, one for retail, but I forgot which is which.
22025-11-05 10:43closedvectorial8192OK, so "Chanway" is the shopping centre part. Rare case where the same building has two names. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174234433 ; closing.
5034421 (iD)12025-11-02 14:44openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?)
22025-11-04 14:03closedvectorial8192I do remember seeing this clinic as I walked past it on several separate occasion. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174195472 ; closing.
4911234 (iD)12025-08-15 12:17openedkingkingHKName of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6315211233 is dubious.
22025-08-16 03:55commentedKovoschiz`name=` is debated against `board:title=` , which this is should not be `=guidepost`
32025-08-29 14:14commentedkingkingHKIt's actually just a banner on a railing.
42025-11-04 10:54commentedvectorial8192If it's just a banner, then it probably isn't even a "guidepost". imo banners are not worth being mapped into OSM; too transient.
52025-11-04 12:19commentedkingkingHKYeah, agreed on not mapping banners. Originally I thought Kovoschiz might have something to say after my comment on 29/8, but since there doesn't seem to be any further discussion, I guess I will just remove it.
62025-11-04 12:22closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174190901 ; closing.
5034417 (iD)12025-11-02 14:43openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (seems already done)
22025-11-04 12:14closedvectorial8192Improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174190614 ; closing.
5034360 (iD)12025-11-02 14:20openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-11-04 11:31closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174188667 ; closing.
5034327 (iD)12025-11-02 14:11openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
22025-11-04 10:52closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174186921 ; closing.
5034330 (iD)12025-11-02 14:11openedvectorial8192The name:zh feels like a generic name / mapping mistake (confirmation needed).
22025-11-03 15:25closedvectorial8192Judging from their website, I don't think it has any Chinese name. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174153180 ; closing.
5034333 (iD)12025-11-02 14:12openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (seems already updated)
22025-11-03 15:05closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174152392 ; closing.
5034320 (iD)12025-11-02 14:09openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (name:en of clinic?)
22025-11-03 14:58closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174152066 ; closing.
5036099 (iD)12025-11-03 12:45openedkingkingHKNow that "將軍澳賽馬會普通科門診診所 Tseung Kwan O Jockey Club General Out-patient Clinic" has been renamed to "將軍澳賽馬會家庭醫學診所 Tseung Kwan O Jockey Club Family Medicine Clinic", has there been any changes to the bus stops' naming?
5034438 (iD)12025-11-02 14:50openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?)
5034370 (iD)12025-11-02 14:26openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?)
5034361 (iD)12025-11-02 14:20openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
5034344 (iD)12025-11-02 14:16openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
5034343 (iD)12025-11-02 14:16openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
5034338 (iD)12025-11-02 14:14openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
5034337 (iD)12025-11-02 14:14openedvectorial8192Family Medicine Clinic
4756216 (iD)12025-05-13 02:50opened[飲用水] 此處設有加水機
22025-08-18 17:23commentedvectorial8192This note says there is a drinking fountain here. However, I cannot find references to this fountain from government open data.
32025-11-01 14:11closedkingkingHKThere is really a drinking fountain here. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174064150 ; closing.
5026003 (iD)12025-10-28 07:39openedThis elderly home is closed.
22025-10-29 06:25commentedvectorial8192Online sources seem to agree with this.
32025-11-01 12:30closedkingkingHKIndeed. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174059876 ; closing.
5029552 (iD)12025-10-30 09:46openedvectorial8192Route 8 inconsistency: This section is named Eagle's Nest Tunnel, but the other two sections (Sha Tin Heights Tunnel and Tai Wai Tunnel) are just generically named "Tsing Sha Highway". We should probably apply one of the above styles to all three sections to ensure consistency.
22025-10-31 06:41closedKovoschizThis is intentional. The most well-known naming is applied. Eagle's Nest Tunnel is significant. Cf Lion Rock Tunnel is not "Lion Rock Tunnel Road"
5029749 (iD)12025-10-30 12:26openedJack KokPlato Cafe & Bistro 佐敦店
22025-10-30 12:27closedJack Kok
5025999 (iD)12025-10-28 07:21openedvectorial8192Is this clinic open yet?
22025-10-28 07:28commentedkingkingHKAccording to https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BnXjqQHPe/ and https://www.dhc.gov.hk/tc/dhc_yau_tsim_mong.html , probably yes.
32025-10-28 15:58closedvectorial8192Nice. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173890553 ; closing.
5025033 (iD)12025-10-27 13:47openedvectorial8192Any reason why Tuen Mun River changes from `waterway=river` to simply `waterway=drain`?
22025-10-28 07:51closedKovoschizEditing mistake (not changing all)
5025051 (iD)12025-10-27 13:54openedvectorial8192Strange drain; probably a mapping blunder.
22025-10-27 14:15commentedkingkingHKDragged point after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162741126 ?
32025-10-28 02:44closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173863110 ; closing.
5025413 (iD)12025-10-27 17:43openedHong Kong
22025-10-28 02:08closedkingkingHKNote is not helpful, closing.
5016316 (iD)12025-10-21 10:17openedvectorial8192Rural roads probably don't need `motor_vehicle=*` since those are already "guarded" by Tung Chung Road & South Lantau Road already having `motor_vehicle=permit`.
22025-10-21 14:06closedkingkingHKWell, most roads here already don't have `motor_vehicle=*`, do they? I think Mui Wo Rural Committee Road and downstream actually has
32025-10-21 14:06reopenedkingkingHK
42025-10-21 14:08commentedkingkingHKSorry previous message got cut off. I think Mui Wo Rural Committee Road and downstream actually has "no motor vehicle" signs, but people ignored the rules anyway, leading to `note=Complicated situation` and `disputed:motor_vehicle=private`.
52025-10-27 13:50commentedvectorial8192I mean, OSM mostly only cares about "signposted data", so even if irl is complicated, imo just flatten them to be `motor_vehicle=no` as signposted. I personally don't think Hong Kong is "adjective" enough to use OSM's post-colonial "local knowledge" approach.
62025-10-27 14:05commentedkingkingHKSee also relevant discussion in discord, in case you aren't already aware: https://discord.com/channels/550009593468813312/550324691001147422/872080011820150814 https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/428214296695144458/873483133931110410 Imo your points make sense and I don't disagree with them, but let's see if @Kovoschiz has anything ...
4908269 (iD)12025-08-13 15:47openedvectorial8192todo: fill in more details about the the north side of the LPH
22025-09-28 15:02closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170396693 ; closing.
32025-09-28 15:02reopenedvectorial8192
42025-09-28 15:02commentedvectorial8192Sorry. I think this is to fill in the details such as block number, facilities, etc.
52025-10-25 12:22commentedkingkingHKHi there, does https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173174414 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173178099 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173753556 add enough details to resolve this note?
62025-10-26 13:17closedvectorial8192oh nice, I see this has been improved therefore, closing (supposedly can also improve the south side to match detail level, but that would be out of scope of this note and would be "additional improvement")
2900900 (iD)12021-10-18 13:35openedWhcohi紅禾坑
22025-10-22 12:20closedkingkingHKAccording to various online sources, "紅禾坑" is an alternative name of "大朗坑". Then, feature exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1190828419 after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/138764896 , closing.
2900903 (iD)12021-10-18 13:36openedWhcohi紅萬坑 / 萬屋邊石澗
22025-10-22 12:15closedkingkingHKAccording to various online sources, "萬屋邊石澗" is an alternative name of "紅萬坑". Then, feature exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1192216754 after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139011724 , closing.
