| Id | # | Tmstmp UTC | Action | Contributor | Comment |
|---|
| 2464998 (iD) | 1 | 2020-12-17 15:14 | opened | Dixon313 | Caution on degrading trail type:
Joining an easy shaded mid-level concrete path (1Km, coming from Tsing Shan Monastery for CLP pylon maintenance) is a bare mud trail (400m, southbound downhill to Sun Tuen Mun Center).
Unprepared leisure hikers may have to turn back here. |
| 2 | 2026-06-03 12:55 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, indeed. |
| 3 | 2026-07-11 17:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | Then, perhaps we just need to clarify the trail feasibility, and then we can finish. |
| 5304217 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-22 09:55 | opened | | 198 |
| 2 | 2026-07-11 17:12 | commented | vectorial8192 | Possibly incomplete work of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1491526318 ? |
| 3 | 2026-07-11 17:12 | commented | vectorial8192 | Correction : possibly incomplete work of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180258566 ? |
| 5379154 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-06 21:36 | opened | Angus Lee | "Closed on June 30, 2026 (Tue)."
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: 2026-06-24T00:53:17Z
POI name: 偉晴軒 West Hotel
POI types: building tourism-hotel
#organicmaps ios 2026.06.24-17... |
| 2 | 2026-07-09 07:14 | commented | vectorial8192 | we do have e.g. https://www.hk01.com/%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E/60367207/%E4%BD%90%E6%95%A628%E5%B9%B4%E6%AD%B7%E5%8F%B2%E9%85%92%E5%BA%97-%E5%81%89%E6%99%B4%E8%BB%92-6-30%E7%B5%90%E6%A5%AD-%E9%96%80%E5%8F%A3%E8%B2%BC%E5%91%8A%E7%A4%BA%E6%84%9F%E8%AC%9D%E9%A1%A7%E5%AE%A2%E6%94%AF%E6%8C%81 |
| 3 | 2026-07-11 17:09 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185542711 ; closing. |
| 5189634 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-04 06:34 | opened | | High
|
| 2 | 2026-07-11 17:04 | closed | vectorial8192 | (Tooling somehow assigns this to HK; this often happens due to low border resolution, and that's excusable.)
Meaning of note is unclear; closing. |
| 5370649 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-02 04:27 | opened | Angus Lee | 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: 2026-06-24T00:53:17Z
POI has no name
POI types: shop-bakery
#organicmaps ios 2026.06.24-17-ios |
| 2 | 2026-07-09 07:15 | commented | vectorial8192 | Refers to node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4777909123 , which has no name. |
| 3 | 2026-07-11 16:55 | commented | vectorial8192 | Upon review, the data is inconsistent.
The building is at number 68, but the bakery self-claims to be at number 80. That's not how addressing works.
Instant delete. |
| 4 | 2026-07-11 16:56 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185542117 ; closing. |
| 5343890 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-14 01:58 | opened | crossrowlatebrain | "Closed permanently"
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: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z
POI name: Spring Deer
POI types: cuisine-chinese amenity-restaurant
#organicmaps android 2026.05.27-11-FDro... |
| 2 | 2026-07-11 16:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | General online vibes do agree the restaurant is closed/gone.
Also, a valid replacement feature is mapped as cafe "Reaction Coffee Roasters" (though self-duplicated).
I will just clean these up and finish. |
| 3 | 2026-07-11 16:52 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185541909 ; closing. |
| 5078374 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-04 10:12 | opened | kingkingHK | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11620433869 What is this? Does this actually exist? |
| 2 | 2026-05-20 17:34 | commented | vectorial8192 | Thinking about this in further detail, I can recall that the somewhat well-known "banner place" originating from the 2019 protests is located somewhere around here. We may try to do some long-distance trigonometry to see if this is a reasonable hypothesis. |
| 3 | 2026-05-25 14:02 | commented | kingkingHK | The quoted node was created in 2024 when everything from 2019 should have vanished. But you can try. |
| 4 | 2026-05-25 15:49 | commented | vectorial8192 | You never know. To some foreigners, the protests never stopped.
We can do trigo. |
| 5 | 2026-06-23 14:21 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, can't find any artwork here. But I won't stop you from doing whatever trigo you wants, so I won't touch the node or resolve this notefor now. |
| 6 | 2026-07-11 16:29 | commented | vectorial8192 | By looking at the 2019 past photos (this gotta be copyright-waivable for being well-known and recurring facts / historic events), the banner trigo actually points towards the lion head at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3965148556 , which is clearly not here. Also, the viewing direction is from the east side.
Then yes we can delete this. |
| 7 | 2026-07-11 16:30 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185540786 ; closing. |
| 5384946 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-09 16:05 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: long term cycleway closure expected due to drainage works |
| 2 | 2026-07-11 16:24 | commented | vectorial8192 | Government website has this https://www.dsd.gov.hk/TC/Our_Projects/All_Projects/4200CD.html though it doesn't mention the exact closure dates. |
| 5078375 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-04 10:12 | opened | kingkingHK | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11620433769 What is this? Does this actually exist? |
| 2 | 2026-06-23 14:20 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, nothing here. |
| 3 | 2026-07-11 16:20 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185540282 ; closing. |
| 5383053 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-08 17:15 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
new highway bridge to be opened soon (what is the scope of Route 5?) |
| 2 | 2026-07-11 16:18 | commented | vectorial8192 | Aside from the (new) scope of Route 5, what would be the (new) scope of the expressway area? |
| 5257118 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-19 16:41 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
Wo Yi Hop Road: physical separation |
| 2 | 2026-04-25 09:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | One issue is that the admin bounds is defined to be along the road, which means iD can't deal with this, and JOSM must be used. |
| 3 | 2026-04-25 09:20 | commented | kingkingHK | I would out point out that it is highly discouraged to glue boundaries to other features. |
| 4 | 2026-04-25 09:34 | commented | vectorial8192 | Then, in this case, after we detach the features, should we somehow move the boundaries to the east side or the west side?
My near-future action is to split the ways somehow but keep the boundaries attached, for lack of good/obvious solution. |
| 5 | 2026-04-25 10:02 | commented | kingkingHK | Imo keep it at the centreline. OSM's ways are an abstraction anyway. For the single carriageway section, I would put the boundary very close to but not attached to the highway. (If I am wrong @Kovoschiz can correct me) |
| 6 | 2026-04-25 10:35 | commented | Kovoschiz | If the border is really defined by the road throughout time, attaching along the latter is passable. But HK isn't. If the road has been widened (it has in some sections), it won't follow. |
| 7 | 2026-04-25 10:37 | commented | Kovoschiz | (for the non-widened section, it's still toleratable) |
| 8 | 2026-04-25 15:55 | commented | vectorial8192 | We notice that we naturally arrive at the same question again: how/where do we check for 18-District boundaries?
When we know how those are defined, we will know whether we need to disconnect the ways. |
| 9 | 2026-07-11 16:16 | commented | vectorial8192 | Ignoring the boundary definition, one practical blocker was/is that iD cannot easily disambiguate/select features when they perfectly overlap each other.
However, later I found that iD has option to hide admin-bounds. Then, roads become selectable.
JOSM situation notwithstanding, this means we now have a friendlier entrance to at least tackle the... |
| 5270671 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-29 08:42 | opened | kingkingHK | todo/issue: verify physical separation |
| 2 | 2026-07-11 16:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | Aerial imagery clearly shows "no physical separation".
It's the "chain of laziness". Road expansion works, draw new WIP road (correct). WIP complete, change tags (correct). But then it turns out there are some sections with no physical separation.
We can either focus only on this spot, or we do a sectional scan from Sam Shing to Aegean Coast. |
| 5360205 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-25 05:51 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: online info says this bridge has been restored
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/209631718 |
| 2 | 2026-07-11 06:38 | commented | kingkingHK | future reference: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/14fnVEzksaz/ |
| 3 | 2026-07-11 16:08 | commented | vectorial8192 | It seems they took the bridge away and placed a new one back at the same spot?
Either we need a survey, or we find a usable source and armchair this. |
| 5360200 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-25 05:36 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: LRT stop will be renamed on 5 July, according to online info |
| 2 | 2026-07-11 16:04 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185117821 ; closing. |
| 4434946 (iD) | 1 | 2024-09-14 19:21 | opened | vectorial8192 | Prepare to reactivate the old platforms (irl construction nearing completion) |
| 2 | 2025-05-06 16:28 | commented | vectorial8192 | Worst case this will wait for YOHO WEST Phase 2 to complete, which is expected to be in 2026. |
| 3 | 2026-02-15 13:27 | commented | kingkingHK | Online info says YOHO WEST Phase 2 will be complete by March 2026, but by survey the old platforms are still not open yet. |
| 4 | 2026-04-24 16:03 | commented | kingkingHK | Online info says platform 1, 3, and 4 has reopened today whereas platform 2 and 5 will reopen in July. |
| 5 | 2026-04-25 08:42 | commented | vectorial8192 | While we are here, given that the rails were destroyed and then remade, I think we should have e.g. `start_date=2026` and `was:start_date=19XX`? |
| 6 | 2026-04-25 08:48 | commented | kingkingHK | Sure, something like `railway=light_rail` + `start_date=2026-04-24` + `demolished:railway light_rail` + `demolished:start_date=1995-03-26` + `demolished:end_date=2017` + `was:railway=construction` + `was:construction=light_rail` + `was:construction:railway=light_rail` + `was:start_date=2017` + `was:end_date=2026-04-24`? |
| 7 | 2026-04-25 16:03 | commented | vectorial8192 | (imo too verbose, but OK)
Main issue is that we can't possibly have railway=X and then at the same time demolished:railway=X when X is same both sides. (troll-tagging?)
imo at some point we simply do not need to keep "was:*=*"; the "was" prefix is to prevent unintended remapping when e.g. aerial imagery doesn't match irl. Here with the lack of ae... |
| 8 | 2026-04-25 16:08 | commented | kingkingHK | Yeah, I also find it too verbose, I only wrote that because you mentioned it. Imo all the `demolished:*=` `was:*=` can go to OHM.
And then, Theseus's Ship, if the platforms and rails were completely demolished and rebuilt, it might not be totally appropriate to keep using the same element. I haven't checked if the geometry changed meanwhile. |
| 9 | 2026-04-25 16:21 | commented | vectorial8192 | The station is "Theseus' Ship"; "Theseus' Ship" is more about the entire thing rather than the individual parts. At first glance it's not possible to have a different geometry/size, but we can always irl check this. |
| 10 | 2026-04-26 05:41 | commented | kingkingHK | Ok maybe I fumbled my words, but yeah that's basically what I was trying to say. If the geometry has really changed, it would be a very strong case to delete and redraw. |
| 11 | 2026-04-27 13:38 | commented | Kovoschiz | If it's only slightly changed and not moved significantly, no need to redraw. Simply adjust it. |
| 12 | 2026-04-27 16:55 | commented | vectorial8192 | Given how the west side has space for a multi-level driveway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1351494329 I strongly armchair-believe the rails cannot be located at any other place.
It's several days now, so the least we could do is to enable the new rails, and then give it to later irl survey to confirm the rails really have the correct dimension... |
| 13 | 2026-05-01 10:18 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, seems like the station dimension is kinda wrong, which tbh is expected. I will probably summarise my findings in Discord first (Soon™). |
| 14 | 2026-07-11 15:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | Seeing no updates to this note, perhaps I may ask some extra questions.
Given that the observed dimensions are different from the OSM mapped dimensions, how different are both measurements? Is it because e.g. the platforms are shifted along some direction, which is not in OSM? |
| 5220076 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-26 05:17 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1104518518
ancient todo |
| 2 | 2026-03-27 07:37 | commented | kingkingHK | New towns don't have well-defined boundaries either. Not sure what can be done here. |
| 3 | 2026-03-27 08:57 | commented | Kovoschiz | Yes they have, according to OZP, Census, PDD/PPU, etc. However, this needs to be distinguished from addresses. |
| 4 | 2026-04-26 15:35 | commented | vectorial8192 | I can see this polygon largely coincides with the Town Planning "Tin Shui Wai" definition, but there are copyright concerns on whether we may directly make use of the graphical definition. |
| 5 | 2026-05-20 12:20 | commented | kingkingHK | @Kovoschiz May you provide more info so that we know what action should be done in order to close this note? |
| 6 | 2026-05-20 18:10 | commented | Kovoschiz | But what do you want to know? |
| 7 | 2026-05-23 08:13 | commented | kingkingHK | E.g. which definition should be used? How to find the boundary according to that definition? Is Is the copyright compatible? How to tag it? |
| 8 | 2026-07-11 15:40 | commented | vectorial8192 | @Kovoschiz I think the hardest question is whether annex diagrams in legal texts can be used for OSM mapping. Do those count as regular diagrams (not for OSM) or extensions of legal documents (OK for OSM)?
When we know the legality, things like checking the correct OSM tag should then be trivial. |
| 5208863 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-17 20:54 | opened | Mateusz Konieczny | 唐人茶居
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1566866228/history
is it really amenity=restaurant and shop=kiosk at the same time? |
| 2 | 2026-03-18 03:51 | commented | kingkingHK | I mean, this is not completely unbelievable... |
| 3 | 2026-03-18 19:48 | commented | Mateusz Konieczny | oh definitely - turns out that sometimes really unexpected matches are real
but it looks really suspect
if such things are known to exist here, please close the note |
| 4 | 2026-03-21 14:03 | commented | vectorial8192 | Deja vu I may have replied to a note that looks like this before.
Basically, in rural places like here, there could be places that double as both a restaurant and a kiosk. The "outside" is the kiosk, and then the "inside" is a restaurant. I would guess the guy decided it was more convenient to describe both of them as a single feature. |
| 5 | 2026-03-21 14:52 | commented | kingkingHK | You are probably thinking of https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4745192 ?
Anyway, the current mapping seems correct. However, as there are some open notes nearby that cannot be resolved without a survey, it may be fine to leave this open and wait for someone to survey this alongside. |
| 6 | 2026-04-12 11:47 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, it seems like there is a store inside the restaurant. I'm not sure how to map this. (Also, I am not sure if `shop=kiosk` is correctly for mapping 士多, feels like `shop=convenience` more? |
| 7 | 2026-04-13 09:23 | commented | Kovoschiz | It's `=general` |
| 8 | 2026-04-26 13:20 | commented | vectorial8192 | From what I can remember/imagine, "士多" can sell anything from food (e.g. wheat), newspaper, to magazines and other misc stuff. It does seem to be a general shop.
If no big disagreements, then we can proceed with that. |
| 9 | 2026-05-04 08:57 | commented | Mateusz Konieczny | And for shop in shop - I would map both as separate objects.
Maybe outer one as an area? |
| 10 | 2026-05-04 16:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | That sounds like a swamp. We (or at least just myself) do not know how large the "outside shop" is, esp the back part. I rather keep them both as a single node. |
| 11 | 2026-05-04 17:09 | commented | Mateusz Konieczny | well, note can remain open until someone can survey this location |
| 12 | 2026-05-04 20:32 | commented | vectorial8192 | pinging with no notification @kingkingHK |
| 13 | 2026-05-05 10:07 | commented | kingkingHK | I went there a while ago, and the situation is that, the entrance to the 士多 is inside the restaurant. Or, from another perspective, part of the restaurant has been repurposed to be a 士多. And I think mapping both as nodes just fails to represent this. |
| 14 | 2026-07-11 14:09 | commented | vectorial8192 | This is indeed a swamp. Either we keep it to the single node (current situation), or we do full indoor mapping to properly describe which part of the building is the restaurant-proper and which part is the storefront.
The latter option seems like poor use of resources. I will just summarize this thread and add a "note=*" to the restaurant node, to... |
| 15 | 2026-07-11 14:18 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185534412 ; closing. |
| 4895339 (iD) | 1 | 2025-08-06 14:06 | opened | kingkingHK | Most of the village is unmapped |
| 2 | 2026-07-11 14:01 | closed | vectorial8192 | This note was created a long time ago.
Eventually, one would start to understand/accept that, in OSM, incomplete data is a daily occurrence. For example, the village next door Tai Kiu Tsuen is also currently only mapped as a single (rural) residential area. And we are fine with it.
The point of "general stream" is that, if someone can and want to... |
| 2776728 (iD) | 1 | 2021-07-29 16:43 | opened | Whcohi | Small temple |
| 2 | 2026-03-04 09:23 | commented | kingkingHK | Highly doubt this; can't see anything on aerial imagery or government maps. |
| 3 | 2026-07-11 12:59 | closed | vectorial8192 | OP has largely gone offline.
Trusting existing OSM data, it still does not make sense to have a temple right at a stream intersection far from existing (possibly informal) paths.
A reasonable interpretation is that OP tried to describe informal small "offering tablets" sometimes found in HK wilderness.
In principle OSM welcomes factual map data,... |
| 3145328 (iD) | 1 | 2022-04-21 01:24 | opened | ckyu | there is a gate which is locked by villaget |
| 2 | 2025-09-11 14:30 | commented | kingkingHK | At 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. |
| 3 | 2026-04-26 17:38 | commented | vectorial8192 | @kingkingHK do you vaguely remember where you encountered dogs? This may hint towards an area where everything within is `access=private`. |
| 4 | 2026-04-27 16:08 | commented | kingkingHK | Ok, I actually didn't see the dogs, only heard loud aggressive barking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3741053486 , and I was too scared to go inside further (have previously been chased by dogs in indigenous villages while surveying before).
I have recently tried to visit again via the other side (entering from Nam Sang Wai Road instead of ... |
| 5 | 2026-04-28 16:32 | commented | vectorial8192 | They don't call it the Autonomous Region of Yuen Long for lulz and giggles.
Re your 2nd paragraph, when you see a gate on the eastern side that's not on OSM, that alone is enough to motivate a changeset. The fact that the (new) changeset is not directly related to this note is not a problem, that's still a good contribution. |
| 6 | 2026-05-17 16:26 | commented | vectorial8192 | However, upon closer look, aerial imagery doesn't show any gate-like structure on the NE side as described.
It seems not enough info to affirm or deny this note. |
| 7 | 2026-05-23 08:37 | commented | kingkingHK | I mean, a gate practically has negligible depth. I don't know why you expect to see in aerial imagery.
But still, my finding of a gate seems to be unrelated to this note. |
| 8 | 2026-05-25 11:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | Depending on the gate material/construction, I would expect a shadow line on the aerial imagery, but I could not find this. |
| 9 | 2026-07-11 12:04 | commented | vectorial8192 | Ultimately, in OSM we trust. Seeing this is in Yuen Long, this note is believable. There are definitely rural areas that belong to villagers. Contextually this area is built for (private) aquaculture though it seems recent years the villagers want houses more than ponds. |
| 10 | 2026-07-11 12:40 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185530110 ; closing. |
| 5346823 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-16 05:30 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: bus terminus will be opened on 21 June, according to online info |
| 2 | 2026-06-22 08:42 | commented | vectorial8192 | concern:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184412298 |
| 3 | 2026-06-22 08:43 | commented | vectorial8192 | I was about to ask the changeset for more details, but it declaring YouTube as a source could be a problem. |
| 4 | 2026-06-22 08:49 | commented | kingkingHK | Ok, as as start, the quoted changeset needs to be reverted for ToS and/or copyright violation. |
| 5 | 2026-06-22 08:56 | commented | kingkingHK | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184417534 |
| 6 | 2026-06-24 05:06 | commented | kingkingHK | Someone did something:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184487035 |
| 7 | 2026-06-25 18:53 | commented | vectorial8192 | At least the scope is limited. Like, we can just look at the relevant TD announcements and then we know the bus terminus is open. We don't need YouTube videos for that.
That said, we can use this opportunity to confirm the shape of the terminus, and also the situation surrounding the station (e.g. marketplace? old terminus? etc). |
| 8 | 2026-06-28 12:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | By survey, I'm gonna do it. |
| 9 | 2026-06-28 13:19 | commented | kingkingHK | Btw see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184730262 |
| 10 | 2026-06-28 13:23 | commented | vectorial8192 | :(
Ideally, we should confirm the roads before we add in the bus relations, but this time we were not fast enough. irl is different from OSM. |
| 11 | 2026-06-28 14:02 | commented | kingkingHK | You can still correct the roads to match real life first. I can redo the bus relations Later™ |
| 12 | 2026-06-28 16:47 | commented | vectorial8192 | concern x2:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184730262
The node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13971781917 etc irl positions are wrong, not at OSM declared positions. Hmmm...
same guy btw |
| 13 | 2026-06-28 17:35 | commented | vectorial8192 | This is unusual. Perhaps more information is needed. |
| 14 | 2026-07-11 11:09 | commented | vectorial8192 | Upon further review, the situation is acceptable, though thanks to efforts by https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/samho1234567 it seems there is no need for any extra rerouting.
If no extra thing to clarify, then will close soon. |
| 5034335 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 15:14 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-01-22 14:45 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. |
| 3 | 2026-07-11 08:51 | commented | vectorial8192 | Seeing the lack of updates, I'm gonna make an educated guess, that this clinic is a single-purpose facility just like the TSW-N clinic. |
| 4 | 2026-07-11 08:54 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185521230 ; closing. |
| 3980686 (iD) | 1 | 2023-11-10 03:46 | opened | | 粉嶺沙頭角公路DD39, Lot 2645
|
| 2 | 2026-01-08 11:10 | commented | kingkingHK | Is this information useful for OSM? |
| 3 | 2026-01-09 12:16 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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. |
| 4 | 2026-01-09 13:04 | commented | kingkingHK | This 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. |
| 5 | 2026-01-24 16:06 | commented | vectorial8192 | Back 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. |
| 6 | 2026-01-25 04:16 | commented | kingkingHK | Imo a plot name is just a fancier/more formal address. |
| 7 | 2026-02-15 13:25 | commented | kingkingHK | @vectorial8192 If you don't think this can be instant-closed, what actions do you propose to take here? |
| 8 | 2026-03-04 09:55 | commented | kingkingHK | @vectorial8192 I might visit this location in a few days; let me know if you think I should look out for anything in order to resolve this note. |
| 9 | 2026-03-04 12:53 | commented | vectorial8192 | Well, at minimum we should try to see if this is somehow signposted (probably not). We can then see which irl area(s) correspond to this plot of land; at minimum we can clarify the industrial areas into several distinct plots, likely partitioned along the roads.