2578658 (iD)12021-03-14 11:52openedPipChan部份路徑不存在
22025-10-22 10:26closedkingkingHKAppears to have been resolved by the author via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/100986308 ; closing.
5017619 (iD)12025-10-22 08:36openedkingkingHKDoes https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1443879805 really exist? There's already things there, and online searches do not return any helpful results.
22025-10-22 09:00closedKovoschizFake online business, can be immediately removed first https://www.facebook.com/IGCHKSHOP/
1499178 (iD)12018-08-23 06:02openedThe route is ambushed and almost vanished up
22025-10-22 03:21closedkingkingHKThere is already `trail_visibility=bad` after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96255409 , which should be enough to describe the "ambushed and almost vanished" situation. Then, resolved, closing.
32025-10-22 08:48reopenedKovoschiz
42025-10-22 08:49commentedKovoschiz`=bad` can be on empty land. Should check the `obstacle=vegetation`, and decide whether it's `disused=yes` or even `abandoned:highway=`
5017542 (iD)12025-10-22 07:29openedonosm.org submitted note from a business: Name: IGC HK Hotel addr:street=Kennedy Road addr:place=IGC HK Hotel addr:city=Hong Kong Phone number: 67700016 Website: https://hotel.igchkshop.dpdns.org Category: Hotels Description: IGC HK Hotel Wan Chai Accepted payment methods:
22025-10-22 07:31closedIGCHK
32025-10-22 07:31reopenedIGCHK
42025-10-22 07:31closedIGCHK
5017417 (iD)12025-10-22 04:37openedJoshuap12233Hornets
22025-10-22 06:31closedkingkingHKNote is not helpful, closing.
4316670 (iD)12024-07-02 13:20openedvectorial8192Requesting to update GMB-NT 502 according to latest OSM road data
22025-05-12 07:55closed楊展博
32025-05-13 08:15reopenedvectorial8192
42025-05-13 08:16commentedvectorial8192Not done yet; please don't resolve! (Also, there is not any GMB 502 mapped here; there is however GMB 503.)
52025-05-18 07:09commented楊展博Ok
62025-10-22 03:35closedCypp0847www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173607341
5016394 (iD)12025-10-21 11:13openedJack KokPlato Cafe & Bistro Mikiki店
22025-10-21 11:33closedJack Kok
5016360 (iD)12025-10-21 10:47openedJack KokPlato Cafe & Bistro 佐敦店
22025-10-21 10:48closedJack Kok
5012470 (iD)12025-10-18 18:21openedu-turn slip road has been reopened already
22025-10-20 19:04closedKovoschizhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86041189
32025-10-21 04:29reopenedjuniusli
42025-10-21 04:29closedjuniusli
52025-10-21 04:31reopenedjuniusli
62025-10-21 04:31closedjuniusli
72025-10-21 09:47reopenedvectorial8192
82025-10-21 09:48closedvectorial8192To add to this strange note, know that OSM tiles are rendered by a separate service (OSM Carto), and sometimes changes are not reflected "immediately". Sometimes it takes up to 7 days for the new changes to "appear on the map".
4973275 (iD)12025-09-21 15:01openedGanjuPanju". ." OSM snapshot date: 2025-08-29T18:18:32Z POI has no name POI types: amenity-atm #organicmaps android
22025-09-23 13:55closedkingkingHKFeature exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13159853201 ; closing.
32025-09-30 13:02reopenedvectorial8192
42025-09-30 13:03commentedvectorial8192Is this ATM https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13159853201 legit? Why is there an ATM in the wilderness? And it is this close to a monastery? Who owns this ATM? (content forwarded from https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4977687 )
52025-10-17 10:12commentedkingkingHKThe author https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172250971 said it was a mistake.
62025-10-19 03:31closedkingkingHKI apologise for the insufficient due diligence when closing this note initially. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173452639 ; closing.
5004149 (iD)12025-10-13 12:35openedkingkingHKDoes https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705213942 really exist? Stand-alone traffic signal in a roundabout? If not, then what is this element supposed to be referring to, and where is traffic signal "NT417" actually at?
22025-10-15 15:27commentedvectorial8192No idea why this was not discovered earlier. Would guess this traffic light tries to refer to the traffic light system located southeast of this note; Wai Tsuen Road & Shek Wai Kok Road.
32025-10-16 02:21commentedkingkingHKBut then, Wai Tsuen Road / Shek Wai Kok Road is already mapped as NT203. Even if we are sure this traffic signal doesn't exist, the bigger mystery is where "NT417" is; is there a way to look up a traffic signal's location based on its ref?
42025-10-16 14:56commentedvectorial8192Well, for starters, we have open data published by the HK gov. See https://data.gov.hk/en-data/dataset/hk-td-tis_16-traffic-aids-drawings-v2 You would need to check whether it's OK to use this, and then interpret the data format yourself. Find this mystic "NT417" from the data dump, or discover that it doesn't exist.
52025-10-17 07:04commentedKovoschizYou can't use that. It doesn't have controller numbering data either.
62025-10-17 09:03commentedvectorial8192Well then, according to Overpass Turbo https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2dQa this is the only known instance of "NT417" in Hong Kong. I am then thinking maybe this is a fabrication, that IRL there is no such "NT417" anywhere.
72025-10-17 09:13commentedvectorial8192OSM data has NT414 and NT415 in Fo Tan. It also has NT418 in Yuen Long, NT419 in Kam Tin, and NT420 in Kwai Chung. It seems these serial numbers are dependent on the completion date of these traffic signals. One would guess perhaps some of the traffic signals in Fo Tan (lacking ref) might be the real NT417. If anything, I see no problem deleting...
82025-10-17 10:07commentedkingkingHKTurns out, NT417 is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10025317359
92025-10-18 12:26closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173447973 ; closing.
5008409 (iD)12025-10-16 05:20openedvectorial8192It seems Cheung Tung Estate is now receiving inhabitants.
22025-10-17 09:46closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173401820 . More updates just make more changesets. Closing.
5009959 (iD)12025-10-17 07:18openedMateusz Koniecznyhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/993410749/history requires fix so that name key carry actual name currently it is name=Kuan Yam Temple (small) name:en=Kuan Yam Temple (small) see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names
5009371 (iD)12025-10-16 16:39openedcentral
22025-10-17 02:38closedkingkingHKNote is not helpful, closing.
4964711 (iD)12025-09-16 14:05openedkingkingHKTodo: Check speed limit of Fanling Highway south-east bound between Kai Leng and Wo Hop Shek Interchanges. (I think it's probably 100 or 80, instead of 70)
22025-09-28 14:53commentedvectorial8192OSM Deep History says it was decreased from 100kmh to 70-80kmh. The context would be temporary speed reduction to install noise barriers. Now that the work is done, I suspect this should then be restored to 100kmh, but yes, a survey is recommended because I am also not sure.
32025-10-02 01:57commentedHenryEKpretty sure its the second roundabout from here but i dont know if it affects it https://www.td.gov.hk/en/traffic_notices/index_id_81860.html
42025-10-02 12:33commentedkingkingHK@seurish Pretty sure it's not? The temporary reduction you cited only starts on 5 Aug, while the 100->80 change was in 2014 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24419558), and the 80->70 change was in 2020 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92812210). And such a short temporary measure should not be mapped anyway.
52025-10-02 16:18commentedvectorial8192Still, if a notice mentions temporary reduction to "80km/h" then it is a very strong hint it should somehow be higher than that, i.e. might actually be "100km/h" originally.
62025-10-02 16:18commentedvectorial8192(oh at the end it does explicitly say 100km/h...)
72025-10-14 08:58closedkingkingHKWell, if it explicitly says 100 km/h, then I think it's good enough to believe it without further investigation. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173263058 ; closing.