Ultimately it's sometimes not possible to very clearly and precisely state beforehand ... |
| 10 | 2026-05-20 12:19 | commented | kingkingHK | Then, seeing I have no such feeling and still don't really know what to do with this note (imo clarification/partitioning of the land belongs in "general stream"), I will just leave this note to you, or someone who knows how to deal with this (might be future me). |
| 11 | 2026-07-09 17:01 | closed | vectorial8192 | I have decided to at least validate what we are looking at. The Land Registry has a free (money) online address lookup system https://www.landreg.gov.hk/tc/services/services_b_9.htm .
According to this system, there is no such "Sha Tau Kok Road DD39L 2645" plot. This note is fake news.
Factual references (especially for debunking purposes) should... |
| 12 | 2026-07-10 04:50 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 13 | 2026-07-10 04:50 | commented | kingkingHK | But we can find it on geoinfo map though. |
| 14 | 2026-07-10 19:29 | commented | vectorial8192 | To clarify, the registry has "Sha Tau Kok Road DD39L" but doesn't list specific "2645" plot. But, looking at the registry list, the whole neighbourhood has building name set to null.
Technically because NT is leased, the lack of records is insufficient to prove the lack of land mastery (by government or by private entities), but administratively t... |
| 5386225 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-10 10:42 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802069339 descriptive name (?????) |
| 2 | 2026-07-10 11:32 | commented | kingkingHK | It's just a dead end footpath
source: survey |
| 3 | 2026-07-10 19:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | Mapillary imagery exist for this area, but some do not reflect reality (nudge).
Dead end footpaths are still valid footpaths when easily observable from aerial imagery. Isolated inaccessible paths may be given access=no to better guide navigation software.
I will just clean this up. Is simple. |
| 4 | 2026-07-10 19:17 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185490481 ; closing. |
| 5374781 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 16:29 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 舂坎角炮台 |
| 2 | 2026-07-10 19:07 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185489793 ; closing. |
| 5374774 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 16:25 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 赤柱炮台 |
| 2 | 2026-07-10 19:01 | closed | vectorial8192 | There are no batteries here.
Closing. |
| 5381910 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-08 05:24 | opened | lecolibri258 | "2 floor of the building"
OSM snapshot date: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z
POI name: EC Color
POI types: shop-copyshop
#organicmaps android 2026.06.29-3-Google |
| 2 | 2026-07-10 18:58 | commented | vectorial8192 | Hi there, you may use semicolon ";" to indicate multiple floors of the same building.
For example, "1;2" indicates "1/F and 2/F".
Do you remember/know which floors for this shop? |
| 2434008 (iD) | 1 | 2020-11-20 16:19 | opened | | Dogistic Limited 一寵愛有限公司 |
| 2 | 2025-05-12 09:54 | closed | 楊展博 | |
| 3 | 2025-05-13 10:13 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2025-05-13 10:14 | commented | vectorial8192 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5 | 2025-09-01 07:45 | commented | kingkingHK | According to the Company Registry, a company with the same name has been dissolved in October 2020. |
| 6 | 2026-01-24 15:21 | commented | vectorial8192 | Then, it seems we may close this? |
| 7 | 2026-01-25 03:57 | commented | kingkingHK | Depends 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... |
| 8 | 2026-01-25 08:17 | commented | vectorial8192 | The 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 ... |
| 9 | 2026-02-22 15:15 | commented | kingkingHK | I mean, there's a chance the company that closed has nothing to do with the POI at this location and just coincidentally shares a name. Although this might be too unlikely. |
| 10 | 2026-06-15 11:59 | closed | Timmy Wong HK | |
| 11 | 2026-06-15 12:17 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 12 | 2026-06-15 12:18 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 13 | 2026-07-09 18:57 | closed | vectorial8192 | Upon further review, we have this https://www.facebook.com/dogistic/
This is evidence of "company activity" but doesn't say much about the company location.
Then, a good interpretation of the situation is that the organization "dissolved" and is no longer a registered company, but is still around for dynamic on-call services. Thus, it no longer ... |
| 5128521 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 03:50 | opened | kingkingHK | Todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813803780 name |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 11:49 | commented | HenryEK | typo needs fixing and requires chinese name only? or is there more to do here |
| 3 | 2026-07-09 18:14 | commented | vectorial8192 | Name referenced in https://www.lcsd.gov.hk/clpss/en/webApp/ContactAccessDetails.do?lsb=ND&type=lsb&value=ND , which I believe is copyright-usable.
At least I see we need to repair the name and also provide the Chinese name. Minimal HK mapping requirements regarding names. |
| 4 | 2026-07-09 18:16 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185418889 ; closing. |
| 5150364 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-01 10:53 | opened | kingkingHK | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1213995468 construction finished? |
| 2 | 2026-07-09 17:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | No idea what's going on, but aerial imagery very consistently show a car park at this location. This is very likely a car park in an "unused land", just the usual mismapping. |
| 3 | 2026-07-09 17:48 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185417079 ; closing. |
| 5188738 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-03 11:21 | opened | kingkingHK | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6330287444
I doubt this exists anymore. |
| 2 | 2026-03-05 13:22 | commented | kingkingHK | The entire university is still `access=private`; I think it is more likely removed than not so can delete first. |
| 3 | 2026-04-02 10:42 | commented | vectorial8192 | theoretical possibility of loc_name |
| 4 | 2026-07-09 17:37 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185416384 ; closing. |
| 5188736 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-03 11:21 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: descriptive name
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6309742344 |
| 2 | 2026-07-09 17:28 | commented | vectorial8192 | The feature type is also wrong. |
| 3 | 2026-07-09 17:29 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185415845 ; closing. |
| 5188594 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-03 07:40 | opened | | There is a new building on construction and will be finished by next season |
| 2 | 2026-03-03 07:42 | closed | Larry_marcon | |
| 3 | 2026-03-03 07:42 | reopened | Larry_marcon | |
| 4 | 2026-03-05 13:22 | commented | kingkingHK | Apparently, the entire university is still `access=private`. I guess we would have to wait until aerial imagery updates this. |
| 5 | 2026-07-09 17:10 | commented | vectorial8192 | Cross-checking with EdUHK website, we do have this https://www.eduhk.hk/eo/our-projects/new-academic-building-tai-po-campus
Anon is probably really bad at geography/mapping because we definitely can see a WIP building at the ESE of this note.
We will just leave the "building is completed" event to the relevant access=private mappers, per "general... |
| 6 | 2026-07-09 17:19 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185415153 ; closing. |
| 5037695 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-04 13:28 | opened | kingkingHK | Has 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. |
| 2 | 2026-01-08 11:10 | commented | kingkingHK | Seems like it has. |
| 3 | 2026-07-09 16:31 | commented | vectorial8192 | These houses are marked as "completed" in OSM many years ago. However, somehow the area was not changed to be a rural residential area. |
| 4 | 2026-07-09 16:49 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185413050 ; closing. |
| 5034341 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 15:15 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?) |
| 2 | 2026-01-08 07:38 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. |
| 3 | 2026-01-24 16:20 | commented | vectorial8192 | Any updates to this note?
(semi regular regional note review, to try to close low-hanging notes and declutter the map) |
| 4 | 2026-01-25 04:24 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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. |
| 5 | 2026-01-25 08:06 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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. |
| 6 | 2026-07-09 16:06 | commented | vectorial8192 | Seeing the lack of updates, I'm gonna make an educated guess and armchair-place the clinic at the unnamed building on the north side. |
| 7 | 2026-07-09 16:24 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185411542 ; closing. |
| 5214756 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-22 08:23 | opened | vectorial8192 | concern:
I don't think these are cycling crossings. Or, there is a mapping mistake. |
| 2 | 2026-03-22 08:57 | commented | kingkingHK | I vaguely remember this is one of the very few "semi-bicycle crossings" in Hong Kong where the cycleway ends right at the road, not a few meters before it as is usual. So simply turning the cycleways to footways like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1418886075 would be fine. |
| 3 | 2026-07-09 14:16 | commented | vectorial8192 | Given that Hong Kong does not define "cycle crossings", I will just refactor these to be regular crossings. |
| 4 | 2026-07-09 15:59 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185410079 ; closing. |
| 5175576 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-21 13:19 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: new u-turn lane? |
| 2 | 2026-02-23 10:48 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed. |
| 3 | 2026-03-05 05:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1481293106 ...??? What's the plan here? |
| 4 | 2026-03-05 06:18 | commented | kingkingHK | ...ok somehow I didn't notice it was added a few hours before I made this note. But its alignment seems wrong; I will make a changeset soon. |
| 5 | 2026-07-07 13:50 | commented | vectorial8192 | By survey, we do have this u-turn, but the u-turn is very short, I do not think there is much alignment to speak of.
Propose closing. |
| 6 | 2026-07-09 14:06 | closed | vectorial8192 | This is a minor issue, and the current data is passable.
Someone will naturally review this when doing Pak Shek Kok station in the future. This is in vision range.
Therefore, closing. |
| 5130601 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-15 15:21 | opened | kingkingHK | Todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1419082513 descriptive name, etc |
| 2 | 2026-01-17 09:15 | commented | vectorial8192 | It 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". |
| 3 | 2026-07-08 10:46 | closed | xingshu | |
| 4 | 2026-07-09 07:16 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 5366384 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-29 08:02 | opened | Angus Lee | 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: 2026-06-24T00:53:17Z
POI has no name
POI types: amenity-restaurant
#organicmaps ios 2026.06.24-17-ios |
| 2 | 2026-07-09 07:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | Referring to node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11395656769
Absolutely no extra info, instant delete. |
| 3 | 2026-07-09 07:14 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185385463 ; closing. |
| 5382207 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-08 10:45 | opened | xingshu | D1 |
| 2 | 2026-07-08 21:55 | closed | Kovoschiz | osm.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 information not otherwise used... |
| 5058584 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-18 17:07 | opened | vectorial8192 | Should Tai Hang Sai Estate still retain landuse=residential? afaik judicial processes are withholding reconstruction, which means this estate is technically still inhabitable. |
| 2 | 2025-11-19 10:34 | commented | Kovoschiz | Have they not lost all the cases? |
| 3 | 2025-11-19 10:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | This 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". |
| 4 | 2025-11-19 11:45 | commented | vectorial8192 | OK, 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... |
| 5 | 2025-12-25 15:01 | commented | kingkingHK | Hi there, we are long into December, I guess that means we can close this note with no actions to take? |
| 6 | 2025-12-25 15:34 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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. |
| 7 | 2026-02-22 15:29 | commented | kingkingHK | Any updates on this note? |
| 8 | 2026-02-22 15:55 | commented | vectorial8192 | No updates, but I am very afraid to close this.
Last time (December) I thought all cases were closed already, and then a few days later I read about a few of them freshly closed.
Best bet would be to wait for the Company to do work. I think the news was that the Company would start partial work on this site as it waits for the several remaining c... |
| 9 | 2026-03-15 13:20 | commented | HenryEK | the sidewalk along wai chi street now has beams along it in preparation for demolition |
| 10 | 2026-05-21 16:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | Apparently, legal process is still going. See below May 2026. Again, "I am very afraid to close this".
https://thewitnesshk.com/%E5%B9%B3%E5%B1%8B%E6%8E%A7%E5%A4%A7%E5%9D%91%E8%A5%BF%E9%82%A8%E6%8B%92%E9%81%B7%E5%B1%85%E6%B0%91%E5%8B%9D%E8%A8%B4-%E5%B1%85%E6%B0%91%E9%9D%A2%E8%87%A8%E5%9F%B7%E9%81%94%E5%90%8F%E6%94%B6%E6%A8%93/ |
| 11 | 2026-06-06 14:41 | commented | kingkingHK | Yes, but if you are "discovering this situation this late to the story, it would just be a technicality issue, and can't justify an OSM edit", what is this note for? |
| 12 | 2026-06-08 08:34 | commented | vectorial8192 | This is an extremely shitty residential area. The reason why no changes are possible is because OSM is for long term usage, but we know this residential area will become a construction area soon, just that we don't know when, so it doesn't justify an OSM edit. This does not stop this area from being an extremely shitty residential area, which is di... |
| 13 | 2026-06-08 11:08 | commented | kingkingHK | The purpose of notes is to "assist others in mapping/editing". If no action can be taken, how is it not closable?
Cf. e.g. we have previously closed notes from maps.me placed at the centre of large polygons, making the location inaccurate, on the basis that it is impossible to know where the action is needed, even though the text of the note is pe... |
| 14 | 2026-06-09 08:10 | commented | HenryEK | well man tai house is currently being demolished |
| 15 | 2026-06-09 13:57 | commented | vectorial8192 | On top of tracking demolition progress, I rather keep this note open than to have someone update the Estate to be a residential area, which is technically correct but contextually very inappropriate.
We can keep this note open until we are sure the last of the JR processes are complete; the Company will likely make press releases when that happens... |
| 16 | 2026-06-18 18:30 | commented | vectorial8192 | New JR:
https://hkcourtnews.com/%E5%A4%A7%E5%9D%91%E8%A5%BF%E9%82%A8%E6%B8%85%E6%8B%86%E7%88%AD%E8%AD%B0%EF%BD%9C%E5%B1%85%E6%B0%91%E7%94%B3%E5%8F%B8%E6%B3%95%E8%A6%86%E6%A0%B8%E3%80%80%E7%A8%B1%E3%80%8C%E6%94%9E%E5%9B%9E%E5%90%88/
Apparently the estate is still mail-able. Like, we are frustrated, the residents (plaintiff) are frustrated, the res... |
| 17 | 2026-07-08 09:57 | commented | HenryEK | man lee, man shun and man hong house have been demolished |
| 5296571 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 08:40 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | 2026-07-07 14:06 | commented | vectorial8192 | There are no bus relations here, which is nice. One challenge is to align this correctly along the hillside. |
| 3 | 2026-07-07 14:38 | commented | vectorial8192 | Actually, if we also check the nearby roads, then the changeset would also involve bus relations. |
| 4 | 2026-07-07 16:06 | commented | vectorial8192 | We will start with the physical separation itself, with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185268030 |
| 5213335 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-21 08:23 | opened | Angus Lee | "Correct place name is SP_CE but the app doesn’t allow _."
OSM snapshot date: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z
POI name: SP CE
POI types: amenity-cafe internet_access-wlan
#organicmaps ios 2026.03.11-12-ios |
| 2 | 2026-04-19 09:40 | commented | kingkingHK | Yes |
| 3 | 2026-05-15 08:00 | closed | pauline6luk | |
| 4 | 2026-05-15 09:16 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 5 | 2026-05-15 09:16 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 6 | 2026-06-03 16:25 | closed | Yogicat | |
| 7 | 2026-07-07 14:08 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 8 | 2026-07-07 14:08 | commented | vectorial8192 | This slipped past our notifications. Is this really done yet? |
| 9 | 2026-07-07 14:41 | closed | kingkingHK | Yes https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183597599
I can testify that my survey 2.5 months ago agree with the quoted changeset |
| 5380551 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-07 14:32 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
CTB 1M
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14134677
Validator warning: route scheme is unspecified; clarify "public_transport:version"
|
| 5380549 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-07 14:31 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
CTB 41A
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8161675
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8161682
Validator warning: route scheme is unspecified; clarify "public_transport:version" |
| 5347052 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-16 10:09 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
closed |
| 2 | 2026-07-07 14:05 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185261476 ; closing. |
| 5376347 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 13:05 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 域多利炮台遗址 |
| 2 | 2026-07-07 13:57 | closed | vectorial8192 | I do not believe HKU has ever researched or deployed artillery systems.
Closing. |
| 5376335 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 12:59 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 的撒大 |
| 2 | 2026-07-07 13:53 | closed | vectorial8192 | Meaning is unclear; closing. |
| 5379723 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-07 06:14 | opened | 香港注冊會計 | 香港注冊會計 |
| 2 | 2026-07-07 13:52 | closed | vectorial8192 | Meaning is unclear; closing. |
| 5286453 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-10 15:28 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
review petrol station (duplicate mapping?) |
| 2 | 2026-07-07 13:49 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185260718 ; closing. |
| 5292908 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-15 05:36 | opened | Angus Lee | "Relocated."
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: 2026-05-03T01:52:52Z
POI name: 大家樂 Café de Coral
POI types: amenity-fast_food
#organicmaps ios 2026.05.12-1-ios |
| 2 | 2026-05-16 10:08 | commented | kingkingHK | https://www.eatcdc.com/eng/main/terms.jsp?id=B2D0P2M0R0Y891E8L1D18188M4G0A802 agrees
(Also, you can just update the map yourself if you know about the situation.) |
| 3 | 2026-07-07 13:35 | commented | vectorial8192 | Remember that not every OSM member is an OSM mapper. Some are advocates (e.g. Google Maps hater), some others are just "friendly neighbours" that uses the gamified OSM mapping apps.
Though, from operations standpoint, if a guy can produce a lot of notes via OrganicMaps, then the guy probably should learn e.g. how to use iD to streamline the update... |
| 4 | 2026-07-07 13:42 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185260447 ; closing. |
| 5292909 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-15 05:36 | opened | Angus Lee | "Closed."
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: 2026-05-03T01:52:52Z
POI name: 薩莉亞 Saizeriya
POI types: cuisine-italian amenity-restaurant
#organicmaps ios 2026.05.12-1-ios |
| 2 | 2026-05-16 10:09 | commented | kingkingHK | https://www.saizeriya.com.hk/shop-info/?lang=en agrees |
| 3 | 2026-07-07 13:33 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185260079 ; closing. |
| 5152477 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-03 02:56 | opened | HenryEK | node 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 |
| 2 | 2026-02-23 10:46 | commented | kingkingHK | Don't know what it looked like originally, but indeed can't find any "railway models" here so this is believable. |
| 3 | 2026-02-23 23:14 | commented | HenryEK | it was like those minature railways that went around and around from what i remember years ago but now its just a flat surface much like a table with nothing on it
from what i found when i went like twenty days ago the area is locked behind a gate |
| 4 | 2026-07-07 13:31 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185260005 ; closing. |
| 5286451 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-10 15:26 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5286446 "EXXO" is not a known fuel company; did you mean "Esso"? |
| 2 | 2026-06-11 10:34 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, indeed this is an Esso. |
| 3 | 2026-07-07 13:21 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185259536 ; closing. |
| 5361744 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-26 05:36 | opened | Jon Wang | Messed up Border Label.
Make sure to be careful when updating. |
| 2 | 2026-06-26 07:22 | commented | kingkingHK | Are you trying to point out any issues in osm data? |
| 3 | 2026-06-30 13:06 | commented | vectorial8192 | Opening the map in this area reveals an unrendered, free-hanging point: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13895856702
The node seems to indicate a data error, where (based on the existing border areas) features are wrongly delegated to the HK OSM Group for maintenance.
As members of the HK OSM Group. we should review the relevant PRC docs and de... |
| 4 | 2026-06-30 13:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | Referenced by cross-border duplicate https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5361745 , which explains the border control situation in this area. |
| 5 | 2026-06-30 13:20 | commented | vectorial8192 | Special note:
Because Sha Tau Kok border crossing is being rebuilt, and I don't think any HK mapper here has STK Border Area permit, we will have to fully armchair this.
We should give this to Discord for discussion. |
| 6 | 2026-06-30 23:00 | commented | Jon Wang | some of the areas are only accessible from mainland side And there could be some trobule referencing/editing that,plus Not much mainland were contact with hk mapper on this issue.I think this worth a note anyway. |
| 7 | 2026-06-30 23:00 | commented | Jon Wang | i meant mainlander(i'm one of them)But you guys can get that idea. |
| 8 | 2026-07-01 08:59 | commented | vectorial8192 | Understandable. We use OSM notes to point out data problems. The OSM platform allows global communication, so CN-HK both sides can detect and know there is this data problem. |
| 9 | 2026-07-01 10:40 | commented | vectorial8192 | So far I can see the problem is that the legal boundaries and the actual lines-of-control seems to be different; some places are outside HK border control, suggesting CN direct control. |
| 10 | 2026-07-04 16:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | An effective international example is found: the River Moselle, running along Germany and Luxembourg, is a condominium of both. We can see that overlapping boundary relations is an acceptable mapping style. |
| 11 | 2026-07-07 11:46 | commented | vectorial8192 | Upon further review, this is actually not a condominium. For example, the Hong Kong government does not pay for the upkeep of the Sha Tau Kok neighbourhood east of the defined borders.
A more appropriate understanding of this border situation is "Schengen area with extra steps". While EU citizens may freely move between Schengen countries, this do... |
| 12 | 2026-07-07 13:16 | closed | vectorial8192 | Because both sides (CN and HK) require readily-available special travel documents to access the respective sides of the open-borders Sha Tau Kok / Shatoujiao neighbourhood, all relevant streets are given access=permit .