2902762 (iD)12021-10-20 06:04openedpslauAED Location 金鐘站 2號月台 (近第三卡) 金鐘站 每日 05:55 AM - 01:15 AM
22021-10-20 06:06closedpslau
32021-10-20 06:06reopenedpslau
42021-10-20 06:09closedpslau
52021-10-20 06:09reopenedpslau
62021-10-20 06:09closedpslau
72021-10-20 06:10reopenedpslau
82021-10-20 06:12closedpslau位置：22.279412, 114.164559
92021-10-20 06:13reopenedpslau
102025-10-13 09:42closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173217470 there are actually AEDs in every MTR station
2900890 (iD)12021-10-18 13:29openedWhcohi圓頭南坑
22025-10-13 03:56closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173206279
2912018 (iD)12021-10-27 08:50openedDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
22025-09-25 05:43commentedkingkingHKIs this a useful note? See similar closed note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4468282 ; probably not too useful unless we indoor map the entire hospital.
32025-10-05 03:23commentedkingkingHKI will be closing this note if no one replies to this in a week or so.
42025-10-13 02:57closedkingkingHKNo response, then note is not helpful; closing.
4362571 (iD)12024-08-02 03:03openedAssisted Reproductive Technology Unit
22025-09-25 05:43commentedkingkingHKIs this a useful note? See similar closed note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4468282 ; probably not too useful unless we indoor map the entire hospital.
32025-10-05 03:23commentedkingkingHKI will be closing this note if no one replies to this in a week or so.
42025-10-13 02:57closedkingkingHKNo response, then note is not helpful; closing.
4577980 (iD)12025-01-06 09:56openedvectorial8192Abandoned railway information is very debatable since it can no longer be observed IRL; it has been fully deconstructed (except for a tiny section as an abandoned railway bridge), and should be removed.
22025-01-08 08:08commentedKovoschizThis is debated, but a trackbed or strip of land qualifies as `=abandoned` for what's acceptable. Besides the bridge and Yau King Ln, there's actually embankments left, and some cut slopes seem unmodified.
32025-01-08 12:09commentedvectorial8192The trackbeds is most probably all gone, but not sure about the embankments; my working theory is that the CUHK Campus Circuit North ate up some of the old embankments, and so in practice the abandoned railway is not observable.
42025-10-06 02:14commentedHenryEKthe trackbeds are entirely gone. this was done around 1996 when reclaimation reformed tolo harbour front there is almost no sections of abandoned track still left untouched in hong kong
52025-10-06 02:16commentedHenryEKfrankly even though you say the embankment is enough to keep this abandoned railway thing, it would be like adding "abandoned building" role to something just because the foundation ruins are present, instead of marking them as ruins
62025-10-06 04:05commentedHenryEKi checked every former line of track i know, and theyre all present on the map as features despite not having any sort of indication of their former presence i dont know about you but you know maybe stuff that literally doesnt exist on the map should not exist on the map?
72025-10-06 05:14commentedKovoschiz`railway=abandoned` has a different meaning from `building=` + `abandoned=yes`
82025-10-06 05:47commentedvectorial8192I will only add that in OSM, there seems to exist a British-culture-inspired effort to treat railway features differently than other non-railway features.
92025-10-06 06:19commentedHenryEKbut u do understand what i mean right? i mean for the sha tau kok railway which was dismantled over 90 years ago, its still added onto the map theres like no trace of it besides a few milestones and a station
102025-10-06 14:29commentedvectorial8192@seurish I get what you are trying to say (that's why I opened this note), but so far I have seen the argument of "it helps understand how things are like this today". Extending on this, there are relations in OSM that will likely never happen (see KCR's Northern Loop; and the LRT Sam Shing hypothetical tracks drawn by myself). I am thinking, pe...
112025-10-06 15:00commentedkingkingHK@seurish Well, re Sha Tau Kok Railway, I would just like to point out that the addition was not without disagreements: see Kovoschiz's comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145944753
122025-10-09 04:30commentedKovoschizRoads, paths, and embankments qualify. So both can be examined.
132025-10-12 06:16commentedHenryEKso its just gonna stay like this then?
4919931 (iD)12025-08-20 11:29openedvectorial8192For https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/769116979, what does it mean by `fixme=PTI?`? Does it mean, the name should somehow contain "PTI"?
22025-08-20 13:51commentedkingkingHKSeems like Kovoschiz added that tag initially. Might be quicker to ask him directly.
32025-08-27 12:54commentedvectorial8192Note to self/others: the problem would be "how to find signage irl with / without the official name". Prove/disprove whether there is a "PTI" in the official name.
42025-09-30 10:00commentedkingkingHKGazette: "Hung Hom Station Bus Terminus" https://www.gld.gov.hk/egazette/english/gazette/file.php?year=2007&vol=11&no=48&extra=0&type=0&number=7741 No Smoking Area sign: "Hung Hom Station Public Transport Interchange" https://imgur.com/a/1srprjD
52025-09-30 12:32commentedvectorial8192bruh My guess would be that we will be using the gazetted name.
62025-10-10 11:57commentedvectorial8192Oh wait, I think I know what this means. This specific bus terminus at the north side is simply called the bus terminus, while this bus terminus & the east side e.g. taxi stations combined are called the PTI.
72025-10-10 12:00closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173091110 ; closing.
4958494 (iD)12025-09-12 12:44openedkingkingHKLRT Town Centre, I believe the central platforms (2 and 3) are currently unused, and all trains uses the outer platforms (1 and 4) instead. The relevant route relations (namely https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6485218 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2926506 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5955257 https://www.openstreetmap.org/re...
22025-09-15 15:27commentedvectorial8192I have a feeling this is a "perpetual temporary" arrangement. Technically platforms 1 and 4 are still siding while platforms 2 and 3 are still main, and the relevant LRT routes technically are still using the original platforms. Think about it. If 2019 didn't happen, then would platforms 2 and 3 become unused? I think not. 2019 did not change how ...
32025-09-16 12:33closedkingkingHKOddly enough, the original mapping was that platforms 2 and 4 and sidings while 1 and 3 are main, which doesn't really make sense. I have changed all four tracks to main and modified the route relations via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172000755 , closing. (Feel free to reactivate this note if there is anything to add regarding the main...
42025-09-16 13:52reopenedvectorial8192
52025-09-16 13:55commentedvectorial8192Disclaimer: when I commented on this note, I didn't notice which tracks were main/siding. However, looking at the track shape north side, it should be quite clear which one is main/siding: platforms 2/4 have a curve, while platforms 1/3 don't. The logic for main/siding most likely comes from this.
62025-09-24 09:20commentedkingkingHKIs main/siding really decided by the shape geometry though? I feel like this situation is the most similar with e.g. Shatin station, where platform 1 and 4 are tagged as main, even though they are branching out from the mainline, and are rarely used.
72025-09-24 13:55commentedvectorial8192I didn't know about the situation at Shatin station. Now that you mention this, sounds like the outer platforms of Shatin station should be `=siding` instead. But this is getting messy, and we should ask the railway guys for real.
82025-09-24 13:56commentedvectorial8192Shatin station also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4977665
92025-09-30 03:03commentedkingkingHKNow that the situation at Shatin station is found to be an editing mistake, would you support changing platform 2 and 3 here to `=siding`? Also, further in response to your "platforms 2/4 have a curve, while platforms 1/3 don't" point, I think platform 4 only has a curve because it needs to dodge the bus bay north of it.
102025-09-30 07:07commentedvectorial8192I quote https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dsiding : > In some cases, may be difficult to distinguish from two parallel main tracks.
112025-10-02 13:33commentedkingkingHKI quote https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/siding : > A second, relatively short length of track just to the side of a railroad track, joined to the main track by switches at one or both ends, used either for loading or unloading freight, storing trains or other rail vehicles; or to allow two trains on a same track to meet (opposite directions) or pas...
122025-10-10 11:25commentedvectorial8192Then, unfortunately, I think the original tagging is correct. This station is not your usual "symmetric" station after all.
132025-10-10 11:43closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173090346 ; closing.
4918153 (iD)12025-08-19 12:20openedkingkingHKThe street and buildings are overlapping, implying incorrect positioning of either (or both) of them.
22025-08-20 14:03commentedvectorial8192Might be real if building provides limited/full cover to pedestrian path at its address; common in older urban areas.
32025-08-20 14:10commentedkingkingHKCurrently the buildings are mapped to almost overlap with the carriageway centreline, which I find unlikely.
42025-10-10 08:55closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173083119 Had a walk and indeed there are hanging structures as roofs from some of the buildings, but they are not usually mapped to have the sidewalk "covered" like this
4926705 (iD)12025-08-24 08:11openedHKGn"Closed business." The place has gone or never existed. A user of Organic Maps application has reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-08-04T17:20:14Z POI name: 皇冠窗簾地氈 Crown Curtain POI types: shop-curtain #organicmaps android
22025-08-29 14:05commentedkingkingHKCorrect.
32025-10-10 03:27closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173074682
3071736 (iD)12022-03-03 00:29openedWhcohiThe talus area is grossly exaggerated.
22023-02-26 11:07closedHarry chau527
32023-02-27 04:16reopenedKovoschiz
42025-10-10 03:26closedCypp0847presumably it is meant to be the boundary of Kadoorie Farm. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173074625
4989584 (iD)12025-10-03 14:09openedFathermo彈珠工房
22025-10-03 14:10closedFathermo
32025-10-03 14:10reopenedFathermo
42025-10-04 03:33commentedkingkingHKOnline information says there's a "彈珠基地" at Hop Yick Plaza (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230959025), but no information about "彈珠工房"
52025-10-05 05:24commentedvectorial8192People may misremember names. This note is believable.
62025-10-09 12:49closedkingkingHKTurns out, there really is a "彈珠工房" here. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173049504 ; closing.
4957863 (iD)12025-09-12 03:59openedShall have a development
22025-10-08 14:53commentedvectorial8192So far only found this reference https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr2025/chinese/panels/ws/papers/ws20250317cb1-368-5-c.pdf (item number 4) But not sure if this is the one we are talking about, and also no progress for now.
32025-10-09 12:40closedkingkingHKLatest situation reflected via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173049023 , further information can be added once more detail is known. Closing.
4904578 (iD)12025-08-11 14:59openedvectorial8192I don't think node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10984688382 should be here / should exist; Fui Sha Wai is 99% located near Ping Shan. See same-name bus stop at Castle Peak Road.
22025-08-11 17:37commentedKovoschizNo, it's simply referring to a location of the same name that historically existed here. This only needs to be judged by relevance in OSM compared to OHM.
32025-08-12 14:09commentedvectorial8192I just don't see its irl relevance when a same-name irl location exists elsewhere quite obviously.
42025-08-12 17:22commentedKovoschizIt's possible for currently relevant locations to share names. That can't be a criteria for deciding.
52025-08-12 17:30commentedKovoschizAlso this is `=locality`
62025-08-12 17:36commentedKovoschizThe actual situation is no one remembered to create it (did now)
72025-10-08 14:42closedvectorial8192I now see node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10984688382 has a `fixme=...`, so I guess this situation is done for now. Closing.
535104 (iD)12016-03-29 14:38openedMirror work 汽車護理產品專賣店
22025-08-13 10:22commentedkingkingHKCorrect, feature exists IRL, though already partially mapped with www.openstreetmap.org/way/1329247534.
32025-10-08 14:41closedvectorial8192Improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173008723 ; closing.
4995594 (iD)12025-10-08 06:19openedOcean 1
22025-10-08 10:13closedvectorial8192Meaning is unclear; closing.
4995751 (iD)12025-10-08 08:08openedDbingo123ku
22025-10-08 08:08commentedDbingo123kuku
32025-10-08 10:13closedvectorial8192Meaning is unclear; closing.
4995748 (iD)12025-10-08 08:08openedDbingo123kuk
22025-10-08 10:12closedvectorial8192Meaning is unclear; closing.
4976975 (iD)12025-09-24 04:55openedpppcPerm. CLOSED #OsmAnd
22025-09-24 14:03commentedvectorial8192Likely referring to node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4813666021
32025-09-26 08:50commentedkingkingHKIndeed couldn't find it on https://www.timhowan.com.hk/our-stores/
42025-09-30 09:55commentedkingkingHKCorrect
52025-10-08 10:12closedvectorial8192Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172995914 ; closing.
4976983 (iD)12025-09-24 05:10openedpppcPerm. CLOSED #OsmAnd
22025-09-24 14:03commentedvectorial8192Likely referring to node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10111099387
32025-09-30 09:55commentedkingkingHKCorrect
42025-10-08 10:12closedvectorial8192Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172995914 ; closing.
4995522 (iD)12025-10-08 03:42openedUrban Renewal Resource Centre
22025-10-08 10:10closedvectorial8192I quote https://www.urrc.org.hk/en : > For better service provision, starting from 16 October 2025, the URA will integrate resources to provide centralised support for old building owners and corporations on building rehabilitation matters in “Building Rehabilitation Resource Centre” (BRRC). “Urban Renewal Resource Centre” (URRC) located a...
4993667 (iD)12025-10-06 14:38openedvectorial8192Huge blunder to adopt the KCR plans; please revert.
22025-10-08 07:52closedvectorial8192Eventually resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172990392 ; closing.
4994240 (iD)12025-10-07 04:31openedLIttle Tai Hang
22025-10-07 04:37closedkingkingHKFeature exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/555982535 ; closing.
2789883 (iD)12021-08-06 18:11openedWhcohisome of the path are creek
22025-10-06 01:55closedHenryEKfixed
3025902 (iD)12022-01-27 03:55openedthere are two small routes here to go up/down
22025-10-06 01:46closedHenryEK
1991488 (iD)12019-11-11 03:52openedThe road ends here
22025-10-06 01:35closedHenryEKfixed
4976976 (iD)12025-09-24 04:57openedpppcPerm. CLOSED #OsmAnd
22025-09-24 14:03commentedvectorial8192Likely referring to node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4864636777
32025-09-26 08:51commentedkingkingHKIndeed couldn't find it on https://www.sasa.com.hk/v2/Shop/StoreList/17
42025-09-30 09:55commentedkingkingHKCorrect
52025-10-06 00:58closedWright OneChanged to Market Wholesome in changeset 172890044
4681285 (iD)12025-03-25 04:05openedclcelvisCar Park https://g.co/kgs/AALWUWz
22025-04-07 14:32commentedvectorial8192This information is very believable but the exact area of the car park is unknown. Aerial imagery still shows the probably-disused cargo waiting bays. It is also very difficult to do on-site survey for this. Unactionable for now.
32025-08-05 04:29commentedkingkingHKThe latest Esri aerial imagery shows the car park. Probably actionable now?
42025-08-05 08:26commentedvectorial8192Yeah, we can deal with this now that we have new satellite imagery.
52025-10-05 07:26closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172856074 ; closing.