Note that HK Sha Tau Kok was previously closed off to the HK public (therefore should have been access=private ), but this policy... |
| 5294038 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-15 19:27 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1505900060 descriptive name |
| 2 | 2026-05-15 19:28 | commented | vectorial8192 | probable motivation https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5276301 |
| 3 | 2026-05-28 13:17 | commented | Jon Wang | could www.map.gov.hk provide a potential solution & description to the area nearby? It doesn't seem very precise and i just don't know how to deal with it |
| 4 | 2026-05-28 18:57 | commented | Kovoschiz | No https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question |
| 5 | 2026-05-29 08:18 | commented | Jon Wang | Fine,but i'll keep that name for reference only(since it's likely havin'a same name to the 岗下 parking area nearby yet i couldn't confirm it online so i'll assume it had an independent name as that anyways) |
| 6 | 2026-05-30 18:28 | commented | vectorial8192 | Outside of the copyright concerns, it's actually ok for car parks to have no names. Either it really doesn't have a name (rural informal parking area), or it really does have a name but that it's too unobvious (e.g. urban area "unnamed" parking area in unused land).
Alternatively, we could put the "name" into description, which may be more appropr... |
| 7 | 2026-05-31 06:49 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed. Further reading: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only |
| 8 | 2026-07-07 12:16 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185256327 ; closing. |
| 5374730 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 16:11 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 白沙湾炮台
|
| 2 | 2026-07-07 11:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | According to online info, this area is not open to public.
We may want to confirm this and then e.g. update the access tags. |
| 5374702 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 15:57 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第十三座 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:58 | closed | Kovoschiz |
osm.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 information not otherwise use... |
| 3 | 2026-07-07 11:54 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-07-07 11:55 | commented | vectorial8192 | Nah. We cannot find the "Block 13" in the map. This note is valid. |
| 5378014 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-06 09:07 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
street distortion |
| 2 | 2026-07-06 09:28 | commented | vectorial8192 | offender:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185172923 |
| 3 | 2026-07-06 19:32 | closed | Kovoschiz | Why don't you revert it then? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185216672 |
| 5327315 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-05 06:17 | opened | clsunny | 海下應在此位置，不應在啟才學校附近。 |
| 2 | 2026-07-04 16:58 | commented | vectorial8192 | Refers to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11009757918 |
| 3 | 2026-07-06 18:11 | commented | vectorial8192 | Makes sense. "isolated_dwelling" should be placed at houses, not at schools. |
| 4 | 2026-07-06 18:19 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185211089 ; closing. |
| 5375969 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 10:34 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 亚比安炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 11:58 | commented | HenryEK | isnt stonecutters albion already dismantled and built over? i know the other batteries are still present although ruined, but im pretty sure this one was demolished |
| 3 | 2026-07-05 18:26 | commented | vectorial8192 | I do not think we are supposed to touch or clarify the Chinese barracks inside HK. This would likely violate CN mapping or national security regulations. |
| 4 | 2026-07-06 04:37 | commented | HenryEK | this seems to just be part of a mass note creation related to hong kongs historical batteries, regardless of if they exist, or are already present on the map
for this particular note, im sure albion battery no longer exists, so it can simply be resolved without change
however the other stonecutters island batteries are indeed there, but due to wh... |
| 5377849 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-06 04:15 | opened | HenryEK | boundary point 12 (22°14’21.4’’ N 113°49’35.0’’ E) is missing
Order of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China No. 221
https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/A207!en.assist.pdf
page 6 - (2) southern sea section - 4
|
| 5374402 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 14:18 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 东龙洲炮台（佛堂门炮台） |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 20:01 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256863281
osm.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 discus... |
| 5374412 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 14:25 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 博加拉炮台 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 20:00 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1131047306
osm.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 disc... |
| 5374432 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 14:35 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 鹤咀炮台 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 20:00 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8657397296
osm.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 disc... |
| 5374459 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 14:51 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 歌连臣角炮台 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 20:00 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1093902109
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1093902109 |
| 5374481 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 15:00 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 新界西貢魔鬼山軍事設施（歌赋炮台） |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:59 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/175259688
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/175259688 |
| 3 | 2026-07-05 19:59 | reopened | Kovoschiz | |
| 4 | 2026-07-05 19:59 | closed | Kovoschiz |
osm.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 information not otherwise use... |
| 5375693 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 09:31 | opened | | 九龙寨城南门遗址（九龙寨城公园） |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:57 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263310044
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263310044 |
| 5375697 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 09:31 | opened | | 九龙寨城衙门（九龙寨城公园）
|
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:57 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18506822
osm.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 di... |
| 5376243 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 12:04 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 摩星岭炮台 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:56 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/321778499
osm.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 discus... |
| 5376352 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 13:12 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧三军司令官邸 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:54 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42255475 |
| 3 | 2026-07-05 19:55 | reopened | Kovoschiz | |
| 4 | 2026-07-05 19:55 | closed | Kovoschiz |
osm.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 information not otherwise use... |
| 5376424 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 13:20 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 卡素楼 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:54 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114282496
osm.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 discus... |
| 5376430 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 13:28 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 域多利军营罗年信楼 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:54 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114282497
osm.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 discus... |
| 5376427 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 13:26 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 域多利军营华褔楼 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:53 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114282541
osm.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 discus... |
| 5376433 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 13:29 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 域多利军营蒙高玛莉楼 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:53 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/815898761
osm.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 discus... |
| 5376435 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 13:31 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 域多利军营罗拔时楼 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:53 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/815898760
osm.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 discus... |
| 5376436 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 13:32 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 域多利军营军火库 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:52 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/863303779
osm.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 discus... |
| 5376501 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 14:03 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 鸭巴甸炮台（香港仔炮台、鸭脷洲炮台） |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:52 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1072971168
osm.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 discu... |
| 5376509 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 14:06 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 东涌炮台 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:51 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102127581
osm.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 discuss... |
| 5376512 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 14:08 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 东涌小炮台 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:51 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1167836696
osm.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 discu... |
| 5376517 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 14:10 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 分流炮台 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 19:50 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105234588 |
| 3 | 2026-07-05 19:50 | reopened | Kovoschiz | |
| 4 | 2026-07-05 19:50 | closed | Kovoschiz | osm.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 information not otherwise used... |
| 5374725 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 16:06 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第三座 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 18:53 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSM in general does not process historical map data; these data should be redirected to OpenHistoricalMap.
OSM 一般而言並不處理歷史地圖資料；這些資料應被轉移至 OpenHistoricalMap 。 |
| 3 | 2026-07-05 19:47 | reopened | Kovoschiz | |
| 4 | 2026-07-05 19:48 | closed | Kovoschiz | Already added `historic=fort` (which can be improved) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/557930264 |
| 5374564 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 15:31 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 鲤鱼门炮台 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 18:57 | closed | vectorial8192 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5040215422 ; closing. |
| 5374728 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 16:08 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第五座 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 18:53 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSM in general does not process historical map data; these data should be redirected to OpenHistoricalMap.
OSM 一般而言並不處理歷史地圖資料；這些資料應被轉移至 OpenHistoricalMap 。 |
| 5374717 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 16:02 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第十七座 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 18:53 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSM in general does not process historical map data; these data should be redirected to OpenHistoricalMap.
OSM 一般而言並不處理歷史地圖資料；這些資料應被轉移至 OpenHistoricalMap 。 |
| 5374691 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 15:49 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第十八座 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 18:53 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSM in general does not process historical map data; these data should be redirected to OpenHistoricalMap.
OSM 一般而言並不處理歷史地圖資料；這些資料應被轉移至 OpenHistoricalMap 。 |
| 5374695 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 15:53 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第二十座 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 18:53 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSM in general does not process historical map data; these data should be redirected to OpenHistoricalMap.
OSM 一般而言並不處理歷史地圖資料；這些資料應被轉移至 OpenHistoricalMap 。 |
| 5374701 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 15:55 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第二十一座 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 18:52 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSM in general does not process historical map data; these data should be redirected to OpenHistoricalMap.
OSM 一般而言並不處理歷史地圖資料；這些資料應被轉移至 OpenHistoricalMap 。 |
| 5374708 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 16:00 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第三十一座 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 18:52 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSM in general does not process historical map data; these data should be redirected to OpenHistoricalMap.
OSM 一般而言並不處理歷史地圖資料；這些資料應被轉移至 OpenHistoricalMap 。 |
| 5374712 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 16:01 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第三十二座 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 18:52 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSM in general does not process historical map data; these data should be redirected to OpenHistoricalMap.
OSM 一般而言並不處理歷史地圖資料；這些資料應被轉移至 OpenHistoricalMap 。 |
| 5374722 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 16:03 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第三十三座 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 18:52 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSM in general does not process historical map data; these data should be redirected to OpenHistoricalMap.
OSM 一般而言並不處理歷史地圖資料；這些資料應被轉移至 OpenHistoricalMap 。 |
| 5374724 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 16:05 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第三十四座 |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 18:52 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSM in general does not process historical map data; these data should be redirected to OpenHistoricalMap.
OSM 一般而言並不處理歷史地圖資料；這些資料應被轉移至 OpenHistoricalMap 。 |
| 5376252 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 12:10 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 松林炮台（龙虎山炮台） |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 12:15 | commented | HenryEK | already present - node/26412912 - although improvements can be done to it i guess |
| 5376154 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 11:44 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 昂船洲军营（驻香港部队展览中心） |
| 2 | 2026-07-05 12:06 | closed | HenryEK | fix - changeset/185131772
changed tag(s):name
before:
name = 驻香港部队展览中心
after
name = 駐香港部隊展覽中心 PLA Hong Kong Garrison Exhibition Centre name:zh-Hans = 驻香港部队展览中心
|
| 5376163 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 11:49 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 银禧炮台 |
| 5376017 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 11:13 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 昂船洲西炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 5376013 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 11:11 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 昂船洲南海岸炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 5376008 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 11:06 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 昂船洲中央炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 5375999 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 10:58 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 昂船洲东炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 5375990 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-05 10:52 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 百夫长炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 5357794 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-23 13:27 | opened | Angus Lee | 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: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z
POI has no name
POI types: amenity-restaurant
#organicmaps ios 2026.06.01-1-ios |
| 2 | 2026-07-04 17:48 | commented | vectorial8192 | Probably for "Angus Steak and Wine"
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9408983817 |
| 5374762 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 16:16 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 西湾棱堡及西湾山炮台 |
| 5374582 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 15:40 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第二十五座（军官食堂） |
| 5374577 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 15:38 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第十座（皇家炮兵团军官宿舍） |
| 5374569 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 15:35 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第七座（皇家炮兵团军官宿舍） |
| 5374455 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-04 14:50 | opened | Rosy-xzy | 歌连臣角炮台 |
| 2 | 2026-07-04 14:51 | closed | Rosy-xzy | |
| 5373666 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-03 21:44 | opened | KMB Zone4 | 承豐道
|
| 2 | 2026-07-04 10:36 | closed | Kovoschiz |
osm.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 information not otherwise us... |
| 5373663 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-03 21:40 | opened | KMB Zone4 | 承景街 |
| 2 | 2026-07-04 10:36 | closed | Kovoschiz |
osm.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 information not otherwise us... |
| 5373662 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-03 21:40 | opened | KMB Zone4 | 承景街 |
| 2 | 2026-07-04 10:36 | closed | Kovoschiz |
osm.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 information not otherwise us... |
| 5373659 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-03 21:38 | opened | KMB Zone4 | 承豐道 |
| 2 | 2026-07-04 10:36 | closed | Kovoschiz |
osm.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 information not otherwise us... |
| 5373656 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-03 21:36 | opened | KMB Zone4 | 鑽石山站 |
| 2 | 2026-07-04 10:36 | closed | Kovoschiz |
osm.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 information not otherwise us... |
| 5373655 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-03 21:35 | opened | KMB Zone4 | 大成街 |
| 2 | 2026-07-04 10:35 | closed | Kovoschiz |
osm.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 information not otherwise us... |
| 5373648 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-03 21:28 | opened | KMB Zone4 | 大有街 |
| 2 | 2026-07-04 10:35 | closed | Kovoschiz |
osm.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 information not otherwise us... |
| 5373639 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-03 21:21 | opened | KMB Zone4 | 打鼓嶺道 |
| 2 | 2026-07-04 10:35 | closed | Kovoschiz |
osm.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 information not otherwise us... |
| 5370720 (iD) | 1 | 2026-07-02 06:53 | opened | | Fame Limpid Design |
| 5366682 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-29 10:59 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
it seems this bus terminus is now open? |
| 2 | 2026-07-01 12:51 | commented | vectorial8192 | We do have this https://www.td.gov.hk/tc/traffic_notices/index_id_87349.html |
| 3 | 2026-07-01 12:56 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184907400 ; closing. |
| 5361745 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-26 05:39 | opened | Jon Wang | pedestrian walking zone without border control layers(!) for reference 'cause this place has a messy border structure like the West Bank no matter how you check it from both sides.multi-polygon label shall be kept if no significant construction 's occurred |
| 2 | 2026-06-26 07:22 | commented | kingkingHK | Are you trying to point out any issues in osm data? |
| 3 | 2026-06-30 12:48 | commented | vectorial8192 | West Bank? Jordan River and Israel?????
From what I can understand, Sha Tau Kok actually has "open border" policy where approved HK persons may freely move between the HK and the CN side, for neighbourhood cohesion. However this is limited to HK persons that already have the Border Permit, so a random guy from Mong Kok will likely fail to move thr... |
| 4 | 2026-06-30 13:12 | closed | vectorial8192 | Upon further review, this is a cross-border duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5361744 .
This hints towards a HK-side data problem. As such, I am crossing the line to close this note in favor of the HK-side note, which has a more practical explanation of the situation. |
| 5368150 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-30 12:30 | opened | Angus Lee | 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: 2026-06-24T00:53:17Z
POI name: Le Petit Prince
POI types: amenity-restaurant
#organicmaps ios 2026.06.24-17-ios |
| 5366484 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-29 09:17 | opened | polodo | Fix position
via StreetComplete 63.1 |
| 2 | 2026-06-29 10:37 | closed | polodo | |
| 5366383 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-29 08:02 | opened | Angus Lee | 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: 2026-06-24T00:53:17Z
POI name: 粵廚點心專門店 Canton's Kitchen Dim Sum Exper
POI types: amenity-restaurant
#organicmaps ios 2026.06.24-17-ios |
| 5360199 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-25 05:35 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: road closure on 28 June |
| 2 | 2026-06-27 19:16 | commented | vectorial8192 | Armchair time. We will start by marking the affected roads as "unusable" since these are still observable on the ground. Then, when the time comes, we can mark them as "demolished". |
| 3 | 2026-06-27 19:20 | commented | vectorial8192 | Desync. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184704033 |
| 4 | 2026-06-28 06:09 | commented | kingkingHK | Then, the next step would be to migrate the bus relations. We may survey this to really take a deeper look into the situation to improve the mapping, but it might not be the most important, as per "OSM is not a worksite management software". |
| 5 | 2026-06-28 10:39 | commented | kingkingHK | Someone did something: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184731579 |
| 5129081 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 14:36 | opened | kingkingHK | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/889581234 construction probably finished, according to aerial imagery. |
| 2 | 2026-02-23 10:47 | commented | kingkingHK | Construction finished, but somehow I couldn't find the entrance irl. |
| 3 | 2026-06-27 11:27 | commented | vectorial8192 | Not sure which side you went, but aerial imagery suggests the opening could be at "22.438334,114.182104". It does not seem likely for the site to have an entrance next to the CLP site. |
| 4 | 2026-06-27 11:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | However, per https://www.landsd.gov.hk/doc/tc/consent/monthly/t2c_2405.pdf , the provisional address does hint towards the entrance being next to the CLP site, contrary to what aerial imagery would suggest. |
| 5 | 2026-06-27 11:51 | commented | kingkingHK | If I remember correctly I went near your coordinates, but failed to find any entrances. Although maybe I just missed it. |
| 5357832 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-23 14:04 | opened | vectorial8192 | concern:
from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180536189 , re https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1493588817
Is this path actually usable?
@kingkingHK states they could verify the path was reachable from Lung Cheong Road, but only verified for halfway length. We should verify that the lower half is reachable from Beacon Hill Road, and there... |
| 2 | 2026-06-25 00:20 | commented | HenryEK | was here a few months ago (around march)
its just a slope maintanence stairway. gate is closed at the top. never used it. i assumed i would be tresspassing |
| 3 | 2026-06-25 00:22 | commented | HenryEK | that was from lung cheung road though, never seen if it actually leads down to bhr |
| 4 | 2026-06-25 18:57 | commented | vectorial8192 | Slop maintenance would be immediately access=private and then case closed. Still, we can see what is going on at the lower side. |
| 5 | 2026-06-26 12:05 | commented | kingkingHK | Actually I think we should check the laws for slope maintenance paths first. I don't know if there are laws specifically prohibiting unauthorised access to slope maintenance paths, but if not it feels very wrong to apply `access=private`, especially as the gates of some are rarely locked, or simply useless (e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/laapsaaptun... |
| 6 | 2026-06-26 16:13 | commented | HenryEK | theres one path i know about (way/602397676) that is for slope maintanence but the gate is tied open and a lot of people including myself use |
| 7 | 2026-06-27 09:09 | commented | vectorial8192 | While I cannot immediately provide examples, some slope maintenance paths are green signposted as roughly "no unauthorized entry", which means instant access=private and case closed, which doesn't care about whether the gates are physically open or not.
It is unclear whether this case is one of them. |
| 5362130 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-26 11:18 | opened | Angus Lee | 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: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z
POI name: Jabbok Piano Co.
POI types: shop-musical_instrument
#organicmaps ios 2026.06.01-1-ios |
| 5304280 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-22 10:46 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
why suddenly highway=secondary ? seems can be just highway=tertiary all the way through. |
| 2 | 2026-05-22 10:53 | commented | kingkingHK | Connaught Road W -> QRW? |
| 3 | 2026-05-25 10:48 | commented | vectorial8192 | If say this, then I presume is actually Route 3 -> Queens Road.
Mapillary is difficult to click in this area, but it seems Whitty Street is just a generic internal road and might be highway=unclassified instead. Also/Then, consider "[...] -> Western Street -> Queens Road", which seems to be planning-intended path.
No matter what happens, having a... |
| 4 | 2026-05-25 11:21 | commented | kingkingHK | What does mapillary have to do with this? Highway classification is functional, not physical.
Don't understand why you mentioned Western Street, when it doesn't even connect to Route 3.
This is also clearly not free-standing or violating highway continuity rule. The highway continuity rule only says highway classification shouldn't change without... |
| 5 | 2026-05-30 08:46 | commented | kingkingHK | If no further discussion after a week or two I will close this note. |
| 6 | 2026-05-30 11:15 | commented | Kovoschiz | Western St: `=secondary` (incidentally)
Whitty St: `=tertiary`
What's the problem?
And for leaving, Hill Rd is `=tertiary` , while there's Water St `=secondary` |
| 7 | 2026-05-31 10:57 | commented | vectorial8192 | To refocus the discussion, the core concern is: this section of Des Voeux Road West somehow got highway=secondary , which seems like a mistake, or somehow doesn't fit OSM Global standards.
Either I missed something, or this is a real mistake. Disregarding my doubts on the "functional only" doctrine, it seems no problem if we demote this section (b... |
| 8 | 2026-05-31 16:12 | commented | kingkingHK | "two tertiary roads join together to become secondary" is not necessarily true, but can act as a rule of thumb. |
| 9 | 2026-05-31 19:55 | commented | Kovoschiz | The 2 `=tertiary` have different functionalities. DVRW westbound is a roadway across the part of an area. Whitty St is connecting QRW. |
| 10 | 2026-06-23 08:45 | commented | kingkingHK | Question answered with no more activity; propose closing. |
| 11 | 2026-06-23 15:57 | commented | vectorial8192 | I intend to survey this a bit (Mapillary is difficult to click). Granted, I haven't done HKI notes for a long while so I may not immediately do this. |
| 12 | 2026-06-23 19:18 | commented | Kovoschiz | What needs to be checked? |
| 13 | 2026-06-24 15:41 | commented | kingkingHK | Echoing @Kovoschiz; what point can you not make without a survey? |
| 14 | 2026-06-25 17:59 | commented | vectorial8192 | Whitty Street seems too generic to be highway=tertiary , but Mapillary imagery is incomplete. |
| 15 | 2026-06-25 18:26 | commented | Kovoschiz | What is "generic"? |
| 16 | 2026-06-25 19:10 | commented | vectorial8192 | A better word is "unremarkable". Maybe I should just check the street by myself, seeing that I can't justify the case well.
We did have an answer for "why we have tertiary roads here", but the core issue "why we have a single segment of secondary road here" remains unresolved. To me, ignoring the situation at Whitty Street, it seems the secondary ... |
| 5300387 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-19 18:14 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
physical separation / traffic island
-------------
While we are here, an experimental junction tagging method may be considered. The proposed method involves drawing two oneway=alternating ways to form a triangular junction area, with appropriate turn restrictions. This preserves junction topology while maintaining reasonable GPS accuracy ... |
| 2 | 2026-05-20 12:16 | commented | kingkingHK | Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by your experimental tagging method. Can you discuss this on e.g. Discord first? |
| 3 | 2026-06-17 12:45 | commented | kingkingHK | As a heads-up, if you don't clarify what your experiment tagging is by the time I/we resolves all actionable notes (could be in a month or two at the quickest), I will just map this junction the normal way and resolves this note.