2217410 (iD)12020-06-04 07:05openednot licensed car park
22021-01-06 04:35closedForestBoar
32021-01-06 13:56reopenedKovoschiz
42025-10-05 06:38commentedvectorial8192From aerial imagery, it feels like this is not a dedicated car park, but more like the villagers haven't decided what to do with the land yet, and by coincidence their cars just park inside of it.
52025-10-05 06:58closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172855507 ; closing.
4989681 (iD)12025-10-03 15:16openedEmoriaUnable to answer "What surface does this road have?" – Service Road – https://osm.org/way/640101062 via StreetComplete 61.3: Closed private road
22025-10-04 18:26closedKovoschizThis is known. It can still be added eventually.
4935234 (iD)12025-08-29 02:48openedkingkingHKName of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/299406864 is dubious. Also, is it really in the middle of the road, instead of, say, on a side?
22025-10-03 00:20commentedWright One已移往靠近路邊位置
32025-10-03 14:04closedkingkingHKThanks @Wright One for https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172769037 and further improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172793508 . Resolved, closing.
4960221 (iD)12025-09-13 14:14openedSkylark_H_CAdditional information regarding the building's elevation or height is required, since various sections have distinct levels.
22025-10-02 15:51closedSkylark_H_C
1016596 (iD)12017-06-02 07:41openedMount Davis Fort No.0
22025-10-02 10:47closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171810277
4986366 (iD)12025-10-01 08:55opened555
22025-10-01 09:22closedkingkingHKMeaning is unclear ; closing.
4986365 (iD)12025-10-01 08:54opened12345
22025-10-01 08:55closedkingkingHKMeaning is unclear ; closing.
4961131 (iD)12025-09-14 08:35openedvectorial8192todo: upcoming construction works
22025-09-28 12:10commentedkingkingHKHi there, does https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172560871 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172559473 resolve this note?
32025-09-28 13:41commentedvectorial8192Seems not. e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1193058436 this is still a construction area. Disclaimer: I don't know the details of the upcoming construction works; I only know it will involve somehow moving the bus terminus.
42025-09-30 16:13closedvectorial8192OK, from what I can gather online, CMW at this location will be redeveloped, but because China Merchant is a private entity, exact details are not clear. (Are the plans out yet?) This note intends to track the bus terminus situation. Right now the mapping is OK. So, closing.
4977687 (iD)12025-09-24 14:18openedvectorial8192Is this ATM https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13159853201 legit? Why is there an ATM in the wilderness? And it is this close to a monastery? Who owns this ATM? Also see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4973275
22025-09-30 13:02closedvectorial8192After thinking, closing this note in favor of https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4973275 .
4964448 (iD)12025-09-16 11:29opened健康村二期停車場
22025-09-16 12:31commentedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10199143700 ? Though should probably be `amenity=parking_entrance`.
32025-09-16 14:00commentedvectorial8192Year, 99% sure is that node. Might be a previous mapping mistake.
42025-09-30 12:49closedkingkingHKWell, there are no parking anywhere close to that node other than Healthy Village Car Park, so can be 100% it is just a mapping mistake. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172659307 ; closing.
4922350 (iD)12025-08-21 16:34openedvectorial8192todo: review / update Lee Garden Eight
22025-09-30 10:16commentedkingkingHKCould you please elaborate on what needs reviewing/updating?
32025-09-30 12:46commentedvectorial8192eg, old demolished buildings from 2019 still exists here, and we can kinda see the shapes of new future buildings from satellite images, and also to determine what exactly will be built here (e.g. new district court?)
42025-09-30 12:46commentedvectorial8192* as in exists in the OSM map data
4927798 (iD)12025-08-24 16:19openedplumbtreescaleService staircase via StreetComplete 57.1 Attached photo(s): https://streetcomplete.app/p/300761.jpg
22025-09-15 12:31commentedvectorial8192I see. For some reason I am recently noticing a lot of supposedly mountain paths in OSM are actually slope maintenance access irl. Gonna see if there's anything doable about this.
32025-09-30 12:44closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172659136 . Hopefully the interpretation is correct. Closing.
4982986 (iD)12025-09-28 14:42openedSITE
22025-09-28 14:44closedvectorial8192Meaning is unclear; closing.
32025-09-29 12:46reopenedidsajkd
42025-09-29 13:40closedkingkingHKMeaning is still unclear; closing again.
52025-09-30 12:27reopenedidsajkd
62025-09-30 12:32commentedkingkingHK@idsajkd Could you please explain the meaning of this note?
72025-09-30 12:36closedvectorial8192OK, so far I see there is a sewage pumping station right at the location of this note. If this note tries to point out "there should be a sewage pumping station here", then feature already as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/321577041 , so closing. If this note is complaining about the lack of rendering of this pumping station, then this is actu...
4975556 (iD)12025-09-23 03:18openedHo Tung Maternity Home
22025-09-23 13:54commentedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1175924520 ?
32025-09-30 11:03closedCypp0847referring to the same place, closing
1706246 (iD)12019-03-11 00:59openedc1c2t3錦葵園
22019-03-11 01:22commentedc1c2t3Captured some Mapillary photos
32025-09-30 11:01closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1434338701 resolved
1665961 (iD)12019-01-30 17:26openedThis Is A Display Name DesuThis area haven't been completely mapped yet. Please help mapping buildings here
22024-04-10 14:00commentedvectorial8192Detected major offset between satellite imagery and map elements; need a survey with GPS enabled to confirm what is going on.
32025-09-30 07:33closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172646602 resolved
4962505 (iD)12025-09-15 02:42openedDominik Zivcic"This is a non-public slope maintenance path only, closed with a gate. " OSM snapshot date: 2025-08-08T13:08:07Z POI has no name POI types: highway-footway #organicmaps ios
22025-09-29 03:40closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172591505 ; closing.
4976038 (iD)12025-09-23 11:47opened缺少了一個升降機
22025-09-28 15:00closedvectorial8192Believable information. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172571138 ; closing.
4977665 (iD)12025-09-24 13:56openedvectorial8192Shatin station; should outer platforms (aka 1 and 4) be `=siding`?
22025-09-28 12:55commentedKovoschizThis seems simply an editing mistake https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/208232752/history/16
32025-09-28 14:43closedvectorial8192Good find. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172570414 ; closing.
4941396 (iD)12025-09-01 17:22openedvectorial8192todo: path reversal
22025-09-28 14:36closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172570161 . As usual, I will let the public transport mappers deal with the bus relations at their own pace. Therefore, closing.
4978246 (iD)12025-09-25 05:45openedkingkingHKI think https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4500785290 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3914317336 are referring to the same 7-11, only with two entrances.
22025-09-27 17:19commentedvectorial8192This https://www.7-eleven.com.hk/en/store lists only 1 shop in this area. The information is believable.
32025-09-28 11:52closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172562964 ; closing.
4954527 (iD)12025-09-09 14:35openedvectorial8192todo: new buildings
22025-09-24 23:43commentedHenryEKim unsure of what to do so can you clarify what features i should delete for the edit (e.g. the construction plot)
32025-09-25 01:51commentedkingkingHKWell, from aerial imagery, there are indeed some new buildings here, so I guess we should add the building elements and update its latest state?
42025-09-25 05:21commentedvectorial8192indeed, because the buildings are nearly completed, the intention is to draw them on the map, and also draw the roads etc (now usually good building shapes are provided by someone else; not sure how they can draw nice-looking building shapes)
52025-09-25 23:43commentedHenryEKso, delete the inland plot feature and add everything else?
62025-09-26 06:57commentedKovoschizNo, the `landuse=construction` is the `landuse=residential`
72025-09-27 15:31closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172531268 ; closing.
4980973 (iD)12025-09-27 03:02openedkingkingHKWhy is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/817460283 `highway=unclassified` whereas the rest of Siu Yip Street is `highway=tertiary`? Forgotten to change in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147584989?
22025-09-27 07:16closedKovoschizYou know you can simply correct these obvious omissions
4706786 (iD)12025-04-12 10:18openedBallBILL"closed down" The place has gone or never existed. A user of Organic Maps application has reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: Jimmy Cake Shop POI types: shop-bakery #organicmaps android
22025-04-13 05:14closedKovoschiz
32025-09-25 08:35reopenedkingkingHK
42025-09-25 08:36commentedkingkingHK@Kovoschiz Why is this note closed without a comment? Is there really a bakery here?
52025-09-26 06:47closedKovoschizUser tried to delete it already https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164848701
4706787 (iD)12025-04-12 10:18openedBallBILL"closed down" The place has gone or never existed. A user of Organic Maps application has reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: 7-Eleven POI types: shop-convenience #organicmaps android
22025-04-13 05:14closedKovoschiz
32025-09-25 08:35reopenedkingkingHK
42025-09-25 08:35commentedkingkingHK@Kovoschiz Why is this note closed without a comment? Is there really a 7-11 here?
52025-09-26 06:47closedKovoschizUser tried to delete it already https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164848701
3209599 (iD)12022-06-04 14:31openedIJMacDMannings has closed
22024-05-22 10:55closedAllen2077
32024-05-22 10:56reopenedAllen2077
42024-05-22 10:57closedAllen2077
52025-09-24 13:40reopenedkingkingHK
62025-09-24 13:41commentedkingkingHKIndeed couldn't find a Mannings at this location on https://www.mannings.com.hk/en/store-finder ; survey recommended.
72025-09-24 14:06commentedvectorial8192I don't think you need a survey for this. The website doesn't have it, then because the website is properly maintained, it means the store really does not exist. If the (official!) website contains wrong data then it's entirely their problem and we have no obligation to help them clean it up.
82025-09-25 02:31commentedIJMacDI'm still in the area and can confirm Mannings hasn't returned in the last 3 years. I can pop downstairs and take a photo, or I can just delete it on the map.
92025-09-26 02:30closedIJMacDI have now deleted this branch of Mannings. I should have done it 3 years ago.
3796160 (iD)12023-07-24 09:58opened扶輪亭（涼亭）
22025-09-25 23:50closedHenryEKadded based on street view the gazebo is located more south than this note.
3796163 (iD)12023-07-24 09:59opened涼亭
22025-09-25 23:47closedHenryEKthere is indeed a gazebo here based on street view
4978667 (iD)12025-09-25 11:37openedThis is a testing node
22025-09-25 12:37closedkingkingHKMeaning is unclear (possibly private note), closing.
4970340 (iD)12025-09-20 09:38openedkingkingHKname:en of park?
22025-09-25 09:47closedCypp0847https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172431103
1738149 (iD)12019-04-07 18:59openedck_lauRecreational Area with table tennis tables at Ground Floor
22024-10-25 09:52commentedvectorial8192Correct, but might be difficult to tag correctly
32025-09-24 14:09commentedkingkingHKWould simply adding `level=` to the relevant elements be fine? From osm wiki: "Highways (and other ways) can be also tagged with level=* when they are essentially bound to a floor of a building complex (such as multilevel parking buildings, railway stations or airports).".
42025-09-24 14:32commentedvectorial8192Oh yeah, `level=` exists. Thanks for the reminder!
52025-09-24 14:35closedvectorial8192It turns out, this feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/674327259 , but OSMCarto doesn't render it so it was extremely unobvious to me. Still, the layering has been improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172397559 , so we can close this.
4569195 (iD)12024-12-30 13:04openedvectorial8192Sidewalks have contradictory tags of `highway=footway` but also `foot=no` (?????)
22024-12-31 04:48commentedKovoschizIt is possible draw emergency or maintenance walkways that are illegal to walk into as pedestrians normally. On the contrary, another possibility is misunderstanding no-pedestrian sign, because legally it only refers to prohibited on the roadway. Another factor to be considered is the Expressway Area.
32025-01-03 08:01commentedvectorial8192The Expressway Area is correct. A few years ago you can kinda walk from Tai Po Road to Racecourse on this side, but now that the Racecourse construction is finished, the old path was removed, and now this side is essentially a dead end. The sign probably applies to the motor road, but in effect it also applies to pedestrians. I say remove the si...
42025-03-01 16:55closedvectorial8192No response; then I'm doing it. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163095590 ; closing.
52025-03-01 18:56reopenedKovoschiz
62025-03-01 19:03commentedKovoschizI misunderstood what you are referring to, for what was on the Racecourse side. If the sidewalk still exists physically, it should be kept. Especially if there's no `barrier=` blocking. (even then, it could still be added)
72025-03-01 19:04commentedKovoschizhttps://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1205682018
82025-09-24 13:36commentedkingkingHKWill there be any further discussion on this note? If @vectorial8192 does not disagree with @Kovoschiz's points, then perhaps no action needed and we can close this note.
92025-09-24 13:57commentedvectorial8192I will just redo this as if the path is a "slop maintenance path" then.
102025-09-24 14:02closedvectorial8192The road there is so narrow, it is as if a barrier exists there. The path is kept, but is also marked as if it isn't supposed to be used, just like slope maintenance paths found throughout Hong Kong. Resolved again via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172396030 ; closing.
2518690 (iD)12021-01-30 17:31openedWhcohi鯉魚山 Peak
22022-04-27 02:35closedPoHK鯉魚山 has been marked nearby
32022-04-27 08:04reopenedWhcohi
42022-04-27 08:05commentedWhcohidebatable location
52025-09-17 12:35commentedkingkingHKhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572208311 ? Also, searching for 鯉魚山 on the internet does not return any results (perhaps it's an obsolete name, as indicated by the tagging of the aforementioned node), in that case "debatable location" is less of a concern as it is not verifiable anyway. If no further discussion, then closing as feature a...
62025-09-24 07:59closedkingkingHKNo further discussion, then feature already exists; closing.
4971582 (iD)12025-09-21 02:56openedPolyU HKCC
22025-09-21 03:20closedkingkingHKFeature exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230480072 ; closing.
4967038 (iD)12025-09-18 08:13opened小米之家
22025-09-18 08:50closedvectorial8192Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4864609423 ; closing.
4487699 (iD)12024-10-21 04:50openedvectorial8192Clean up public transport relations after changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158152986
22025-09-17 09:26commentedkingkingHKCould you please elaborate on what needs cleaning up? The public transport relations seem fine, unless I missed something.
32025-09-17 10:28closedvectorial8192Entirely possible that someone else came in and really cleaned up the relations after I posted this note & before your comment. Basically iirc, the quoted changeset split some "two way" paths into separate "one way" paths, which breaks the public transport relations. As usual, the iD editor is weak against PT relations so I avoid directly touching...
4894594 (iD)12025-08-06 03:35openedvectorial8192Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12996644577 is suspicious
22025-08-06 06:27commentedkingkingHKIndeed, and in fact the same user has also added a lot of very dubious names in July. Some of his edits also seem to correlate with names prescribed by protecthknames.
32025-08-06 15:30commentedvectorial8192if protecthknames, then is potentially bannable; we will need some help.
42025-08-06 16:46commentedKovoschizThis is not actionable unless you have commented on at least one changeset to show unresponsiveness and cooperativeness. Discussing here alone isn't enough.
52025-08-06 17:28commentedvectorial8192Apologies, I have forgotten about the "comment on the changeset" again.