You say you have 10+ pending discussions and that you have to do it one by one to prevent overload, but seeing you have... |
| 4 | 2026-06-23 12:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | Don't worry, I will just force-revive this when that happens. |
| 5 | 2026-06-23 12:58 | commented | vectorial8192 | Beyond this specific note, given that new notes are submitted at random interval, it may not be reasonable to expect that we can achieve "all notes are closed" situation. |
| 6 | 2026-06-23 19:17 | commented | Kovoschiz | 97% closed should be top among cities. Germany is 95%. |
| 7 | 2026-06-25 18:14 | commented | vectorial8192 | We are probably looking at the neis-one statistics. For fair comparison we should be looking at city-states (or equivalent), which I can list as Macau, Singapore, Gibraltar, and Liechtenstein; we should not be looking at "full countries", though the German 95% is very impressive.
As of writing, LI 98%, HK 97%, SG 89%, MO 87%, GI 80%. LI has best "... |
| 5323246 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-02 14:59 | opened | vectorial8192 | concern:
What does the e.g. land deed say about the access rights/conditions of O King Road? Why not make it highway=tertiary for giving access to Tiu Keng Leng? |
| 2 | 2026-06-02 15:00 | commented | vectorial8192 | (Note: looking up land deed etc does not seem trivial, and should be tracked as longer-term discussion.) |
| 3 | 2026-06-02 15:47 | commented | kingkingHK | Not too sure about the land deed stuff, but iirc non-residents of Ocean Shores are not allowed to use https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/914594331 , making O King Road a dead-end. |
| 4 | 2026-06-02 15:48 | commented | kingkingHK | A very simple proof is that if O King Road can be used as a through-road, then the traffic levels obviously won't be so low. |
| 5 | 2026-06-02 17:31 | commented | vectorial8192 | The tricky part is that, because O King Road is the first car-usable road into TKO, I feel like the land deed etc should have something which grants some limited public access to it. Or that the guys at Ocean Shores has to pay for road upkeep, or sth. Details are unclear.
It interacts with the hypothetical Yau Tong - Tiu Keng Leng tunnel project. ... |
| 6 | 2026-06-02 19:03 | commented | Kovoschiz | You didn't respond to the question. Regardless of how's O King Rd, vehicles aren't allowed between it and Chui Ling Rd, making it a cul-de-sac.
At most `=residential` in general, might be `=unclassified` |
| 7 | 2026-06-23 08:45 | commented | kingkingHK | Question answered with no more activity; propose closing. |
| 8 | 2026-06-23 15:59 | commented | vectorial8192 | Me neutral. The key is the status of the "private road" section, but that could be reviewed as some sort of private interest study. |
| 9 | 2026-06-24 05:31 | closed | kingkingHK | At least, `highway=tertiary` is clearly wrong. Other reviewing/discussion is then unrelated to this note, and you may open another note if you notice a separate issue.
Closing. |
| 5339859 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-11 16:29 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/659032301
dead sources, irl mismatch (Dedicated Rehousing Estate); what's going on here? |
| 2 | 2026-06-23 14:18 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, they are really building a dedicated rehousing estate here. I mean, on Esri imagery, we can see the foundations. |
| 3 | 2026-06-23 16:17 | commented | vectorial8192 | OK, upon review, my big eyes have missed the following:
https://www.hkhs.com/tc/our-business/dedicated-rehousing-estates
> 其他項目則位於土瓜灣馬頭角及市區寮屋區，目前正在規劃中。 |
| 4 | 2026-06-23 16:25 | closed | vectorial8192 | My apologies for the false alarm.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184479435 ; closing. |
| 5346712 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-16 01:16 | opened | crossrowlatebrain | "duplicate"
OSM snapshot date: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z
POI name: N1 Coffee and Co.
POI types: amenity-cafe
#organicmaps android 2026.05.27-11-FDroid |
| 2 | 2026-06-21 16:48 | commented | vectorial8192 | Basically, duplicate between nodes https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3771427619 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5182609990 . @crossrowlatebrain can you confirm whether the cafe is streetside or internal? |
| 3 | 2026-06-22 08:57 | commented | kingkingHK | @vectorial8192 It doesn't really matter. Geometry doesn't need to be exact if the address tags are correct.
<rant>What's the deal with mobile editors and low-quality changesets???</rant> |
| 4 | 2026-06-23 08:46 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, it's streetside. |
| 5 | 2026-06-23 16:07 | commented | vectorial8192 | I was about to say, the positioning of the feature can help with navigation ("should I enter through this mall door?"), but I see you have already surveyed this. |
| 6 | 2026-06-23 16:12 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184478978 ; closing. |
| 5325931 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-04 10:46 | opened | | open time: daily 830 am to 5 pm
#OsmAnd |
| 2 | 2026-06-23 05:31 | commented | kingkingHK | https://www.tszwankok.org.hk/contact-us agrees |
| 3 | 2026-06-23 15:51 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184478126 ; closing. |
| 5035617 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-03 04:37 | opened | kingkingHK | Does 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? |
| 2 | 2025-11-04 07:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | Could 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). |
| 3 | 2025-11-04 11:22 | commented | kingkingHK | Could 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. |
| 4 | 2025-11-08 08:04 | commented | vectorial8192 | To 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. |
| 5 | 2025-11-08 09:38 | closed | kingkingHK | Well, that sounds believable.
Then, situation clarified via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174362311 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174363905 ; closing. |
| 6 | 2026-01-17 06:46 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 7 | 2026-01-17 06:47 | commented | kingkingHK | I recently heard that this traffic signal is disused/malfunctioning with no plans of repair. This might be `disused:highway=traffic_signals`. Survey recommended. |
| 8 | 2026-06-23 14:40 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184475322 ; closing. |
| 5357793 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-23 13:27 | opened | Angus Lee | 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: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z
POI name: Fu Wing Property Agency
POI types: office-estate_agent
#organicmaps ios 2026.06.01-1-ios |
| 5356624 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-22 17:45 | opened | Angus Lee | 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: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z
POI name: 萬寧 Mannings
POI types: shop-chemist amenity-pharmacy
#organicmaps ios 2026.06.01-1-ios |
| 5356623 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-22 17:45 | opened | Angus Lee | 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: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z
POI name: 屈臣氏 Watsons
POI types: shop-chemist amenity-pharmacy
#organicmaps ios 2026.06.01-1-ios |
| 5346713 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-16 01:16 | opened | crossrowlatebrain | "Duplicate"
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: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z
POI name: N1 Coffee and Co.
POI types: amenity-cafe
#organicmaps android 2026.05.27-11-FDroid |
| 2 | 2026-06-16 05:26 | closed | kingkingHK | Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5346713
Duplicate note complaining about duplicate data. Ironic. |
| 3 | 2026-06-16 05:34 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-06-16 05:34 | closed | kingkingHK | Correction: dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5346712 |
| 5 | 2026-06-21 16:56 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 6 | 2026-06-21 16:57 | closed | vectorial8192 | Minor comment:
Bad network connectivity can cause innocent resends and duplicates. |
| 7 | 2026-06-22 08:52 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 8 | 2026-06-22 08:53 | closed | kingkingHK | Correct in principle (I have known this since https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5286293 ), but for this specific case I find it unlikely to be a network problem as the note text is different. |
| 5351891 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-19 19:12 | opened | vectorial8192 | concern:
messy hotels (nodes) |
| 2 | 2026-06-21 16:55 | commented | vectorial8192 | The concern is primarily on the 3 nodes:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13138061902
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5301835321
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13138066901
Online info suggests that there is one "Kingland Apartments" building which then contains several guesthouses, much like how Chungking Mansions etc work.
This "King... |
| 3 | 2026-06-21 17:15 | commented | vectorial8192 | Note that Chungking Mansions https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39315991 is currently tagged as:
- commercial landuse
- retail building
- apartment-style residences |
| 5346741 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-16 01:34 | opened | crossrowlatebrain | "Duplicate"
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: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z
POI has no name
POI types: amenity-cafe
#organicmaps android 2026.05.27-11-FDroid |
| 2 | 2026-06-21 16:50 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184393498 ; closing. |
| 5348355 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-17 05:19 | opened | byhg | This place does not exist:
"Sorry, I made a mistake in editing"
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: 2026-03-21T17:13:14Z
POI name: 皇后街
POI types: highway-bus_stop
#CoMaps android 2026.03.23-5 |
| 2 | 2026-06-17 05:19 | closed | byhg | |
| 3 | 2026-06-21 16:35 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-06-21 16:37 | commented | vectorial8192 | "Resolve" means the issue (described by the map note) is fixed. Perhaps you clicked the wrong button. In terms of OSM website, the note will just disappear some time later and then we will not notice this issue unless we scan for map notes. |
| 5 | 2026-06-21 16:45 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184393265 ; closing. |
| 5351130 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-19 08:29 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
Shell does not have a location here; new operator? |
| 2 | 2026-06-21 15:21 | commented | vectorial8192 | By survey, disused and boarded up. |
| 3 | 2026-06-21 15:25 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184390032 ; closing. |
| 5351135 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-19 08:31 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
clarify fuel |
| 2 | 2026-06-21 14:19 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184387602 ; closing. |
| 5286443 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-10 15:22 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4851750173
extremely unlikely petrol station |
| 2 | 2026-05-10 21:31 | commented | Kovoschiz | Obvious Lying to Validator https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4851750173/history |
| 3 | 2026-05-12 11:57 | commented | vectorial8192 | From https://www.shell.com.hk/en_hk/motorists/shell-station-locator.html we can see there is a legit fuel station down the block. A theory for this is that someone placed the right node at the wrong place (a shop in the fuel station?), and then other people blind-trusted the validator. |
| 4 | 2026-05-12 19:49 | commented | Kovoschiz | No, there was a bottled gas `shop=` https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=779127392786721
https://www.hongkongssa.com/index.php/Home/Index/CharacteristicMerchant.html https://www.eeb.gov.hk/food/download/committees/fcab/c_SW0150_SW0152.pdf
They moved to inner street (map not updated) https://dsg-energy.com/cylinder-shell-gas/ |
| 5 | 2026-06-21 13:46 | commented | vectorial8192 | By survey, the "outer side" is now all generic shops.
In OSM we trust; very believable the (new) fuel shop is at the "inner side" now. Perhaps the Shell gas sales agreement expired so the underlying seller had to start a new shop. |
| 6 | 2026-06-21 14:05 | commented | vectorial8192 | Granted, I made the mistake of not checking the inner street, but in the grand scheme of things, having a correct feature at the approx position is better than having a wrong feature. |
| 7 | 2026-06-21 14:07 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184387156 ; closing. |
| 5352458 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-20 05:15 | opened | | 邓氏宗祠 |
| 2 | 2026-06-20 05:16 | closed | vectorial8192 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114392703 ; closing. |
| 3 | 2026-06-20 14:58 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-06-20 14:58 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSM by default uses OSMCarto for basic map rendering, which may sometimes cause "missing names" due to lack of map space.
Explore the large and diverse OSM ecosystem to find a specialized app/website that can render names appropriately.
OSM 預設使用 OSMCarto 作基本展示用途，這有時候會因為地圖位置不足而出現「沒有名�... |
| 5 | 2026-06-20 19:50 | reopened | Kovoschiz | |
| 6 | 2026-06-20 19:53 | closed | Kovoschiz | Please try other raster tilesets eg with higher zoom, if not different labeling engine, or using monolingual `name:*=` only https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/22.445092/114.009156&layers=PN
Or vector https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/22.445092/114.009156&layers=VN |
| 5351705 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-19 16:44 | opened | worldforhome | Vu |
| 2 | 2026-06-20 05:35 | closed | kingkingHK | Meaning is unclear; closing. |
| 1385516 (iD) | 1 | 2018-05-07 10:15 | opened | | King Nga Court Playground |
| 2 | 2024-03-13 11:00 | closed | Cypp0847 | Location should be at 22.44032,114.16609 and marked already, resolved |
| 3 | 2026-02-01 12:48 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-02-01 12:49 | commented | kingkingHK | The 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. |
| 5 | 2026-02-01 14:53 | commented | vectorial8192 | Seeing 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. |
| 6 | 2026-02-01 15:09 | commented | kingkingHK | I doubt it is walled with `access=private`; "gated communities" are rare in Hong Kong other than a few posh low-density estates. |
| 7 | 2026-02-01 15:32 | commented | vectorial8192 | Newer HOS estates (e.g. this) are not posh but are walled off and access=private . Try it yourself. |
| 8 | 2026-02-02 04:59 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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". |
| 9 | 2026-02-05 09:18 | commented | vectorial8192 | This 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. |
| 10 | 2026-02-05 15:13 | commented | kingkingHK | Anyhow, this location is easy to get to. I see no reason to not survey this to make sure. |
| 11 | 2026-02-22 05:46 | commented | kingkingHK | Someone seems to be implying King Nga Court has no gates:
https://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=2268280&pid=5395094 |
| 12 | 2026-03-20 12:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | By survey, as it turns out, King Nga Court is actually semi-open. Still, newer HOS Estates are indeed walled.
There is indeed an unnamed park at this location, but of course it would have access=private here.
Given the remote location of the park, are there any public interest in mapping this? |
| 13 | 2026-03-20 13:32 | commented | kingkingHK | I don't understand. What is "semi-open"? If it is open, how is it `access=private`? And how is an urban estate "remote"? Also, osm doesn't have a notability requirement, why can't one map it if one has the data? |
| 14 | 2026-03-20 15:14 | commented | vectorial8192 | I invented this term "semi-open" to describe a place that is physically open (as in you can find a way in without crossing barriers etc), but have obvious indications that the place is `access=private`. This is different from `access=permissive` because fundamentally a semi-open place is not for the general public.
In this case the playground is s... |
| 15 | 2026-03-21 05:19 | commented | kingkingHK | > A concern is the possible wrong signal to the general public that the park is open for general public.
Then tag it as `access=private`? If data consumers can't comprehend such a basic tag then it's their fault.
OSM runs on verifiability; if the feature can be viewed from a public space then I see no problem in mapping it, even if not visible fr... |
| 16 | 2026-03-21 07:43 | commented | vectorial8192 | `access=permissive` requires "is open for general public use" (OSM Wiki) but this Estate is obviously not for general public use, and is "residents only", so it doesn't satisfy "for general public use". (I call this "semi-open".)
My understanding of example of "permissive" are the many universities in HK where it's indeed for general public use, b... |
| 17 | 2026-03-21 12:08 | commented | Kovoschiz | `access=` is only about whether you can use it legally, not physically. `=permissive` is publicly allowed/tolerated now, but no enshrined rights guaranteed.
@vectorial8192 Carto renders at least some icons semi-transparently with different `access=` |
| 18 | 2026-03-21 12:39 | commented | kingkingHK | Without physical gates or guards, it is impossible to tell a visitor from a resident, so a visitor can't be kicked out unless a guard confronts him and finds out that he is a visitor, which satisfies `=permissive`.
Don't tag (or not tag) for the renderer; make a PR if you want renderers to show `access=private` differently. |
| 19 | 2026-05-23 14:38 | commented | kingkingHK | If no further comments I will map the playground and tag it as `access=permissive`. |
| 20 | 2026-05-25 12:03 | commented | vectorial8192 | I am leaning towards access=private ("semi-open") but other than this point, I have no more effective comment. |
| 21 | 2026-05-25 13:26 | commented | kingkingHK | I have gave my points for making it `access=permissive`, if you have no more comments to justify `access=private` then I will keep it as `access=permissive.` |
| 22 | 2026-05-30 13:00 | commented | vectorial8192 | Lack of enforcement doesn't mean absence of rules. Your point of access=permissive is ultimately not convincing and possibly unfounded.
I once again reiterate with the Wiki page for access=private , that the park is *not* for general public use. Features need not be physically barricaded to be access=private , such as in this case. The guards bein... |
| 23 | 2026-05-30 13:13 | commented | kingkingHK | Well consider this: private roads with no guards and gates is `access=permissive` (e.g. Cityone Shatin); how is this different? |
| 24 | 2026-05-31 11:18 | commented | vectorial8192 | As I have found out by I think it was @Kovoschiz , examples like Cityone Shatin with "signposted private road" are actually ownership=private , and has nothing to do with access rights. Then, afaik Cityone Shatin doesn't really signpost about who may use those roads, which therefore finally gives it access=permissive . The "private road" sign itsel... |
| 25 | 2026-05-31 11:24 | commented | vectorial8192 | Discord may or may not elaborate deeply what means by "signposted private road" but the quick takeaway is that, this is simply an act of "delegation" by Transport Department to delegate maintenance responsibilities to a private entity rather than the next-door Highways Department. |
| 26 | 2026-06-18 10:57 | closed | kingkingHK | After rethinking, I now agree that this should be `access=private`.
Resolved viahttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184260921 ; closing. |
| 5347303 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-16 13:40 | opened | HenryEK | pitch no longer exists, is only a construction site holding jacking pipes |
| 2 | 2026-06-16 13:59 | closed | kingkingHK | Yes that's exactly what current osm data shows, even though we may improve the name. |
| 5249442 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-14 10:16 | opened | | Shipyard |
| 2 | 2026-06-16 10:32 | closed | AlfieWong314 | |
| 3 | 2026-06-16 10:33 | reopened | AlfieWong314 | |
| 4 | 2026-06-16 10:34 | closed | AlfieWong314 | |
| 5 | 2026-06-16 10:50 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 6 | 2026-06-16 10:50 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5345765 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-15 10:01 | opened | Timmy Wong HK | CE19-NTP10
|
| 2 | 2026-06-15 11:03 | closed | Timmy Wong HK | |
| 5345762 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-15 10:00 | opened | Timmy Wong HK | CE19-NTP09
|
| 2 | 2026-06-15 10:02 | closed | Timmy Wong HK | |
| 5264909 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-25 07:04 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
Foot path(s) cutting into a construction area? |
| 2 | 2026-04-26 11:45 | commented | kingkingHK | I guess simply a case of mapper mapping new stuff without caring about the existing features. By survey, yeah some construction work going on here, the entire park has been demolished besides a few trees. |
| 3 | 2026-04-26 13:34 | commented | vectorial8192 | The original plan was to armchair this by searching whether there are any publicly announced construction works for this address, and then clarify the area; but OK with the survey. |
| 4 | 2026-05-21 12:49 | commented | vectorial8192 | Upon closer look, not enough information. How does this intersect with the parking area on the south side? |
| 5 | 2026-06-14 11:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | By survey, the polygon is just misleading. |
| 6 | 2026-06-14 11:57 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184091140 ; closing. |
| 5344188 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-14 09:10 | opened | | 沙田新城市 |
| 2 | 2026-06-14 09:46 | closed | kingkingHK | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes
> For example never create notes such as "I was here on Saturday" or "There was a crime at this location".
> 例如，千萬不要創建諸如“我星期六來過這裡”或“這裡發生過犯罪事件”之類的筆記。
To share an OSM location, please see: 如需分享一個OSM的位置，請參�... |
| 4607075 (iD) | 1 | 2025-01-30 05:16 | opened | | Sewage Treatment Plant |
| 2 | 2025-04-07 14:49 | closed | vectorial8192 | There are no evidence supporting this claim.
Closing. |
| 3 | 2026-06-12 09:45 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-06-12 09:46 | commented | kingkingHK | Government maps label this area as a sewage treatment plant. Aerial imagery also looks like one. We may survey this to try to see if there any signs/names, or just make a changeset if we trust the aerial imagery. |
| 5 | 2026-06-12 15:17 | commented | vectorial8192 | There is no evidence to support this claim, unless you are saying this site is managed by AA, which means the site is not publicly known and it may be reasonable to omit this. |
| 6 | 2026-06-13 04:07 | commented | kingkingHK | If hypothetically there is a sign there saying it is a sewage treatment plant, would that be enough evidence? And if the sign can be found with a survey, why shouldn't we keep this note open to track progress? |
| 7 | 2026-06-13 09:12 | commented | Kovoschiz | @vectorial8192
1. Evidence can be found for it
2. It had `name=` as something else (which I simply changed to `description=` and correct attributes)
3. The road is publicly accessible |
| 8 | 2026-06-13 10:17 | commented | vectorial8192 | It's very rare to have absolutely no remotely-related online info for this feature.
Unsubscribing. |
| 9 | 2026-06-13 11:06 | commented | kingkingHK | Exactly, because there's no online info, so this is not armchairrable, so I reopened the note. |
| 10 | 2026-06-13 11:08 | commented | kingkingHK | And, whatever this plot of land is, it's so tiny I would not expect any online info. |
| 11 | 2026-06-14 07:36 | commented | Kovoschiz | https://www.hongkongairport.com/en/sustainability/environment/water.page https://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/en/article/31251/hong-kong-airports-triple-water-system |
| 5342638 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-13 14:10 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
KMB 41M:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14193642
Validator warning: route scheme is unspecified; clarify "public_transport:version" |
| 2 | 2026-06-14 07:22 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184082286 ; closing. |
| 5034355 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:18 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-01-29 08:57 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. |
| 3 | 2026-06-13 11:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | We do have an FMC here, plus some other stuff. |
| 4 | 2026-06-13 12:01 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184053278 ; closing. |
| 5034356 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:19 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?) |
| 2 | 2026-01-29 08:57 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. |
| 3 | 2026-06-13 11:03 | commented | vectorial8192 | We do have an FMC here, plus some other stuff.
There are 3 blocks here (A, B, C). Focusing on the FMC, we will just fill in the facilities located at the same block as the FMC. Other features can just be mapped in the general stream. |
| 4 | 2026-06-13 11:51 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184052937 ; closing. |
| 5341908 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-13 03:32 | opened | Angus Lee | "Wrong location. It’s on opposite street."