62025-09-16 14:01closedvectorial8192I see this specific case is mostly resolved. Therefore, closing this.
4591542 (iD)12025-01-17 06:30opened- 大潭篤水塘南入口 - 路牌左邊梯級上山
22025-08-21 18:25commentedvectorial8192Both features listed seem to already exist.
32025-09-16 13:58closedvectorial8192Re "- 大潭篤水塘南入口", geographically this indeed is the "south side". Re "- 路牌左邊梯級上山", indeed we have the information board https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9938657702 , and then a path up the mountain https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/156581675 right next to it. Features already exist. Therefore, closing.
4015949 (iD)12023-12-05 14:08openedClosed to public with gate and wires installed after this point. 22.24240° N, 114.17520° E
22025-09-16 07:04closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171997469 ; closing.
4919256 (iD)12025-08-20 00:19openedHenryEKbuilding shape is wrong
22025-08-20 02:28commentedkingkingHKThe building shape seems to match the aerial imagery. Could you please elaborate on what is wrong?
32025-08-21 10:05commentedHenryEKIt does not match aerial imagery but i dont know how to explain it
42025-08-21 16:32commentedvectorial8192It really does not match aerial imagery. One technique in the iD editor I have learned: select the building, press M to move it, and then move the building to the top most level shown in the aerial imagery. The theory is that, even if aerial imagery is wrong about the actual location, it really cannot be wrong about the shape and the size. Here,...
52025-08-21 16:33commentedvectorial8192You can also see that the building is currently not symmetric but almost symmetric (!), which is highly unusual.
62025-08-27 05:18closedHenryEKil just fix it myself but the position might be off
72025-08-27 05:18reopenedHenryEK
82025-09-15 00:11closedHenryEKfixed
2417355 (iD)12020-11-09 16:12opened毛飯煮意 - momoriceism毛飯煮意 - Momoriceism
22025-04-07 15:47closedvectorial8192Curiously, there is no online information about what this is. Assuming this is a restaurant, not even OpenRice has information about this. Note is therefore likely invalid, so, closing.
32025-09-12 13:58reopenedkingkingHK
42025-09-12 14:01commentedkingkingHKAccording to the Company Registry, there exists a company named " 毛飯煮意有限公司 Momoriceism Limited". And according to a very suspicious website (https://coltd.hk/company-72566028-details.htm), it's address is Room 02 & 26, 13/F, Wing Shing Industrial Building, Ng Fong Street, which correlates with the location of this note. Also, https:...
52025-09-12 16:21commentedvectorial8192that coltd website seems like content farm website that simply crawls data from the company registry, I think I saw a few of these websites so far, imo not very indicative. also, the way the facebook post is written, it just seems the organization is simply defunct and is surviving as some sort of an unmaintained shell.
62025-09-12 16:26commentedvectorial8192I propose closing this, but @kingkingHK perhaps you may want to go there once and confirm it for real.
72025-09-14 11:45closedkingkingHKIndeed, couldn't find the company in the building. Also, the entire Wing Shing Industrial Building is very unmaintained/abandoned, so definitely no food production company (as mentioned in the facebook page) there. Closing.
4939458 (iD)12025-08-31 16:03openedvectorial8192"U"nderpass?
22025-09-01 04:03commentedkingkingHKIs the name even gazetted? If not that could explain it. E.g. in https://www.td.gov.hk/en/traffic_notices/index_id_76124.html it's called "The underpass leading from Chatham Road North northbound to Gillies Avenue South southbound", and such a clumsy description likely won't be used if there's a gazetted name.
32025-09-01 05:07commentedKovoschiz`name=` is for common names, and many names are in fact not gazetted despite both public and government use. I do a trick to use lowercase for these. Google 1st page results: https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_13/tokptiso/tdn41159en2.pdf https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr2025/english/subleg/negative/2025ln072-e.pdf https://www.td.gov.hk/fileman...
42025-09-01 05:09commentedKovoschizMost famous example might be Rumsey St Flyover. It is used extensively, including at planning and construction historically. But the road is still not gazetted as it or Connaught Rd C.
52025-09-01 07:16commentedvectorial8192I think I saw a map that marks this segment as "Gillies Avenue South" but I can't recall which map. If no gazetted name + no irl signposted name then might as well make it `noname=yes`; at minimum it does not seem like it should be "Wuhu Street".
62025-09-01 11:09commentedKovoschiz1. You have to know whether that map is correct first. Even government map has many mistakes, or at least deviation from reality (depending on definition). They may overextend the gazetted naming. 2. It's not Wuhu St, but an underpass of it. Naming by what it passes is standard. 3. You would have to remove many names by this standard, when those ...
72025-09-01 11:17commentedKovoschizThere's some official and historical basis on top of the above https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/embed.aspx?src=https://www.emsd.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_1148/Appendix%20A%20-%20Building%20Code%20v1.0.xlsx&activecell=B2412 https://search.grs.gov.hk/repository/img?id=%2BB3GmARcUkiYebJGfIJqKA%3D%3D#page=3 https://search.grs.gov.hk/repository...
82025-09-14 10:42closedvectorial8192OK, then the current situation is good enough as-is. Therefore, closing.
4957458 (iD)12025-09-11 16:35openedvectorial8192Kwun Tong Line, the directions are sus. "Westbound" but approaches Tiu Keng Leng; and vice versa?
22025-09-11 17:00commentedvectorial8192(Problem observed at Mong Kok)
32025-09-12 08:10closedKovoschizMust have switched the `railway=` , while correct `route=`
4936870 (iD)12025-08-30 04:33openedkingkingHKDoes https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/170061964 really have a speed limit of 100?
22025-09-11 13:44closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171785759 ; closing.
32025-09-11 14:11reopenedvectorial8192
42025-09-11 14:12closedvectorial8192To add to this, this situation could have been a fat finger mistake. I would look at the map and then directly apply the 100 -> 10 change myself.
4686227 (iD)12025-03-28 18:11openedvectorial8192Are you sure this replacement bus terminus is opened?
22025-08-13 10:23commentedkingkingHKStill under construction and not yet opened as of today (2025-08-13).
32025-09-11 12:49closedkingkingHKStill not opened as of today (2025-09-11). I have changed the relevant elements to `highway=construction` via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171783269. Other mappers can update the situation once the bus terminus opens, or reactivate this note if there is anything to add. Closing.
3145328 (iD)12022-04-20 23:24openedckyuthere is a gate which is locked by villaget
22025-09-11 12:30commentedkingkingHKAt least when I attempted to visit the location of this note today, there was a guard dog stopping people from getting close. Might be difficult to verify this note if the situation persists.
4952223 (iD)12025-09-08 08:35openedvectorial8192Is it actually possible to use these steps to reach Castle Peak Road?
22025-09-10 12:35closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171733971 ; closing.
4868226 (iD)12025-07-21 15:14openedvectorial8192Free-hanging railway siding? Missing data that describes how the siding connects back to the mainline?
22025-08-07 07:21commentedCypp0847Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170091126 This would inevitably involve some major changes to the tracks
32025-09-09 10:57closedvectorial8192Well, I have a feeling the quoted changeset was reverted due to potential copyright problems. Anyway, resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171679335 ; closing. The mapping can still be improved (e.g. where exactly is the siding? how about the public transport mapping?) but that would belong to future work and is out of scope.
4940451 (iD)12025-09-01 08:19openedvectorial8192https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1172161653 I thought this site was purged several times over?
22025-09-08 08:54closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171622097 ; closing.
4810055 (iD)12025-06-17 12:02opened港茂眼鏡公司(泓富廣場)
22025-08-08 13:24commentedkingkingHKCorrect, feature exists IRL.