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: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z
POI has no name
POI types: tourism-hotel
#organicmaps ios 2026.06.01-1-ios |
| 2 | 2026-06-13 07:34 | commented | vectorial8192 | name:en=Bridal Tea House Hotel
There are multiple items right here... |
| 3 | 2026-06-13 07:44 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184044550 ; closing. |
| 3154260 (iD) | 1 | 2022-04-27 08:26 | opened | | A 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. |
| 2 | 2024-02-13 09:29 | commented | vectorial8192 | Data (area) exists, but due to tree cover, if want to draw building outline, then need a site visit. |
| 3 | 2025-01-15 10:14 | closed | Cypp0847 | This is not exactly a building but an open area. Closing https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161374422 |
| 4 | 2026-02-01 12:34 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 5 | 2026-02-01 12:34 | commented | kingkingHK | Government maps say "Wo Hop Shek Columbarium Phase II & Phase IV" is a building, not an open area. Survey needed. |
| 6 | 2026-02-12 06:46 | commented | vectorial8192 | iirc this is a named area ("columbarium") with several unnamed small "mini-columbarium" buildings. |
| 7 | 2026-06-11 08:35 | commented | kingkingHK | Ok, indeed what @vectorial8192 said was correct. I will need to think of a way to map this correctly. |
| 8 | 2026-06-12 11:39 | commented | Kovoschiz | I used `amenity=columbarium` for sites, and `man_made=tomb` + `tomb=columbarium` + `building=roof` for the structures. `cemetery=sector` on its own will be thought as graves, and it may be used for rows/groups/sections inside each structure. |
| 9 | 2026-06-12 11:41 | commented | Kovoschiz | Sites meaning eg "Wo Hop Shek Columbarium". The phases should be something else. Or it depends on whether they are different facilities.
The other problem is whether the 2 phases are different. If yes, they should be separated. |
| 4957095 (iD) | 1 | 2025-09-11 11:40 | opened | vectorial8192 | By 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... |
| 2 | 2025-12-06 12:39 | commented | kingkingHK | Sorry 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"? |
| 3 | 2025-12-06 14:20 | commented | vectorial8192 | So 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 ... |
| 4 | 2025-12-06 14:22 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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. |
| 5 | 2025-12-07 09:27 | commented | kingkingHK | Disclaimer: 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... |
| 6 | 2025-12-07 09:36 | commented | kingkingHK | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175614946 |
| 7 | 2025-12-07 10:32 | commented | vectorial8192 | Not 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... |
| 8 | 2026-05-23 12:40 | commented | kingkingHK | I think we can map the relations if we can somehow identify a more commonly used route/main route. |
| 9 | 2026-05-23 12:41 | commented | kingkingHK | Cf. island platform termini with reversing tracks before the station |
| 10 | 2026-05-25 10:11 | commented | vectorial8192 | The rails were updated some time after my edits. I have a feeling the immediate sections outside of the x-rail is wrong, but that's way too long ago I cannot compare it from memory.
What I can claim as "from memory" is that (from TKO) the train "switches to right side lane" without using any railway switch (ie the rails are curving like a proper x... |
| 11 | 2026-05-25 10:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | Anyway, it does hint towards a possible fact that LOHAS Park station rails are not built in the "usual" symmetric way. We should (re)survey this. |
| 12 | 2026-05-29 10:06 | commented | kingkingHK | Support a resurvey, but probably wait until we figure out how to properly measure railway curves (see e.g. Tuen Ma Line Hin Keng <-> Diamond Hill remeasurement; have you forgotten about that?) |
| 13 | 2026-05-30 17:00 | commented | vectorial8192 | I still remember the Tuen Ma Line thingy, though admittedly with these many stuff going on (both on OSM and irl), that one simply doesn't "float back up" the task queue.
For railway curves we can once again give to the ol-reliable Discord. |
| 14 | 2026-05-31 14:21 | commented | kingkingHK | Re too many stuff, understandable. I am certainly not immune from it either.
But not sure what you mean by "ol-reliable Discord". What does giving to Discord do, when the OSM HK Discord server is largely just an echo chamber of me, you, and Kovoschiz? |
| 15 | 2026-05-31 16:12 | commented | vectorial8192 | Discord is great for in-depth exploration e.g. images and long message chains and topic organization, which unfortunately OSM website / wiki is not too good at. I have general reservations against Discord ("closed web") but I have no effective alternative proposals. One mitigation would be we debate it to the very base level very intensely at Disco... |
| 16 | 2026-05-31 18:01 | commented | Kovoschiz | A Discourse forum category requires 3 moderators. That doesn't make sense if all 3 are the main active members. It doesn't have a chat for short questions either. |
| 17 | 2026-05-31 18:08 | commented | Kovoschiz | It's possible to regularly make public Discord content, and Matrix should be possible, but can't see whether threads and posts are supported. May not be the best either. https://yui-kitamura.github.io/Discord2Html/index.html |
| 18 | 2026-05-31 18:28 | commented | Kovoschiz | In terms of FOSS: Matrix somewhat works (but no threads and posts) |
| 19 | 2026-06-02 14:03 | commented | vectorial8192 | I worded it poorly. Matrix is well-meaning but still "closed web". What I care is that e.g. Google Search can see our discussions and conclusions, for efficient info dissemination.
Again, the mitigation / workaround is to discuss intensely at Discord, and then expand the HK OSM wiki page(s) with summaries. |
| 20 | 2026-06-12 10:23 | commented | kingkingHK | Agree with your workaround, but the HK OSM wiki pages look kinda abandoned. We might want to clean them up first, before adding any new info. |
| 4922350 (iD) | 1 | 2025-08-21 16:34 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo: review / update Lee Garden Eight |
| 2 | 2025-09-30 10:16 | commented | kingkingHK | Could you please elaborate on what needs reviewing/updating? |
| 3 | 2025-09-30 12:46 | commented | vectorial8192 | eg, 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?) |
| 4 | 2025-09-30 12:46 | commented | vectorial8192 | * as in exists in the OSM map data |
| 5 | 2026-06-12 10:01 | commented | kingkingHK | A very trivial first step to make progress in this note and also to declutter the data in the area is to delete the demolished buildings, which is done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184008897 . |
| 5286462 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-10 13:32 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
review petrol station (duplicate mapping?) |
| 2 | 2026-06-11 15:16 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183976581 ; closing. |
| 5296568 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 06:38 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | 2026-05-30 17:20 | commented | vectorial8192 | Aerial imagery is showing something that looks like concrete slabs/kerbs. |
| 3 | 2026-05-31 14:19 | commented | kingkingHK | Yes, which is physical separation. |
| 4 | 2026-06-11 14:17 | commented | vectorial8192 | First, we split ways with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183973843 |
| 5 | 2026-06-11 14:19 | commented | vectorial8192 | Then, we clean up relations with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183973916 |
| 6 | 2026-06-11 14:19 | closed | vectorial8192 | All done; closing. |
| 5326149 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-04 11:33 | opened | vectorial8192 | concern:
By survey and recent bus videos, the border control area is signposted as "Airport Control Area".
Then, what do? Give to aerodrome? |
| 2 | 2026-06-04 12:24 | commented | kingkingHK | I haven't looked into the details yet, but first thought: airport control area =/= airport? |
| 3 | 2026-06-05 08:02 | commented | Kovoschiz | @vectorial8192 Only the part in between belongs to AA (previously quarantine facility) |
| 4 | 2026-06-05 08:02 | commented | Kovoschiz | @kingkingHK I did use `designation=` https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30774625 |
| 5 | 2026-06-05 08:03 | commented | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209353389 |
| 6 | 2026-06-06 07:39 | commented | vectorial8192 | The latest situation is that even this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/639679829 is already AA. That's clearly not the quarantine area. Or maybe I got something wrong again.
It feels natural that everything controlled by AA is part of the airport. Then again, I do not recall any airport in the world other than this one that handles both air and ... |
| 7 | 2026-06-06 09:03 | commented | Kovoschiz | Meant the part in between centered around the quarantine facility, not only it. The elevated section is out of Airport Area. Is the indoors and vehicles check plaza included though? |
| 8 | 2026-06-06 09:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | I can't find exact details, but the vibe is that part of the Bridge Area is to be given / has already been given to the AA for future dev and maintenance purposes.
As of writing we can see some works going on e.g. the enclosed bridge between the Bridge and SkyPier, but we can potentially wait for future opening to look into this in more detail. Or... |
| 9 | 2026-06-07 09:57 | commented | Kovoschiz | Is it not for Airport City Link only, and SkyPier only? The area around quarantine was for supporting Airport, Airport City, and Expo. |
| 10 | 2026-06-08 05:22 | commented | vectorial8192 | Quoting District Council https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/island/doc/2024_2027/tc/committee_meetings_doc/DIDPC/29830/DIDPC_2025_2_TC.pdf
para 9, 11, 12, 14; annex 1.
Do those count as "attached to the airport" (me think yes)? For example, the Changi airport mall is still counted as "attached to the airport" and is therefore part of the aerodro... |
| 11 | 2026-06-08 18:11 | commented | Kovoschiz | Skytopia only includes the quarantine facility, and waters. Doesn't say the Clearance Building belongs to AA. |
| 5195386 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-08 05:33 | opened | kingkingHK | Is there a "Sushi Masa x Taiko Sake" at Shop H2B, G/F, Fashion Walk, 9 Kingston Street? |
| 2 | 2026-05-19 12:03 | commented | kingkingHK | Turns out, it is already mapped: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13343748386
but the info seems wrong/incomplete |
| 3 | 2026-06-07 12:41 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183778796 ; closing. |
| 5318728 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-31 06:18 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89595505 , etc.
descriptive name |
| 2 | 2026-06-07 12:27 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183778116 ; closing. |
| 5324843 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-03 14:31 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
physical separation along median (check Mapillary) |
| 2 | 2026-06-07 12:16 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183777664 ; closing. |
| 5239739 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-08 01:24 | opened | Tommy Lo | "315A"
OSM snapshot date: 2026-02-16T20:35:12Z
POI has no name
POI types: highway-elevator
#organicmaps android 2026.03.11-12-Google |
| 2 | 2026-04-27 17:42 | commented | vectorial8192 | Seems like elevator reference number. Deferred survey recommended.
Unsubscribing. |
| 3 | 2026-06-03 10:54 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, should actually be 315B. |
| 4 | 2026-06-06 12:40 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183736553 ; closing. |
| 5239740 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-08 01:26 | opened | Tommy Lo | "102A"
OSM snapshot date: 2026-02-16T20:35:12Z
POI has no name
POI types: wheelchair-yes highway-elevator
#organicmaps android 2026.03.11-12-Google |
| 2 | 2026-04-27 17:42 | commented | vectorial8192 | Seems like elevator reference number. Deferred survey recommended.
Unsubscribing. |
| 3 | 2026-06-03 10:55 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, indeed. |
| 4 | 2026-06-06 12:37 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183736432 ; closing. |
| 5276753 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-03 08:25 | opened | | no u turn from V City to Tuen Mun Park
#OsmAnd |
| 2 | 2026-05-03 16:44 | commented | vectorial8192 | Believable. Should clarify directions. |
| 3 | 2026-05-04 13:05 | commented | kingkingHK | Google streetview does not show any no u-turn signs. Survey recommended. |
| 4 | 2026-05-04 18:37 | commented | vectorial8192 | Google Street View is most probably unusable for OSM.
Also, https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.395865984836234&lng=113.97423979631367&z=16.601495464296814&pKey=820288731911992&focus=photo&x=0.49481272368082974&y=0.7102780052402858&zoom=1.2229014414427262 |
| 5 | 2026-05-05 03:04 | commented | kingkingHK | Yeah, why do you think I recommended a survey?
I thought this note was about u-turning from Yan Ching Street eastbound to westbound, because u-turning from Heung Sze Wui Road northbound to southbound is already mapped: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7239851 |
| 6 | 2026-05-05 09:12 | commented | vectorial8192 | The note is poorly worded, but I believe it tries to refer to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7239851 . Among the 3 parts, I take "u turn" and "Tuen Mun Park" to construct a consistent info piece.
Then, regardless of whether a survey is planned or not, this https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182239427 must always be correct.
I intend ... |
| 7 | 2026-05-05 10:30 | commented | kingkingHK | I fail to see why the quoted changeset "must always be" correct. If you fail to provide a source I will just revert the changeset for being groundless guesswork. |
| 8 | 2026-05-05 16:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | You can try, but the changeset is very intuitive and trivial. |
| 9 | 2026-05-05 17:00 | commented | vectorial8192 | To clarify, among all the kinds of "guesswork" that you may want to guard against, this is the kind of changeset that is a direct consequence of how some of us chose to map the junction in the past. Normally / by default / compared to "normal" I-shape mapping, that Y-shape section is not u-turn-able. |
| 10 | 2026-05-06 03:11 | commented | kingkingHK | Calling everything "trivial" does not make your argument any stronger. (proof by intimidation?)
Like, how do you know Yan Ching Street has a double white line and not a dashed line? |
| 11 | 2026-05-07 13:06 | commented | vectorial8192 | Details of a (mathematical) proof may be skipped when they are trivial or not directly relevant, the details which may then be left as an exercise to the reader. No intimidation involved.
I have no reason to care about the double-line / dash-line thing, because while it's a valid concern, it's never appropriate to u-turn immediately after exiting ... |
| 12 | 2026-05-07 14:05 | commented | kingkingHK | I'm gonna need a source for "it's never appropriate to u-turn immediately after exiting a junction."
My feeling is that, usually people who keep omitting proofs for being trivial either don't have a proof, are too lazy to write one, or just want to mess with people. Imo just bad form; what is obvious to the writer is not necessarily obvious to the... |
| 13 | 2026-05-07 17:20 | commented | Kovoschiz | @vectorial8192 There's no such law. It's only when you obstruct others. If it's really never acceptable, it should be a default to be treated by applications, not added explicitly in OSM. |
| 14 | 2026-05-07 17:22 | commented | Kovoschiz | Applications should be able to penalize these heavily. There's no need to do this. |
| 15 | 2026-05-09 13:43 | commented | vectorial8192 | This is going nowhere.
You both try to push the ball to software side. Software side can then try to push the ball back to data side (here) by claiming "it's too risky to decide things in absence of actual data". Someone has to do it; I choose data side. Honestly, what's the actual problem with that changeset other than "this doesn't fit our philo... |
| 16 | 2026-05-09 13:47 | commented | vectorial8192 | I can say more about the underlying theme of "undecidability", but seeing this is just an OSM note, I caution to say, maybe the changeset is all that we need, and no survey is actually needed. |
| 17 | 2026-05-09 14:21 | commented | kingkingHK | You are completely missing my point.
I am trying to point out that "u-turn right after junction" is not necessarily inappropriate, and instead is just a "legit u-turn that's exactly at this extreme angle". The problem with that changeset is that you seemingly pulled it out of your arse. And, I have already pointed out that I dispute the existence ... |
| 18 | 2026-05-10 19:46 | commented | Kovoschiz | @vectorial8192 It seems the misunderstanding is from using the wrong reason. The correct logic here is this is a fake "y" caused by the road changing between divided and undivided in this intersection. The "Y" is inside the intersection. There's no "exiting a junction" as I got confused by your wording. |
| 19 | 2026-05-10 19:55 | commented | Kovoschiz | But actually I myself have visited here recently. There's no u-turn ban sign for Yan Cheung St eastbound. So you are wrong in fact. You need to set it up so that it only restricts Heung Sze Wui Rd northbound.
However in general, it would be a good theoretical question whether u-turn is allowed around a far-side island when the intersection prohibit... |
| 20 | 2026-05-10 19:59 | commented | Kovoschiz | To summarize, the other possible misunderstanding on the problem is you have mistakenly set it up to wrongly restrict Yan Ching St. Or quite the opposite, you need to use `implicit=yes` to show this is about the u-turn already allowed via Heung Sze Wui Rd southbound.
|
| 21 | 2026-05-10 20:06 | commented | Kovoschiz | Or actually this is illegal because it is a straight-ahead movement, and it's still inside the intersection. In any case, we should use clearer arguments. |
| 22 | 2026-05-10 20:19 | commented | Kovoschiz | For the sake of clarity, it's not illegal to turn right, move forward somewhat significantly, u-turn, and turn left, to go opposite direction on the original road. But this Y is ("correctly" drawn) inside the intersection. |
| 23 | 2026-05-10 20:27 | commented | Kovoschiz | If you explain "This is to prevent a u-turn via the right-turn" and "Yan Ching St can u-turn inside the "square box" on Heung Sze Wui Rd", and even better realize "the Y-shape is inside the intersection", there won't be such a long debate from "must always be correct" and "very intuitive and trivial". I can only realize what's happening here from ... |
| 24 | 2026-05-12 10:04 | commented | vectorial8192 | (late resume)
You (all) may or may not notice that I often subconsciously choose the wrong words to represent ideas that I am very sure to be correct. This is one of them. To strengthen/clarify my point, I can agree e.g. if cars turn into Yan Ching Street and then use Tak Chung Court to u-turn, or just directly u-turn at the Tak Chung Court juncti... |
| 25 | 2026-05-12 14:24 | commented | kingkingHK | Ok, I think I am understanding the situation now.
I mistakenly thought that there is a traffic island on Yan Ching Street (east side). If there were, then the Y-shape would be outside the junction, and u-turning along the Y would be equivalent to turning right, going forward a bit, u-turning, then waiting for the traffic signal again and turning l... |
| 26 | 2026-06-03 10:58 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, there are actually no u-turn restrictions for all directions of this junction.
|
| 27 | 2026-06-06 07:26 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183725357 ; closing. |
| 5052159 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-14 06:54 | opened | kingkingHK | I think https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188837279 should be 132 kV and not 132 V? |
| 2 | 2025-11-14 14:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | Also 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. |
| 3 | 2025-11-15 03:09 | commented | kingkingHK | Well, 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.
|
| 4 | 2025-12-06 14:30 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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. |
| 5 | 2026-01-15 13:58 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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... |
| 6 | 2026-01-30 09:46 | commented | kingkingHK | I went to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1994601826 , and disappointingly there were no indication of voltage at all. |
| 7 | 2026-02-01 10:10 | commented | vectorial8192 | OK, 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... |
| 8 | 2026-02-01 11:33 | commented | kingkingHK | Agree 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 ... |
| 9 | 2026-05-30 06:35 | commented | kingkingHK | Someone on the OSM World Discord server said it was 132 kV, judging by the number of insulators. |
| 10 | 2026-06-05 14:25 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183698815 ; closing. |
| 5324037 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-02 23:47 | opened | | Cheung Tung Estate Bus Terminus
https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/island/doc/2024_2027/en/committee_meetings_doc/TTC/31505/TTC_2026_9_EN.pdf |
| 2 | 2026-06-04 11:10 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183639194 ; closing. |
| 5240345 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-08 11:58 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
Where are the station exits? |
| 2 | 2026-06-02 17:27 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183557235 ; closing. |
| 5034361 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:20 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-06-02 14:04 | commented | vectorial8192 | By survey, this is a poorly-mapped single-purpose facility. |
| 3 | 2026-06-02 14:10 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183548943 ; closing. |
| 5322545 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-02 02:26 | opened | | Tung Chung East 21st Century Business Hub (aka Tung Chung East Business Hub)
https://www.som.com/news/tung-chung-groundbreaking/
|
| 2 | 2026-06-02 12:28 | closed | vectorial8192 | Unfortunately, this is only a descriptive name.
As per usual real estate procedure, the real name is revealed very late into the construction work, basically right before completion.
Nothing to do here. Closing. |
| 5322199 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-01 18:46 | opened | | 2 |
| 2 | 2026-06-02 01:59 | closed | vectorial8192 | Meaning is unclear; closing. |
| 5322197 (iD) | 1 | 2026-06-01 18:45 | opened | | 1 |
| 2 | 2026-06-02 01:59 | closed | vectorial8192 | Meaning is unclear; closing. |
| 5312241 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-27 09:23 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
status? |
| 2 | 2026-05-27 09:24 | commented | vectorial8192 | What is the status of this T2 concourse? |
| 3 | 2026-05-27 10:29 | closed | kingkingHK | Under constrution. Read the news. |
| 4 | 2026-05-27 11:01 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 5 | 2026-05-27 11:03 | commented | vectorial8192 | Bad move to instant-close this.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/775198090
- building under construction
- already opened on "2026/03/01"
I rechecked the news eg https://www.hk01.com/%E6%97%85%E9%81%8A/60270075/%E6%A9%9F%E5%A0%B4%E4%BA%8C%E8%99%9F%E5%AE%A2%E9%81%8B%E5%A4%A7%E6%A8%93%E6%87%B6%E4%BA%BA%E5%8C%85-t2%E5%8F%AF%E7%9B%B4%E6%8E%A5%E5%87... |
| 6 | 2026-05-27 12:23 | commented | kingkingHK | Then, you should have made it clear that this note is for the `opening_date` problem. Bad move to imply the under construction status is wrong, while not mentioning at all the issue with `opening_date`. |
| 7 | 2026-05-27 12:24 | commented | kingkingHK | I mean, take a look, the `opening_date=` was added by a new user with a history of bad/wrong edits. It should be extremely obvious what is happening here. Just do it. |
| 8 | 2026-05-27 14:49 | commented | vectorial8192 | Again, if I had the time to fully explore the situation, I would not make this note and would have just made a new changeset, as per my usual "just do it" call for action.
You must at least acknowledge that "problem discovery" is iterative. At first post, I was not fully aware of the concourse situation, and was planning a detailed look later, whi... |
| 9 | 2026-05-27 14:54 | commented | vectorial8192 | aka this pipeline:
- could a problem ever exist here? (by experience or by semi-regular checking or by rotation); this is referring to possibility, and may generate false positives.
- looking at the actual data, does a problem exist here? (self-think the tags)
- how is "this" a problem? (check the specs)
- can we explain this problem? (e.g. new us... |
| 10 | 2026-05-27 15:00 | commented | vectorial8192 | A good timing for "semi-regular rechecking" is when some construction completes, and then we can check the "adjacent" constructions or existing features to see if the construction is completed wholly or partially. The best rechecking is done by having absolutely no pre-knowledge of the irl situation. |
| 11 | 2026-05-28 14:10 | commented | kingkingHK | I must reiterate that osm is not your personal notebook. All notes must thus be assumed to be complete and ****accurate****. You initially only said "status", so the only possible interpretation is that you are solely complaining about the osm tagging of the status of the concourse, but osm is tagging it as under construction, matching reality, th... |
| 12 | 2026-05-30 16:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | Return to sender. If you and I both have not enough time for further investigation, then best to **not do anything**, such as: don't instant-close the note. For example, look at the many notes that I have commented in the past, and then left for later and still not closed yet.
So far I have never viewed OSM notes as my personal notebook. All that ... |
| 13 | 2026-05-31 14:26 | closed | kingkingHK | Ok we have gone wayyy too off-topic. Discussion on proper use of notes and better communication is better done elsewhere (e.g. Discord DM).
The `opening_date=` issue is fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183451330 ; closing. |
| 5146803 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-29 09:24 | opened | vectorial8192 | Duplicate funicular station "Garden Road". What is the standard for mapping funicular stations? |
| 2 | 2026-01-29 12:17 | commented | kingkingHK | I think the station was moved recently? |
| 3 | 2026-01-29 13:03 | commented | vectorial8192 | Not 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 ... |
| 4 | 2026-01-30 03:12 | commented | kingkingHK | Then, sounds like this stop has simply expanded, and the platform moved. |
| 5 | 2026-02-09 14:14 | commented | vectorial8192 | Upon further review, I am half-unsure how to deal with this. It seems the structures on both ends are tagged as "station" while midway locations are simply marked as "request stops"? |
| 6 | 2026-02-09 14:21 | commented | kingkingHK | But the midway stations really are request stops though. I don't see the problem, or how it relates to this note. |
| 7 | 2026-02-10 07:03 | commented | Kovoschiz | Having 2 `=station` is obviously wrong. `railway=stop` should be used on the `railway=` track. The polygon should be enlarged as `area:railway=station` , and a `railway=station` point recreated. |
| 8 | 2026-05-25 12:14 | commented | kingkingHK | Please see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183154394 works. |
| 9 | 2026-05-30 12:08 | commented | vectorial8192 | Late resume; several days have passed. Right now I see 2x Garden Road railway stations on the default renderer. The stopping position mapping seems right (I don't know how that works). The changeset almost got it right.
I forgot where I read this, but basically, if we have an area for the feature, then we don't need a node for it. e.g. if we have ... |
| 10 | 2026-05-30 12:12 | closed | kingkingHK | I vaguely remember a similar discussion about MTR stations, and I think the conclusion is that railway stations can stay as |
| 11 | 2026-05-30 12:12 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 12 | 2026-05-30 12:13 | commented | kingkingHK | Sorry misclick.
...and I think the conclusion is that railway stations can stay as a node. |
| 13 | 2026-05-30 12:16 | commented | kingkingHK | Anyway, adopted Kovoschiz's suggestion of `area:railway=station`. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183397689 |
| 14 | 2026-05-31 11:15 | closed | vectorial8192 | Now it works. There is now explicitly a single railway station node alongside a single station area. (I am essentially using the default renderer for validation, but eyyy.) But it does seem like tradition to keep railway stations as single nodes.
Thanks for the help. Me being generally uninvolved in public transport mapping has made progress slow.... |
| 5179032 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-24 02:40 | opened | | Learning Habitat Kindergarten (PSLP) |
| 2 | 2026-05-31 10:39 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183436619 ; closing. |
| 5091914 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-15 06:57 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
bus stop placeholders, etc.? |
| 2 | 2025-12-25 13:52 | commented | kingkingHK | Someone else dealt with the bus stops in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176007230 , but I guess we can also reroute the bus relations. |
| 3 | 2025-12-25 14:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | Community guides suggest doing it in JOSM, not in iD editor. I will leave this to the public transport mappers. |
| 4 | 2026-05-31 09:44 | commented | vectorial8192 | Recheck:
So far OSM only has CTB 793 and KMB 298E, so we will only check them. Unmapped relations give to general stream.
Common issue is that the relations don't use the correct refuge island road. This seems like an omission mistake, but should only require minor work to fix. |
| 5 | 2026-05-31 09:51 | closed | vectorial8192 | Bus paths fixed via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183434646 ; general issues (e.g. unmapped relation, outdated details, etc) give to general stream.
Closing. |
| 5036094 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-03 12:42 | opened | kingkingHK | Family Medicine Clinic somewhere around here supposedly, but unclear how it is affected by the redevelopment works. |
| 2 | 2025-11-16 11:04 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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. |
| 3 | 2026-01-02 22:00 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 5 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve!
|
| 6 | 2026-05-19 17:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | Upon website review ( https://www32.ha.org.hk/capitalworksprojects/tc/Project/10years/Kwong-Wah-Hospital/Introduction.html ), the Phase 2 reconstruction is scheduled to complete in 2029.
In retrospect, not the best move to give this note to the future, because the future is too far away. Let's redo this. |
| 7 | 2026-05-31 09:09 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183432974 ; closing. |
| 5309379 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-25 13:54 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-05-25 14:12 | commented | kingkingHK | What's the purpose of closing a note only to reopen an identical one a few meters away? (Tbf one could blame me for still not mapping it months after surveying...) |
| 3 | 2026-05-30 14:22 | commented | vectorial8192 | At least we are making sure we know the FMC is at a separate building not affected by the reconstruction. |
| 4 | 2026-05-31 04:54 | commented | kingkingHK | Fine, although I still disagree, this issue is so trivial and nonconsequential I don't even want to spend my energy debating, so whatever. |
| 5315594 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-29 08:21 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
fuel station duplicate mapping |
| 2 | 2026-05-30 18:16 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183412578 ; closing. |
| 5296579 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 06:46 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | 2026-05-22 15:06 | commented | vectorial8192 | This is extra easy because no bus relations are directly involved. |
| 3 | 2026-05-22 15:31 | commented | vectorial8192 | Or not. The bollards (Mapillary) extend towards the non-bridge section. |
| 4 | 2026-05-22 16:34 | commented | vectorial8192 | We will start with the actual separation itself https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183032086 |
| 5 | 2026-05-23 03:57 | commented | kingkingHK | > The bollards extend towards the non-bridge section.
Are you talking about the east side or west side? |
| 6 | 2026-05-25 09:47 | commented | vectorial8192 | Primarily the west side. It ends on the concrete platform which then intersects with Fat Kwong Street bus relations. Gotta do it by parts; I admit the task size estimation was wrong, but we will continue doing this.
Still, I can notice the east side it ends right as the bridge section ends, but for traffic island leniency the changeset just contin... |
| 7 | 2026-05-25 09:50 | commented | kingkingHK | Lgtm now, after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183136566 ? |
| 8 | 2026-05-29 09:43 | commented | kingkingHK | Lgtm; propose closing. |
| 9 | 2026-05-30 16:36 | commented | vectorial8192 | I couldn't rotate back soon enough, my bad; though arguably Airport T2 has higher priority and importance than Hung Hom. I did intend to work on this, so I will pick this back up.
Still, while the changeset is indeed lgtm, we still can't close this note yet because as I later discover while splitting the ways, this has two parts: the west side (by... |
| 10 | 2026-05-30 16:48 | commented | vectorial8192 | East side done with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183409060 |
| 11 | 2026-05-30 16:49 | closed | vectorial8192 | Now, truly, all is done.
Therefore, closing. |
| 5166716 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-14 07:53 | opened | | the radar station ball thing is being dismantled |
| 2 | 2026-03-06 02:47 | commented | kingkingHK | https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14Znxy9BWRS/ agrees. |
| 3 | 2026-05-20 07:26 | commented | vectorial8192 | The technically correct way is to actually walk up the mountain and look at it, but I am thinking we can follow the Facebook post and look at it from somewhere far but appropriate (e.g. Choi Tak Estate), to confirm whether the removal is temporary or permanent. How does that sound? |
| 4 | 2026-05-20 07:30 | commented | kingkingHK | I have seen with my own eyes from multiple different far-away places that the ball is removed, and it is still gone as of Monday. |
| 5 | 2026-05-25 13:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | According to local newspaper
https://www.hk01.com/%E7%AA%81%E7%99%BC/240231/%E5%B1%B1%E7%AB%B9%E9%A4%98%E6%B3%A2-%E7%AD%86%E6%9E%B6%E5%B1%B1%E9%9B%B7%E9%81%94%E7%AB%99-%E6%B3%A2%E6%B3%A2-%E7%A9%BF%E7%AA%BF%E7%84%A1%E6%9C%89%E6%80%95-%E5%8E%9F%E4%BE%86%E9%97%9C%E4%B8%89%E8%B7%91%E4%BA%8B
The radar ball is scheduled for removal anyway. This is beli... |
| 6 | 2026-05-25 13:47 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183159361 ; closing. |
| 7 | 2026-05-25 13:52 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 8 | 2026-05-25 13:52 | commented | kingkingHK | Isn't this note about the western radar? Your quoted article and changeset concerns only the eastern one. |
| 9 | 2026-05-25 15:11 | commented | vectorial8192 | OK, let's take a closer look to clear it up.
There are 2 radar stations ("radar balls"). Aerial imagery, the east ball is the larger one, and the west ball is the smaller one. Also, aerial imagery, the west ball sits on top of a square platform / pad.
Then
> 民航處發言人回覆查詢時指，為配合日後機場三跑道系統工程放置�... |
| 10 | 2026-05-25 15:14 | commented | vectorial8192 | By coincidence, the quoted FB post still agrees that the east ball is indeed removed. There is a hilltop pad which looks like the pad for the west ball, and there is no radar ball on this pad. |
| 11 | 2026-05-29 09:36 | commented | kingkingHK | What I mean is, the west ball is obviously removed. One should update that before closing this note. |
| 12 | 2026-05-30 12:15 | commented | vectorial8192 | I see. This is my mistake, should have checked more onto this. Usually what happens is that OSM has the latest info, and then a note comes in describing something new has happened. In this case however, OSM has outdated info, and then a note comes in describing the latest situation. The fault / confusion stems from believing OSM has reasonably late... |
| 13 | 2026-05-30 12:17 | commented | vectorial8192 | aka note comes in saying "west ball was removed" but I misinterpreted it as "east ball was removed" because I was interpreting it as "only a single ball was removed". |
| 14 | 2026-05-30 12:20 | commented | kingkingHK | One can see from 2025 Esri imagery that the eastern ball has been removed. But it's fine, we all make silly mistake sometimes; maybe you just didn't see the Esri imagery. |
| 15 | 2026-05-30 12:35 | commented | vectorial8192 | Wait the wording is getting more confusing.
To clarify, I did see from ESRI imagery that the east ball was removed, but the base still remains, which I then looked at ESRI Clarity for calibration and made the first changeset.
As of writing, all 4 imagery still shows the west ball; this could be the source of confusion. We may only infer by combin... |
| 16 | 2026-05-30 12:39 | closed | vectorial8192 | Should be for real this time.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183398579 ; closing. |
| 4015896 (iD) | 1 | 2023-12-05 13:25 | opened | Ian Ho | The pylons are under the project "Removal of 132kV Overhead Line and Pylons for P-Line". Project started 2022. Total 24 pylons will be removed. |
| 2 | 2025-09-25 11:05 | commented | HenryEK | what change is wanted here then |
| 3 | 2025-09-25 12:32 | commented | kingkingHK | Relevant 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 |
| 4 | 2025-10-28 16:00 | commented | vectorial8192 | Also see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4015897 |
| 5 | 2025-12-10 03:30 | commented | vectorial8192 | I see the pylon nodes are deleted from OSM some time ago. |
| 6 | 2025-12-10 03:33 | commented | kingkingHK | Yeah, 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. |
| 7 | 2026-01-03 05:57 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 8 | 2026-01-03 06:05 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 9 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 10 | 2026-05-30 12:28 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183398143 ; closing. |
| 4015897 (iD) | 1 | 2023-12-05 13:26 | opened | Ian Ho | The pylons are under the project "Removal of 132kV Overhead Line and Pylons for P-Line". Project started 2022. Total 24 pylons will be removed. |
| 2 | 2024-02-07 04:24 | commented | HighlandPaddyHK | Confirmed, I went to visit Osborn's Cairn and the pylon was gone! |
| 3 | 2024-11-02 13:05 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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 ) |
| 4 | 2024-11-02 15:16 | commented | Ian Ho | When 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. |
| 5 | 2025-10-28 16:01 | commented | vectorial8192 | Also see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4015896
It seems the towers are now gone? |
| 6 | 2025-10-29 03:14 | commented | kingkingHK | See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173778439
But I guess can still verify if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448005785 exists?
|
| 7 | 2026-01-03 06:01 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 8 | 2026-01-03 06:04 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 9 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 10 | 2026-03-12 12:01 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, the quoted way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448005785 no longer exists, and there are nothing remaining other than the concrete bases. |
| 11 | 2026-05-30 12:28 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183398143 ; closing. |
| 5180357 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-25 03:38 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: station is too small |
| 2 | 2026-03-31 17:06 | commented | vectorial8192 | for the observers, iirc a question was asked at Discord about "station area" vs "(many) station building parts" for underground MTR stations. |
| 3 | 2026-04-01 03:02 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed, I was trying to clarify on mapping underground `building=train_station`, but somehow that conversation ended midway.
My plan for now is to buy some better indoor surveying equipment, indoor map a few shopping centres to gain some indoor mapping experiences, then deal with the various poorly drawn MTR stations. |
| 4 | 2026-04-01 04:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | I can't stop you, but face value looking at "better indoor surveying equipment" that does not sound like a good idea.
Indoor surveying is either beacon-based (if exists, MTR likely won't expose the beacon implementation details) or rangefinder-based (potentially expensive equipment; LIDAR, laser, or what technology?) There's also a concern that th... |
| 5 | 2026-04-01 07:40 | commented | Kovoschiz | Malls can be guessed from the exterior, and interior layout. Stations can be guessed from platforms, exits, and shafts or buildings. Doesn't need equipment to get a sketch. |
| 6 | 2026-04-01 07:52 | commented | Kovoschiz | There are motion-based measuring devices that creates drawings by walking https://www.moasure.com/
iPhone "Lidar" ToF camera might be the most common consumer device. Don't know how's the apps on Android. But they aren't cost-effective vs an actual lidar.
Off-topic: Kwun Tong Line cut-and-cover stations may be exposed from aerial imagery (out-of-c... |
| 7 | 2026-04-12 12:57 | commented | vectorial8192 | If no effective conclusion, then at least we can fix the station building size. |
| 8 | 2026-04-12 13:04 | commented | kingkingHK | "station building size" depends on "what is a station" building, which I still don't know. My plan for now is probably to indoor survey the station, make some drawings and send to Discord for someone else (might eventually be me) to deal with it. |
| 9 | 2026-04-13 14:54 | commented | vectorial8192 | Well imo the size of the platform is the minimum possible size of the station building; ideally this is true no matter what definition you may be using. What may seem like "unused" underground space could then be used as MTR internal-use office. It still checks out. |
| 10 | 2026-05-25 11:23 | commented | vectorial8192 | Tsuen Wan Line uses the standard 8-car MTR train, which has total length of approx 180m. Station expanded to 180m length with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183151725 .
Seems nothing more to do; potentially closeable. |
| 11 | 2026-05-25 11:42 | commented | kingkingHK | My original plan is to use this note to track my indoor mapping, which I haven't done yet. But your changeset is fine too.
I have got a little bit of experience in indoor mapping after surveying Tin Wing LRT; I can try doing the same here soon. |
| 12 | 2026-05-30 11:59 | commented | vectorial8192 | OK, leaving open, but imo doesn't seem too interesting here; e.g., road crossing need not enter the MTR station.
Unsubscribing. |
| 2218616 (iD) | 1 | 2020-06-05 07:45 | opened | kleeah | Public transport Routing at Lam Tin to be added |
| 2 | 2026-01-02 22:01 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 02:41 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 02:41 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve!
|
| 5 | 2026-03-13 04:41 | closed | Josephfunny202603131237_ | |
| 6 | 2026-03-13 06:03 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 7 | 2026-03-13 06:03 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 8 | 2026-05-30 08:40 | commented | kingkingHK | The following buses call at Lam Tin (terminus, not road side):
1. KMB 14 (China Ferry Terminal → Lei Yue Mun Estate)
2. KMB 14B (Ngau Tau Kok → Lam Tin (Kwong Tin Estate))
3. KMB 14B (Lok Wah → Lam Tin (Kwong Tin Estate))
4. KMB 14H (Yau Tong ↺ Shun Lee)
5. KMB 14X (Shung Tak Wai ↺ Tsim Sha Tsui)
6. KMB 15X (Hung Hom Station → Lam Tin ... |
| 9 | 2026-05-30 08:40 | commented | kingkingHK | 38. Cross-harbour Bus 601P (Po Tat → Wing Kut Street)
39. Cross-harbour Bus 601P (Hiu Lai Court → Wing Kut Street)
40. Cross-harbour Bus 606 (Choi Wan (Fung Shing Street) → Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort))
41. Cross-harbour Bus 606 (Choi Wan (Fung Shing Street) → Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort) (via Choi Ha Road))
42. Cross-harbour Bus 606A (Choi W... |
| 5164303 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-12 07:23 | opened | vectorial8192 | substation=substation seems redundant |
| 2 | 2026-03-05 12:37 | commented | kingkingHK | Taginfo says only 608 uses of `substation=substation` worldwide with no major data consumer using it; shouldn't have any effects if we just remove it. |
| 3 | 2026-03-12 08:17 | commented | vectorial8192 | Upon review via Overpass Turbo, there's a lot of this usage in Hong Kong. I may be onto something big: are all those usages redundant? How does this interact with e.g. OpenInfraMap? |
| 4 | 2026-03-12 12:00 | commented | kingkingHK | I wouldn't call 86 a lot. Also, most of them were added by the same few users (Xavier Fung and tommydragon). Not indicative of anything imo. |
| 5 | 2026-03-16 14:16 | commented | vectorial8192 | Can observe/confirm this tag is picked up by OpenInfraMap for display purposes. Hmmm. |
| 6 | 2026-04-05 07:26 | commented | kingkingHK | ...I can't notice how OpenInfraMap renders this differently than any other substations. May you provide more info? |
| 7 | 2026-04-11 12:19 | commented | vectorial8192 | I have not really determined whether this tag positively influences rendering, or that OpenInfraMap already renders this feature due to power=substation. |
| 8 | 2026-04-11 13:34 | commented | kingkingHK | Seeing that it renders identically with other `power=substation`s, I'd say it does not influence render. I.e. useless tag. |
| 9 | 2026-05-20 10:15 | commented | kingkingHK | If no further discussion I am inclined to simply remove all `substation=substation`. |
| 10 | 2026-05-21 12:22 | commented | vectorial8192 | I have nothing to add. This was only discovered while I was looking in detail at the railway. |
| 11 | 2026-05-29 12:18 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183352652 ; closing. |
| 2758068 (iD) | 1 | 2021-07-17 06:16 | opened | Whcohi | 乾山大斜坡 |
| 2 | 2022-03-08 08:21 | closed | chanfai | |
| 3 | 2022-03-08 08:21 | reopened | chanfai | |
| 4 | 2022-04-13 07:12 | closed | PoHK | |
| 5 | 2022-04-14 09:24 | reopened | Kovoschiz | |
| 6 | 2022-04-14 09:25 | commented | Kovoschiz | Not yet added? Please don't resolve without comments if not yet worked on. |
| 7 | 2026-05-01 16:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | This area is inside the artillery range (I think they have daily practices?) so survey is generally recommended against; we should armchair this.
Still, it seems the name in this note has some credibility e.g. nearby feature has similar name https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9517418060 |
| 8 | 2026-05-02 04:15 | commented | kingkingHK | Out-of-copyright maps show a valley in this area; this is easily armchairrable, but choosing the correct osm tags may require some thoughts.
Also iirc they don't practice during public holidays, so this is technically surveyable if someone wants to (I don't). |
| 9 | 2026-05-29 11:54 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183351453 ; closing. |
| 5077746 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-03 18:04 | opened | vectorial8192 | Rare data incompleteness:
name:en of street https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243663400 ? |
| 2 | 2025-12-09 14:38 | commented | vectorial8192 | irl totally no signage, and yet osm history insists this street has name. |
| 3 | 2025-12-10 12:34 | commented | kingkingHK | Can be "informal name" / "loc_name", commonly used by people from that area but not officially recognise. However, this might be difficult to verify. |
| 4 | 2026-03-14 14:07 | commented | kingkingHK | Curiously, searching the name online returns absolutely no result, which shouldn't be the case for any name with actual use. |
| 5 | 2026-05-20 10:16 | commented | kingkingHK | I propose removing this name from osm for being unverifiable. |
| 6 | 2026-05-29 09:51 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183345710 ; closing. |
| 5025035 (iD) | 1 | 2025-10-27 13:48 | opened | vectorial8192 | Sing Mun River has fixme, presumably about boat access.