32025-09-08 08:33closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171621088 ; closing.
4892787 (iD)12025-08-05 03:44openedkingkingHKNeed to confirm name of 38 Hung To Road.
22025-08-07 04:31commentedCypp0847Appears to be an unnamed building
32025-08-07 06:17commentedkingkingHKwww.sharedoffices.hk/building/microtron-building/ claims that it's called "美科大厦 Microtron Building". When I visited the site yesterday, it was covered in dense scaffolding, so I was not able to see if there were any names signposted. Also seems weird to have an unnamed building in such an urban area?
42025-08-20 14:01commentedvectorial8192- even if scaffolding, the name potentially can still be known by visiting the building directory in the lobby - buildings can really have no names, esp in "old urban areas" where (self guess) the building was built as a personal joint venture and not via real estate development companies (eg SHK); in this case it will be known simply as "[Street ...
52025-08-20 14:01commentedvectorial8192However, looking at online sources, it does seem the building is named, so recommend go there again somehow.
62025-08-22 08:28commentedkingkingHKThe building seems closed and the entrance is locked. Outside the building it's simply signposted as "38 Hung To Road", so it's probably really nameless.
72025-09-08 08:29closedvectorial8192Then, resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171620880 ; closing.
4949232 (iD)12025-09-06 12:21openedkingkingHKName of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4745146323 is dubious.
22025-09-08 08:18commentedvectorial819299% feels like referring to the famous Blue House group, which is next street. Then, this node shouldn't exist.
32025-09-08 08:22closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171620551 ; closing.
4869215 (iD)12025-07-22 07:12openedjack_@_@sodo
22025-08-05 04:37commentedkingkingHKMeaning is unclear (perhaps "todo"?), please elaborate.
32025-09-08 08:19closedvectorial8192Meaning is unclear; closing.
4932915 (iD)12025-08-27 14:38openedvectorial8192Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4867380821 is suspicious (mapper seems inactive)
22025-09-08 08:17closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171620363 ; closing.
4899982 (iD)12025-08-09 06:48openedkingkingHKIs the substation really just called "變電站 ESS"?
22025-08-31 14:05commentedkingkingHKThere appears to be a name signposted on the wall, but it's quite far from the fence, making it difficult for outsiders to see the name. A camera with good zoom might be needed to read the sign.
32025-09-08 00:47commentedvectorial8192Then, just delete the name and leave it as unknown.
42025-09-08 08:15closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171620254 ; closing.
4937556 (iD)12025-08-30 14:04openedSkylark_H_Ctoilet #OsmAnd
22025-09-01 13:39commentedkingkingHKCorrect.
32025-09-07 15:16closedSkylark_H_CSolved.
4949223 (iD)12025-09-06 12:18openedkingkingHKWhy is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1205283541 a link?
22025-09-07 09:17closedKovoschizUser mistake, but should all be `=secondary_link`
4039877 (iD)12023-12-25 13:03opened種植道花園，內有一個涼亭。
22024-09-07 18:45closedCypp0847more surveying required to improve the mapping
32024-09-07 18:45reopenedCypp0847
42025-09-07 04:47closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171567147 ; closing.
828864 (iD)12016-12-26 11:00openedWanderer GoGounpaved down hill slope (45 degree) (OSM data version: 2016-11-05T13:55:03Z) #mapsme
22025-09-06 03:40closedkingkingHKDuplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/829942 ; closing.
4922359 (iD)12025-08-21 16:37openedHave A Nails Day Hong Kong
22025-09-01 13:39commentedkingkingHKCorrect.
32025-09-05 12:48closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171497199 ; closing.
4912480 (iD)12025-08-16 09:03openedkingkingHKAerial imagery shows that a building is being built here.
22025-09-05 12:26closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171496047 ; closing.
4946440 (iD)12025-09-04 14:20openedOwen717A
22025-09-04 14:21closedOwen717
4884398 (iD)12025-07-30 21:15opened大埔四方公園
22025-08-05 04:34commentedkingkingHKProbably referring to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146471234? If so, feature already exists.
32025-08-18 12:38commentedkingkingHK"大埔四方公園" is probably an alternative name. See e.g.: https://www.facebook.com/ifva.HKArtsCentre/posts/pfbid0oLWg8AStMBm69p7UsGh6kiQVsmAyoz6LU6XptW5QHotmQahHncDjJpavnJVywe8tl https://www.facebook.com/groups/75130008031/permalink/10161481561668032/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/75130008031/permalink/10160584834693032 https://www.faceboo...
42025-09-04 12:31closedkingkingHKResolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171450849 ; closing.
2801715 (iD)12021-08-13 14:14openedMang tang水晶石森林九妹 Little9CRYSTAL
22021-08-13 14:16closedMang tang新界元朗青山公路元朗段95號海外信託銀行大廈9樓A室
32021-08-13 14:16reopenedMang tang
42021-08-13 14:16closedMang tang新界元朗青山公路元朗段95號海外信託銀行大廈9樓A室
52021-08-14 13:54reopenedKovoschiz
62025-09-04 12:20closedkingkingHKIncorrect, feature does not exist IRL. Closing.
4903801 (iD)12025-08-11 07:45openedvectorial8192Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11353455226 is suspicious
22025-08-11 17:38commentedKovoschizIt's simply another historical location
32025-08-12 14:08commentedvectorial8192To be fair this is my first time hearing about this. For a long time I would just call this area Pat Heung. Again, quoting you, perhaps this should be moved to OHM.
42025-08-12 17:23commentedKovoschizThat's the `=suburb` , and there can be other `place=` under it. `=locality` is already the lowest level.
52025-09-01 17:19closedvectorial8192Then, this note is due to my lack of local (rural) knowledge. Therefore, closing.
3112771 (iD)12022-03-30 16:58openedivanbrancoto be fixed with natural=peak
22025-05-12 08:21closed楊展博
32025-05-13 08:13reopenedvectorial8192
42025-05-13 08:13commentedvectorial8192Not done yet; please don't resolve!
52025-09-01 06:03closedkingkingHKResolved by someone else via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127477374 ; closing.
4937016 (iD)12025-08-30 07:34openedvectorial8192Does this "Yau Ma Tei Interchange (N)" have `share_taxi=no`?
22025-08-31 11:56commentedvectorial8192Indeed.
32025-08-31 13:08closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171268691 ; closing.
4937015 (iD)12025-08-30 07:31openedvectorial8192Now that Yau Ma Tei Interchange is restored, does this "Yan Cheung Road (W) -> Hoi Wang Road (S)" have a `share_taxi=no`?
22025-08-31 11:56commentedvectorial8192It turns out, no such signage, but turning northbound does have this signage.
32025-08-31 12:59closedvectorial8192Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171265947 ; closing.
2237234 (iD)12020-06-21 16:35opened312機槍堡
22025-08-27 05:20closedHenryEKPillbox 312 exists just northeast of this note. Although it is on the map, it for some reason does not show.
32025-08-30 07:22reopenedvectorial8192
42025-08-30 07:25closedvectorial8192To add more information: OSM itself only contains map data. It does not handle map rendering itself. The situation is that OSM Carto (the default rendering style used by OSM) does not render said military ruins, at least as of writing. Most likely, OSM Carto does not know how to render said ruins. This would then be an OSM Carto issue and should...
1706259 (iD)12019-03-11 01:44openedc1c2t3Review the added inserts artwork?
22025-08-29 14:07closedkingkingHKMeaning is not very clear (what artwork?), and it seems adequately mapped after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/68006134 etc, closing.