However, afaik, there are no legal restrictions about boat access. |
| 2 | 2025-12-30 03:09 | commented | kingkingHK | Well, if boats are not allowed, then https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493816164 would not exist. |
| 3 | 2025-12-30 03:22 | commented | vectorial8192 | Indeed.
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. |
| 4 | 2026-01-28 13:38 | commented | vectorial8192 | Wait, fixme was raised by Kovoschiz; discussion needed. |
| 5 | 2026-02-05 17:04 | commented | Kovoschiz | Someone added `boat=no` in Fo Tan, which seems a mistake https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32559690
Originally it may have been `=drain` for being reclamation and channelized. That may not be considered accessible by default. |
| 6 | 2026-03-05 12:39 | commented | kingkingHK | Well, at least for Shing Mun River, `boat=no` should be wrong. We can remove it, alongside with the `fixme=`. |
| 7 | 2026-05-24 14:25 | commented | kingkingHK | I will remove `boat=no` and `fixme=` from Shing Mun River if no further comments. |
| 8 | 2026-05-25 10:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | No comments from me.
I will only add that at extremely low tides it does become physically boat=no because this just transforms into a ditch (this is technically / structurally an extra wide ditch), but this doesn't happen every year and so the info does not sound like good candidate to be put into OSM as if regular occurrence. |
| 9 | 2026-05-29 09:43 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183345102 ; closing. |
| 5313162 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-27 23:07 | opened | Iulian Arcuș | Unable to answer "Do the trees here have needles or leaves?" – Tree Row – https://osm.org/way/780937954 via StreetComplete 63.1:
Option is pines or leaves. They are palm trees |
| 2 | 2026-05-28 02:48 | commented | kingkingHK | Palm trees are broadleaved, no? |
| 3 | 2026-05-28 17:00 | commented | Kovoschiz | Yes, but user wants to add somewhere `=palm` ( most rigorously `taxon:en=` + `taxon:family:en=` |
| 4 | 2026-05-29 03:15 | closed | Iulian Arcuș | Just doing the street complete level of detail so broadleaf is the answer I was looking for. |
| 5312369 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-27 10:57 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1322030181
name:zh of building? or no name? |
| 2 | 2026-05-27 12:27 | commented | kingkingHK | Website of one of the tenants https://www.avseco.com.hk/zh-hk/contact :
"機場行政大樓2座" |
| 3 | 2026-05-27 15:04 | closed | vectorial8192 | Thanks for the finding.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183261119 ; closing. |
| 5310630 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-26 07:59 | opened | Fent Thanakon | HOTEL |
| 2 | 2026-05-27 08:58 | closed | Kovoschiz | osm.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 information not otherwise used... |
| 5311188 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-26 13:24 | opened | Iulian Arcuș | Unable to answer "What kind of artwork is this?" – Artwork – https://osm.org/node/5018345422 via StreetComplete 63.1:
No visible artwork |
| 5311184 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-26 13:19 | opened | Iulian Arcuș | Area needs remapping. Public toilets built and plants have been modified
via StreetComplete 63.1
Attached photo(s):
https://streetcomplete.app/p/347192.jpg |
| 5310646 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-26 08:08 | opened | Pan Perníček | Forwarding anonymous report from #mapycom user, please verify: Path doesn't exist. |
| 5078742 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-04 14:21 | opened | kingkingHK | name:zh of park? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/576655997 |
| 2 | 2025-12-11 01:49 | commented | HenryEK | 赫蘭道／淺水灣道花園
https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1810025496 |
| 3 | 2025-12-11 02:23 | commented | kingkingHK | @HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright? |
| 4 | 2025-12-11 18:11 | commented | Kovoschiz | No https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question |
| 5 | 2026-05-25 14:27 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183161334 ; closing. |
| 5034406 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:39 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic (what should be happening here?) |
| 2 | 2026-01-25 03:49 | commented | kingkingHK | Probably at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1202258838 ? |
| 3 | 2026-01-25 14:03 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed it is. |
| 4 | 2026-05-25 13:55 | closed | vectorial8192 | Redirect https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5309379 |
| 5106613 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-27 10:41 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
this does not look like a mini-roundabout; can also irl-review nearby features. |
| 2 | 2025-12-27 12:26 | commented | kingkingHK | > 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. |
| 3 | 2025-12-27 14:42 | commented | vectorial8192 | For 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. |
| 4 | 2026-02-25 10:16 | commented | kingkingHK | Please see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179028772 works. |
| 5 | 2026-02-25 16:16 | commented | vectorial8192 | At first glance:
- changeset too large
- can still improve (I also have data) |
| 6 | 2026-02-25 16:24 | commented | vectorial8192 | ok, to clarify, it's natural to have an extra large changeset when we split ways, but I personally would not do Wan Po Road in the same changeset as the Hospital. |
| 7 | 2026-02-26 02:59 | commented | kingkingHK | I did Wan Po Road in the same changeset as it's too small (imo) to be its own changeset, is close to the hospital, and I surveyed them in the same trip.
I also still have data not mapped, but considering how distorted, blurry, and outdated the aerial imagery in this area is, I have no confidence I can put the features in the correct place so I wou... |
| 8 | 2026-02-28 12:03 | commented | vectorial8192 | Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179167704 :
- added path hints
- added terrain hints
- turn restrictions
- general beautification
- etc
I still have some other data of this area, but those are unrelated and can partially be armchaired. You may continue. |
| 9 | 2026-03-13 13:31 | commented | kingkingHK | I don't have anything to continue besides mapping/updating the related bus relations, which is already handled with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5091914 . We can close this note if you have nothing more to map. |
| 10 | 2026-05-25 12:06 | closed | kingkingHK | Nothing to do here, closing. |
| 5292869 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-15 02:07 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705014448 suspicious traffic signal |
| 2 | 2026-05-15 03:44 | commented | kingkingHK | Should be referring to the Shau Kei Wan Road / Chai Wan Road / Aldrich Street junction. Same poor import that we dealt with before. |
| 3 | 2026-05-25 11:57 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183153560 ; closing. |
| 4978548 (iD) | 1 | 2025-09-25 09:45 | opened | Cypp0847 | the 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? |
| 2 | 2025-09-25 12:40 | commented | kingkingHK | This is more of a renderer discussion rather than an osm one, isn't it? |
| 3 | 2025-09-26 06:56 | commented | Kovoschiz | For 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. |
| 4 | 2025-09-26 06:57 | commented | Kovoschiz | (`bridge:part=` is not a good format either, as `bridge=` isn't a feature, unlike `building=` ) |
| 5 | 2025-09-26 07:37 | commented | Kovoschiz | 3. The `start_date=` is difficult to define. In OHM, the object's existing status is used. In OSM, often the oldest applicable is used. |
| 6 | 2025-09-26 07:39 | commented | Kovoschiz | 4. Minor note: I didn't bother to draw the whole IEC western `=viaduct` , so doing this is also a lazy hack |
| 7 | 2025-09-26 07:40 | commented | Kovoschiz | 5. `ref=` is another factor that needs to be considered to define a `man_made=bridge` , aside from `name=` and `start_date=` (etc) |
| 8 | 2026-01-03 05:58 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 9 | 2026-01-03 06:04 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 10 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 11 | 2026-05-16 09:42 | commented | kingkingHK | @Kovoschiz does https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181152791 resolve this note? |
| 12 | 2026-05-16 16:13 | commented | Kovoschiz | No, I didn't do anything on them, only `layer=` |
| 13 | 2026-05-20 10:22 | commented | kingkingHK | Tbh I don't really understand what this note is asking for / what can be done to resolve this note. |
| 14 | 2026-05-21 12:26 | commented | vectorial8192 | One way out is to start a discussion at Discord, to confirm the tagging method for individual bridge joint parts. Then, we will know how to tag these, and then apply the new tagging, and then finish.
private guess it's probably gonna be many nameless parts linked up with a "IEC highway" relation. |
| 15 | 2026-05-24 05:44 | commented | kingkingHK | Actually, IEC is the name of the road, not of the bridge, which is nameless. Perhaps we can just remove the `name=`, which solves the "clumsy rendering" issue this note is complaining about, then at the very least this note can be closed. |
| 16 | 2026-05-24 08:38 | commented | Kovoschiz | That's a good question. But I thought IEC is effectively the de facto naming of the structure at the same time. |
| 17 | 2026-05-24 14:26 | commented | kingkingHK | Citation needed. If you ask 10 people what "IEC" is 11 of them will think of the road, not the bridge. |
| 18 | 2026-05-25 03:18 | commented | Kovoschiz | It's effectively identical here though? If I ask what's that bridge, they will still answer IEC. |
| 19 | 2026-05-25 03:24 | commented | Kovoschiz | I'm thinking of West Kowloon Corridor, where there are Stage II, and Stage III (Stage IV is folded into Stage I Gascoigne Rd Flyover)
East Kowloon Corridor was East Kowloon Way translated into "East Kowloon Elevated Road" |
| 20 | 2026-05-25 03:27 | commented | Kovoschiz | So I didn't think it must have a bridge-related generic suffix. Cf although Fat Kwong St Flyover is gazetted as the street's extension, it's basically carrying Fat Kwong St. |
| 21 | 2026-05-25 06:08 | commented | kingkingHK | Looking at named `man_made=bridge` in Hong Kong it appears that (almost) all the names are names of the bridge, with a bridge suffix, including bridge names that are not as well known as the road, where if you ask what's that bridge people are likely to answer the road name. |
| 22 | 2026-05-25 10:59 | commented | vectorial8192 | Clarifying names for @kingkingHK
Some roads are not gazetted and currently hold descriptive names e.g. "Wuhu Street underpass" but then we can find ancient (government) documents using those names. This doesn't fully fit the OSM "map what can be seen on the ground" principle but we can't dispute the official informal endorsement.
Re bridge/road n... |
| 23 | 2026-05-25 11:02 | commented | vectorial8192 | Or maybe I have misunderstood the bridge joint tagging. |
| 5087537 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-11 17:07 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
Some clinics have generic names, which may be improved. |
| 2 | 2026-05-25 09:28 | closed | kingkingHK | It turns out, the signs irl include "Chai Wan" in the name. Unless you were looking at a sign that I somehow missed, or the sign changed in the last 5 months, I really don't know why you did it like that.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183146037 ; closing. |
| 5065723 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-24 08:25 | opened | kingkingHK | Does this https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4349317190 actually exist? |
| 2 | 2025-12-03 12:05 | commented | vectorial8192 | probably public light bus hail-and-ride |
| 3 | 2025-12-03 12:31 | commented | kingkingHK | See 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. |
| 4 | 2025-12-03 12:32 | commented | kingkingHK | * So the intention of this note is to check if there's anything physical indicating a (mini)bus stop at this location |
| 5 | 2026-02-23 09:49 | commented | kingkingHK | Nothing here. |
| 6 | 2026-05-24 14:24 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183110736 ; closing. |
| 5307805 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-24 14:18 | opened | KolaVenter1964 | House 213 |
| 5305499 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-23 05:50 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705233079 suspicious traffic signals |
| 2 | 2026-05-23 06:08 | commented | kingkingHK | Same poor import. Imo just delete it.
(Side note: why wasn't that undiscussed import reverted??? I think @Kovoschiz was there when it happened) |
| 3 | 2026-05-23 16:22 | commented | Kovoschiz | This is only outdated. There was an intersection here where Wui Man Rd is connected with Austin Rd. |
| 4 | 2026-05-24 14:06 | closed | kingkingHK | Wasn't that intersection already closed at the time that import happened (2019)? Anyhow, it just shows how low-quality it was.
Seeing the intersection has been removed, just delete it.
Resolved viahttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109836 ; closing. |
| 5257852 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-20 06:19 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: bus stop vs stop position |
| 2 | 2026-05-24 14:02 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109753 ; closing. |
| 5254676 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-18 03:43 | opened | EthanCK | The Commercial Press shouldn’t be here, it is already on this map but at a nearby location (near the junction of Sugar Street and Yee Woo Street) , so maybe delete this |
| 2 | 2026-04-19 04:21 | commented | kingkingHK | https://www.supretail.com.hk/sup-shop-address/3 agrees |
| 3 | 2026-05-24 14:00 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109667 ; closing. |
| 5297353 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 13:56 | opened | vectorial8192 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7186040
Validator warning:
unusual value of distance
-----------
Also, this bus relation is very broken. |
| 2 | 2026-05-23 14:23 | commented | kingkingHK | Actually I can't even reproduce that value for distance...
Anyway, am cooking at JOSM. Will upload changeset tomorrow. Please don't touch the any bus relations or roads in this area in the mean tie in order to prevent a merge conflict. |
| 3 | 2026-05-24 13:53 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109341 ; closing. |
| 5306342 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-23 16:18 | opened | HenryEK | clp building of some kind probably substation |
| 2 | 2026-05-24 06:13 | closed | HenryEK | substation - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1520394713
changeset - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183092671 |
| 4049857 (iD) | 1 | 2024-01-02 10:37 | opened | Peter Newman | Unable to answer "How many cars can be charged here at the same time?" for https://osm.org/node/3494444748 via StreetComplete 55.1:
Probably device rather than car charging |
| 2 | 2024-03-05 09:35 | commented | vectorial8192 | Agree with the mobile phone charging type.
However, there currently seems to have no global consensus on how to tag *mobile phone* charging stations. |
| 3 | 2024-10-16 13:30 | commented | vectorial8192 | Update: it seems a new tag is available
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddevice_charging_station |
| 4 | 2024-10-16 13:48 | commented | Peter Newman | I should clarify from my "probably" I'm not sure I actually eyeballed this specific unit to check it either way, just noted it was inside an airport so probably wasn't car charging. Although from your "agree" did you actually look at it then @vectorial8192 |
| 5 | 2024-10-16 16:59 | commented | vectorial8192 | I never physically looked at the irl situation, but "obviously" it is not EV charging
Will have to leave this open until god knows when |
| 6 | 2025-05-18 05:08 | closed | 楊展博 | |
| 7 | 2025-05-18 10:49 | reopened | Peter Newman | |
| 8 | 2025-05-18 10:50 | commented | Peter Newman | Hi @楊展博 could you be a bit clearer about why you've resolved the note. You don't seem to have touched the node. Is it actually for charging vehicles? |
| 9 | 2025-05-18 11:10 | commented | vectorial8192 | Guy was/is recently around resolving notes with no explanation. |
| 10 | 2026-04-19 14:24 | commented | kingkingHK | "Common sense" should be a strong enough source to support that this is a phone charging and not EV. I think we can make progress on this note. |
| 11 | 2026-05-23 12:37 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183066373 ; closing. |
| 4917522 (iD) | 1 | 2025-08-19 04:02 | opened | kingkingHK | Traffic signals have been added to this junction. |
| 2 | 2025-09-15 15:31 | commented | vectorial8192 | Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705213882 exists for many years, but I suppose the quoted node has nothing to do with this new situation. |
| 3 | 2025-10-08 14:36 | commented | vectorial8192 | Future reference https://www.cedd.gov.hk/tc/our-projects/major-projects/index-id-70.html |
| 4 | 2026-01-22 13:48 | commented | kingkingHK | Yeah, traffic signals have been added, and it seems like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705213882 is removed. |
| 5 | 2026-04-21 09:54 | commented | vectorial8192 | Can confirm, we do have this. |
| 6 | 2026-05-23 12:24 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183065880 ; closing.
(Note: bus relations will be migrated in a separate changeset) |
| 5296588 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 06:54 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | 2026-05-23 08:44 | commented | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183056730 ; closing.
(Note: bus relations will be migrated in a separate changeset) |
| 3 | 2026-05-23 08:44 | closed | kingkingHK | |
| 5302548 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-21 03:57 | opened | | Our Centre |
| 2 | 2026-05-21 09:00 | closed | vectorial8192 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes
> For example never create notes such as "I was here on Saturday" or "There was a crime at this location".
> 例如，千萬不要創建諸如“我星期六來過這裡”或“這裡發生過犯罪事件”之類的筆記。
To share an OSM location, please see: 如需分享一個OSM的位置，請參�... |
| 3 | 2026-05-21 09:16 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-05-21 09:16 | closed | kingkingHK | @vectorial8192 I appreciate the attempt at communicating, but seeing this note was created by an anonymous user, you are practically talking to the void here. |
| 5 | 2026-05-21 12:28 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 6 | 2026-05-21 12:31 | commented | vectorial8192 | I am following @Kovoschiz 's practice.
Not fully appropriate to claim "void". One possible scenario is that an anon made this note, and then use the note URL to give to people. Then, either the same anon or the recipients will see this note *and the extra comments "that's not how you use notes"*, and hopefully habits will change.
Normally this no... |
| 7 | 2026-05-22 03:42 | commented | kingkingHK | Ok, understandable. Close this? |
| 8 | 2026-05-22 07:22 | closed | Kovoschiz | It's simply to close it with a comment. Not hoping for resposne. |
| 5141141 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-24 12:06 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: this has been converted to a roundabout |
| 2 | 2026-04-21 09:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | Aerial imagery has some hints of conversion work. Do you have more info on the specs of the roundabout, e.g. any slip roads for which directions? |
| 3 | 2026-04-21 12:17 | commented | kingkingHK | No slip roads; just a simple one-lane roundabout.
And yeah, I guess you noticed that I really don't resolve notes very often, even for some of the more trivial ones. I just have too many things to do, both irl and in osm. Also, another thing is that updating this to a roundabout would require changing the bus relations, but many in this area are b... |
| 4 | 2026-04-22 06:03 | commented | vectorial8192 | Re "too many things", understandable.
Re "change bus relation", my take is to limit the scope. If the relation is broken before we touch it, then we only need to ensure the part that we are editing (the segments at the roundabout) is not broken. We can have the generosity to also fix the entire relation (re "might as well") but again that's not a ... |
| 5 | 2026-04-22 08:19 | commented | kingkingHK | Yeah, now I do see the problems with "confirm but no action". Actually nowadays I am reluctant to even do the "confirm" part by sending a useless message (e.g. "yes" "correct" "indeed there is a FMC here") to prevent bombarding your email inbox. But I can tell you that I have no WIP note-related changesets outside of HKI, so you don't need to worry... |
| 6 | 2026-04-23 17:43 | commented | vectorial8192 | Coordination, splitting, experiences etc is best discussed e.g. in Discord. (Soon™) |
| 7 | 2026-05-16 15:48 | commented | vectorial8192 | I have deduced a possible arrangement of the roundabout in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182749069 ; please see if it works.
If it works, then the next step is to reroute the bus relations to use the roundabout and close this note. The old T-shape junction is kept because older imagery still describes them as such, to prevent accidental ... |
| 8 | 2026-05-17 04:32 | commented | kingkingHK | I completely forgot about this note. Sorry!
Your sketch looks a bit different from my memory, but it's good enough. Still, from recent bus videos, it seems like quite a lot has changed since my last visit; we should probably either contact the video owner and ask for permission for using it in osm, or visit this place again ourselves.
But topolog... |
| 9 | 2026-05-17 13:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | Re irl changes, not too surprising considering the current trend/direction of developing Kam Tin. This can be done in the "general stream", so to speak. (It seems unlikely I will contact the bus video owners for this.) |
| 10 | 2026-05-17 13:53 | commented | kingkingHK | Eventually after some thoughts I decided to deal with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5296588 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4917522 first before transferring bus relations, as those two notes will also involve bus relations.
Agree with your notion of "general stream". Whether bus video owners should be contacted really depends on wheth... |
| 11 | 2026-05-17 13:58 | commented | vectorial8192 | Desync!
Bus relations cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182786155 ; all done.
Holding open, but I think there is nothing more to do specifically for this junction, and this specific note is close-able. |
| 12 | 2026-05-17 14:21 | commented | kingkingHK | quoted changeset lgtm, but as I said I suspect the geometry of the roundabout is off, so imo can't close it yet. (Maybe I misunderstood what you meant with general stream) |
| 13 | 2026-05-20 06:50 | commented | vectorial8192 | To clarify, "general stream" is another term/topic that I am self-coining to understand OSM.
Basically, it's the "every day mapping". Casual user clicks at e.g. StreetComplete. New building; draw it and done. Position slightly off; move it and done. It may not be fully correct but for most purposes it is passable. eg the exact coordinates may be a... |
| 14 | 2026-05-21 14:34 | commented | vectorial8192 | (Why do I feel like this has entered some sort of deadlock...)
Basically, if @kingkingHK you can remember / provide the geometry in the short future, then nice, do add them and then we can really close this. If not, then not too bad because the as-of-writing geometry is OK, and future aerial imagery will show the roundabout anyway. This is located... |
| 15 | 2026-05-22 02:44 | closed | kingkingHK | Ok fine, I was mainly worried that we would really collectively forget about this, but if you say we won't then we can close this. |
| 5295117 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-16 12:34 | opened | | missing mcdonald here
#OsmAnd |
| 2 | 2026-05-22 02:25 | closed | HenryEK | mcdonalds - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13859365922
changeset -https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183000852
|
| 5286470 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-10 13:36 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
review petrol station (confusing layering) |
| 2 | 2026-05-10 13:41 | commented | kingkingHK | > `layer=-1`
Classic. iD users picking a random option in the warning box to make the validator shut up. Same as what the maproulette users did in March. I would just fix it, without further thinking. |
| 3 | 2026-05-21 15:22 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182981837 ; closing. |
| 5286471 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-10 13:37 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
review petrol station (duplicate mapping?) |
| 2 | 2026-05-21 14:55 | closed | vectorial8192 | Upon review, I read the graph/map wrong. Nothing to do here. |
| 5270549 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-29 03:58 | opened | vbertola | "Duplicate with no data"
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: 2026-04-04T03:36:32Z
POI has no name
POI types: amenity-restaurant
#organicmaps android 2026.04.07-8-Google |
| 2 | 2026-05-21 14:26 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182979226 ; closing. |
| 5286291 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-10 11:55 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813139621 "Feoso" is not a known fuel company; data mistake? |
| 2 | 2026-05-17 08:50 | commented | HenryEK | is feoso not a fuel company? i remember a building with their name near lai chi kok |
| 3 | 2026-05-17 08:52 | commented | HenryEK | see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/217283057
this station being feoso could be possible but il have to check some time later this week
|
| 4 | 2026-05-17 12:40 | commented | vectorial8192 | (We have more info at Discord)
The main issue is that I somehow cannot confirm whether Feoso is legit; they seem to be exiting the market, but some irl features still refer to it, and the website is basically "now WIP; check back later". And very unusually, no Wiki article for this.
We can look at the 5 fuel company websites to determine which on... |
| 5 | 2026-05-21 14:12 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182978580 ; closing. |
| 5286430 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-10 13:15 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/736802187 "Eco" is not a known fuel company; outdated info? |
| 2 | 2026-05-10 13:30 | commented | kingkingHK | I think, "eco" is referring to the dedicated LPG filling station? https://www.emsd.gov.hk/en/gas_safety/lpg_vehicle_scheme/auto_lpg_prices/index.html |
| 3 | 2026-05-10 19:20 | commented | Kovoschiz | @vectorial8192 It's you don't know. They existed before. Exited the market. It's Towngas. |
| 4 | 2026-05-10 19:21 | commented | Kovoschiz | @kingkingHK It's not an adjective "eco" for eco-friendly. It's a noun. `brand:en=Eco` |
| 5 | 2026-05-17 12:27 | commented | vectorial8192 | Whatever happens, if this "Eco" company exited the market, then this "Eco" info is outdated and the fuel station should be updated with the info of the current operator/brand. This can be done by checking the (online) shop lists of the existing 5 fuel companies. |
| 6 | 2026-05-19 22:19 | commented | HenryEK | I remember this gas station changed owners to some red and white brand a year or two ago. Last time I was down here was january and it was still red |
| 7 | 2026-05-21 12:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | Red/white is SINOPEC or Esso, and the website https://www.sinopechongkong.com/retail_hk/driver_oil_network agrees. |
| 8 | 2026-05-21 12:42 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182974426 ; closing. |
| 5141822 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-25 04:05 | opened | kingkingHK | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/444187633 feels like a descriptive name, but I'm not sure. (Also, it should probably be "Ventilation") |
| 2 | 2026-05-20 07:22 | commented | vectorial8192 | By survey, I can't get into here (poor/incomplete OSM data), but I intuitively believe the description. |
| 3 | 2026-05-20 07:33 | commented | kingkingHK | I have surveyed there in the past also can't get there. But seeing both government maps and wikipedia describe this building is a ventilation shaft for Tate's Cairn Tunnel, I think we can just move the `name=` into `description=`. |
| 4 | 2026-05-21 08:39 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182963664 ; closing. |
| 5150201 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-01 07:04 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: 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? |
| 2 | 2026-02-01 11:19 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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. |
| 3 | 2026-02-01 11:57 | commented | kingkingHK | There 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... |
| 4 | 2026-02-01 13:46 | commented | vectorial8192 | My armchair says that the road is ownership=private |
| 5 | 2026-05-20 08:40 | commented | vectorial8192 | My in-detail armchair says this is a mapping mistake.
Water facilities are basically closed from the public. Checking feature history, we can see that the feature started as the internal road of the facility, and then was extended and clarified. The key is that the clarification describes the internal roads separately from the external roads but d... |
| 6 | 2026-05-20 17:56 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182940740 ; closing. |
| 5286465 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-10 13:34 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261873910 "Mobil" is not a known fuel company; did you mean "Esso"? |
| 2 | 2026-05-20 16:24 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182936685 ; closing. |
| 5286438 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-10 13:17 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
petrol station review |
| 2 | 2026-05-10 13:18 | commented | vectorial8192 | e.g., duplicated mapping? |
| 3 | 2026-05-17 14:37 | commented | vectorial8192 | By website, there really is 2x same brand here.
(wait for NSI preset) |
| 4 | 2026-05-19 17:44 | commented | vectorial8192 | I suddenly remember, NSI update timings are generally unpredictable. For convenience and task progress, can use existing NSI data for now. |
| 5 | 2026-05-20 15:51 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182935120 ; closing. |
| 5164334 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-12 07:41 | opened | vectorial8192 | name seems unsubstantiated |
| 2 | 2026-02-12 08:15 | commented | kingkingHK | https://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/thread-2229220-1-1.html ? |
| 3 | 2026-02-12 10:09 | commented | vectorial8192 | ; https://www.hb.gov.hk/tc/publications/housing/public/phpf/Attachment1tc.pdf :
no results. |
| 4 | 2026-02-12 14:21 | commented | kingkingHK | I vaguely remember they later thought the name was too bad and retracted it, I guess that's why we can't find it anymore. If that's the case, perhaps we can move the name to `proposed:name=` or even `was:proposed:name=`. |
| 5 | 2026-02-12 15:29 | commented | vectorial8192 | No. Do not do `was:proposed:name=*`. How do you even prove to me (I just came here today) that there was such a name other than via "trust me bro"?
The baby doesn't have a name simply because of the trivial fact that said baby was aborted. We can at most give the baby a descriptive name.
For example, OSM contains curves for a hypothetical North I... |
| 6 | 2026-02-13 07:25 | commented | kingkingHK | See http://web.archive.org/web/20250926192231/https://www.hb.gov.hk/tc/publications/housing/public/phpf/Attachment1tc.pdf
Also, isn't `source=local knowledge` essentially just "trust me bro"? |
| 7 | 2026-02-23 09:58 | commented | kingkingHK | @vectorial8192 please see if you are satisfied with the quoted page. |
| 8 | 2026-02-23 14:34 | commented | vectorial8192 | I was scheduling to eventually reply to this note in the coming weeks, but ok.
---------------
Re "local knowledge", at least in theory there is a real person behind the account that made the change, so a bad edit is still blamable and/or bannable.
Re the Wayback Machine link, nope, it's fundamentally still "trust me bro" but more glorious and s... |
| 9 | 2026-02-24 11:46 | commented | Kovoschiz | 1. Facts are not copyrighted, only creative expressions and arrangements. You should look at the ToS only. The list of properties might be trivially assembled in their working, not protected by database rights either.
2. I don't see how the past record of Wayback Machine has to do with this |
| 10 | 2026-04-20 15:53 | commented | vectorial8192 | Then, I quote the Help Page https://help.archive.org/help/rights/ , esp:
> The Internet Archive does not make guarantees as to the copyright status of items [...]
When the PDF is no longer current, my opinion is that the government has basically retracted the copyright, and the document is now some sort of "government internal document leak". We ... |
| 11 | 2026-05-20 10:13 | commented | kingkingHK | > here the docs never went past the publication stage
...it did? That's exactly what the Wayback Machine shows?
> never gotten any names to begin with
?????? |
| 5296627 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 07:15 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296607 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 07:10 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: bridge has physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296606 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 07:10 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296585 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 06:51 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296580 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 06:46 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296578 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 06:45 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296577 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 06:43 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296576 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 06:42 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296561 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 06:34 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296560 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-17 06:32 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 5294906 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-16 10:05 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/100824558 "Eco" is not a known fuel company; oudated data? |
| 2 | 2026-05-16 16:12 | commented | Kovoschiz | Can you update your description template, already explained in last https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5286430 |
| 5293080 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-15 08:10 | opened | HCCSTE | 獨居 |
| 2 | 2026-05-15 08:11 | closed | HCCSTE | |
| 5287505 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-11 09:18 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/558985076 , etc. |
| 2 | 2026-05-11 12:04 | commented | kingkingHK | ? only connects to IEC, or is that not what you are trying to point out |
| 3 | 2026-05-11 18:12 | commented | Kovoschiz | @vectorial8192 Can you please explain or be more specific than "todo/issue"? This is not your personal notebook. |
| 4 | 2026-05-11 18:13 | commented | Kovoschiz | It's almost "don't ask to ask". I have to guess what you are asking to explain it. This wastes our time waiting that could be used to directly answer you. |
| 5 | 2026-05-12 09:37 | commented | vectorial8192 | I can't always immediately reply/do stuff. Normally I will make the changeset myself, but when at that moment I do not have time, and I believe I have noticed a mistake, then I make a note, and hope that someone else (future me, or present others) can do that while I do something else. I believe this is standard practice, and I am not treating OSM ... |
| 6 | 2026-05-12 09:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | Specifically, @Kovoschiz you should know what this note is referring to because you just did the same thing in another place within these few days.
Actual issue: `highway=trunk` cannot produce `highway=motorway_link` without a "supporting" `highway=motorway`.
I am pretty sure this is a "too large; didn't notice" mistake from the recent (multiple)... |
| 7 | 2026-05-12 09:44 | commented | vectorial8192 | Upon closer look e.g. by @kingkingHK, are we trying to justify this motorway link with the east-side Route 4 motorway? Seems very unusual when e.g. there is a section which is `highway=trunk` already. |
| 8 | 2026-05-12 10:11 | commented | kingkingHK | Sigh.
If you hope others can help, then at the very very least explain what help is needed. We can't read your mind. When you are leaving what is practically giberrish, it should be expected that others are annoyed.
Re issue, extend motorway rule. If you disagree, please take it elsewhere (e.g. existing Discord thread). We don't need notes to tra... |
| 9 | 2026-05-12 17:52 | commented | Kovoschiz | @vectorial8192 No, we are asking you to be clear what the problem is. Not "todo/issue:", simply "`=motorway_link` ?" would do.
"Don't use notes for yourself in a way which is useless to others. Although you can use notes as a reminder to yourself, you are also inviting others to look at it. Descriptions must make sense to other people." https://w... |
| 10 | 2026-05-12 17:56 | commented | Kovoschiz | `=motorway_link` / `=motorway` on `=trunk` should have been argued before (eg Lei Yue Mun Rd southbound)
HK is unusual with completely no-lane-change on all tunnels, and Tunnel Area midway through Expressway. That's the reality. |
| 11 | 2026-05-12 17:58 | commented | Kovoschiz | And gazetting street names on all slip lanes/roads (where OSM would expect no `name=` on `highway=*_link` internationally) |
| 12 | 2026-05-13 08:52 | commented | kingkingHK | A link only connecting to a `highway=x` would be `highway=x_link`. Is it really that difficult to understand? |
| 13 | 2026-05-14 16:12 | closed | vectorial8192 | Need not repeat "OSM is not a personal notebook" and "link is link".
Basically, I initially thought this would be a simple tagging mistake. It turns out this is (disappointingly) being reduced/redirected to the motorway tagging topic.
It seems I currently do not fully approve of the existing motorway approach.
We may see there is an ever-increas... |
| 14 | 2026-05-15 03:46 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 15 | 2026-05-15 03:56 | closed | kingkingHK | We repeat "OSM is not a personal notebook" because this is not the first time this has happened, and certainly it won't be the last if we don't warn you about it. Better repeat it now, than waste time waiting for you to clarify potential future ambiguous notes.
We also need to repeat "link is link" because it is a fundamental principle on how link... |
| 5287967 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-11 15:39 | opened | Vera German | "(!!) big electronic box for clothings and accessories to recycle ♻️ "
OSM snapshot date: 2026-04-04T03:36:32Z
POI has no name
POI types: amenity-recycling-container
#organicmaps ios 2026.04.07-8-ios |
| 2 | 2026-05-12 06:30 | closed | Ruslan Fatih | |
| 5287748 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-11 12:43 | opened | Vera German | "Why isn’t the category just “place of worship”/church???"
OSM snapshot date: 2026-04-04T03:36:32Z
POI name: 耶穌基督後期聖徒會灣仔教堂 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
POI types: amenity-place_of_worship-christian-mormon
#organicmaps ios 2026.04.07-8-ios |
| 2 | 2026-05-11 13:51 | commented | kingkingHK | It is just `amenity=place_of_worship`, what are you talking about? |
| 3 | 2026-05-11 16:53 | commented | Vera German | The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - why specifically this type of church has its one icon on a map, all I meant. So far in all countries I’ve only seen one icon for all Christian churches |
| 4 | 2026-05-11 18:19 | closed | Kovoschiz | 1. Please ask the app, or discuss elsewhere, for questions about the app. This is not a data problem.
2. Simple, it's exactly because `denomination=mormon` has been coded with an icon in that app. It has been explained there. https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/issues/4931 https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/pull/5821 https://en.wiki... |
| 5 | 2026-05-11 18:19 | reopened | Kovoschiz | |
| 6 | 2026-05-11 18:20 | closed | Kovoschiz | |
| 5286446 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-10 13:24 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
review petrol station (duplicate mapping?) |
| 2 | 2026-05-11 15:13 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182516442 ; closing. |
| 5286293 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-10 11:55 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813139621 "Feoso" is not a known fuel company; data mistake? |
| 2 | 2026-05-10 11:56 | closed | vectorial8192 | network issue; duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5286291 |
| 5276301 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-02 22:33 | opened | Jon Wang | 缺乏物理边界，停车场与可通行道路的标记； |
| 2 | 2026-05-10 01:35 | closed | Jon Wang | |
| 5274944 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-02 09:10 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: slip lane opened? |
| 2 | 2026-05-09 12:12 | commented | Kovoschiz | It's for the footbridge. Should be opened around the same time. |
| 3 | 2026-05-09 12:12 | commented | Kovoschiz | (Should be to open) |
| 5282853 (iD) | 1 | 2026-05-08 06:45 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/147463823 |
| 2 | 2026-05-09 12:08 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182421667 |
| 5034469 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:55 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2025-12-18 09:56 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a family medicine clinic here. |
| 3 | 2026-05-05 17:57 | closed | Crystaltszz | |
| 4 | 2026-05-05 17:57 | reopened | Crystaltszz | |
| 5220075 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-26 04:16 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1049993024
ancient todo |
| 2 | 2026-03-27 06:36 | commented | kingkingHK | City blocks don't have well-defined boundaries. Not sure what can be done here. |
| 3 | 2026-03-27 07:51 | commented | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5220074 |
| 4 | 2026-05-04 15:21 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182210820 ; closing. |
| 5220074 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-26 04:16 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1049686177
ancient todo |
| 2 | 2026-03-27 06:36 | commented | kingkingHK | City blocks don't have well-defined boundaries. Not sure what can be done here. |
| 3 | 2026-03-27 07:52 | commented | Kovoschiz | Yes, they have, if according to numbered planning areas inside a scheme (as I have used) |
| 4 | 2026-04-26 13:16 | commented | vectorial8192 | The polygon seems to (aim to) describe some sort of neighbourhood rather than a specific development plot (e.g. Area XX). |
| 5 | 2026-04-26 13:23 | commented | vectorial8192 | For reference, e.g. "Tin Shui Wai South" is currently an OSM quarter. |
| 6 | 2026-04-26 13:31 | commented | vectorial8192 | By using the Nominatim Reverse Search ( https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/reverse.html ) I can see the addresses of this area is currently shown as "Tin Shui Wai North".
I have no better addressing name for this neighbourhood. I propose just deleting the ancient todo polygon and finish. |
| 7 | 2026-05-04 15:17 | commented | vectorial8192 | No response; I'm doing it.
If anything, individual plot numbers (e.g. TSW Area XX) can be added separately when good data sources are found. Seeing no real progress on the plot number mapping over the years, safe to say we do not need a todo polygon for tracking / reminder. |
| 8 | 2026-05-04 15:19 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182210763 ; closing. |
| 5270701 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-29 07:22 | opened | | Future side of Hong Kong Shu Yan School.
https://www.syalumni.org/projects
https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr2025/english/panels/ed/papers/ed20250207cb3-127-4-e.pdf |
| 2 | 2026-05-01 11:26 | commented | vectorial8192 | Obviously we cannot use the diagrams, but at least we may document the school proposal. |
| 3 | 2026-05-03 16:39 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182168842 ; closing. |
| 3149177 (iD) | 1 | 2022-04-23 16:52 | opened | Whcohi | The ele is way off, don't think it a good idea to keep misinformation. |
| 2 | 2022-04-27 01:35 | closed | PoHK | refer CEDD (Civil Engineering and Development Department), Lo Han Tower top level is +819.8 |
| 3 | 2022-04-27 07:44 | reopened | Whcohi | |
| 4 | 2022-04-27 08:07 | commented | Whcohi | i know, but is it okay to said it out right the ele data is refer to the CEDD? |
| 5 | 2026-01-18 16:50 | commented | vectorial8192 | Re 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. |
| 6 | 2026-01-19 02:25 | commented | kingkingHK | From 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". |
| 7 | 2026-02-02 12:48 | commented | vectorial8192 | The 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. |
| 8 | 2026-02-02 13:16 | commented | kingkingHK | Unfortunately, 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. |
| 9 | 2026-04-25 06:22 | commented | kingkingHK | Wait. This note isn't asking us to copy from government maps. The only thing we have to do to close this note is to look at government maps, compare it to osm, and check that the two are the same. This cannot possibly be a copyright infringement because nothing is copied. @vectorial8192 what do you think? (Or have you unsubscribed already?) |
| 10 | 2026-04-30 12:47 | commented | vectorial8192 | I was unsubscribed. (As we can see, pinging people here has no effect.)
I haven't investigated this note/case in any effective detail, but I would think cross-checking maps may count as "using external maps to edit OSM".
I will remain subscribed for a bit. |
| 11 | 2026-04-30 13:36 | commented | kingkingHK | Yeah but, surely closing a note without making changesets doesn't count as "editing osm"? (Ok, now that I think of it, notes are part is the osm database...) Maybe I will ask more people elsewhere. |
| 12 | 2026-04-30 14:21 | commented | kingkingHK | Started a discussion in OSM World Discord
https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/413070502580453387/1499408018129944697 |
| 13 | 2026-04-30 16:50 | commented | Kovoschiz | You could have waited a while first. The best would be to pursuit the Crown Copyright, as especially the terrain is presumably produced by the colonial agency alone for itself. |
| 14 | 2026-05-01 08:01 | commented | kingkingHK | Not too sure what you mean, I thought we already knew that Crown Copyright can't be used? |
| 15 | 2026-05-01 11:23 | commented | vectorial8192 | I recall closing an unrelated note at Kai Tak 1331. I closed it because we can't survey it (access=private), and we can't armchair it (YouTube is not a usable source). No pathway exists.
Here, we may potentially survey this by triangulation (may be difficult), or armchair this by using appropriate maps. It's unclear whether we really have no pathw... |
| 16 | 2026-05-01 11:24 | commented | Kovoschiz | What I said should be it needs to be clarified by LWG. Contours should be fine, and especially survey spots . |
| 17 | 2026-05-01 11:26 | commented | Kovoschiz | Strangely colonies may be better. Only OS is not OGL, only Crown Copyright, thus 50 years. |
| 18 | 2026-05-01 11:29 | commented | Kovoschiz | (I'm referring to the previous status, and historical works. The problem is printed maps contain other org's data.) |
| 19 | 2026-05-01 12:39 | commented | kingkingHK | Then, how may we get the LWG to clarify? Do we just email legal-questions@osmfoundation.org (email from wiki) and explain the situation? I really don't know anything about this. |
| 20 | 2026-05-01 16:08 | commented | vectorial8192 | I don't know all the steps, but basically "after some time" the LWG will meet up and discuss questions, and then the results will be posted to somewhere at the Wiki or sth. |
| 5271951 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-30 05:39 | opened | | 屏山鄉天后寶誕巡遊 |
| 2 | 2026-04-30 12:43 | closed | vectorial8192 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes
> For example never create notes such as "I was here on Saturday" or "There was a crime at this location".
> 例如，千萬不要創建諸如“我星期六來過這裡”或“這裡發生過犯罪事件”之類的筆記。 |
| 3 | 2026-04-30 13:02 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-04-30 13:02 | closed | vectorial8192 | To clarify: temporary or short-term events usually should not be documented on OSM.
補充說明：OSM通常不應用作記錄臨時或短暫的事件。 |
| 5269824 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-28 14:00 | opened | kingkingHK | todo/issue: review mapping of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16312559 ; probably against "relations are not categories" |
| 5269556 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-28 10:22 | opened | Hayden wong | "已經開放了給公眾使用
不是在建道路"
OSM snapshot date: 2026-04-05T19:23:11Z
POI name: 粉嶺繞道 Fanling Bypass
POI types: hwtag-nobicycle highway-construction hwtag-nofoot hwtag-oneway
#CoMaps android 2026.04.07-8-Google |
| 2 | 2026-04-28 13:47 | closed | kingkingHK | No it is not. |
| 5267129 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-26 14:08 | opened | kingkingHK | todo/issue: this section of Kwok Shui Road drives on the right, but the turning circle is clockwise? |
| 2 | 2026-04-27 11:45 | commented | Kovoschiz | May be editing mistake (HK-wide) |
| 3 | 2026-04-27 11:55 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1704049753/history/5 |
| 5165553 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-13 03:36 | opened | vectorial8192 | junction has fixme:
propose to split; separation continues from traffic island |
| 2 | 2026-04-26 13:45 | closed | vectorial8192 | I see this fixme was adopted and implemented in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178627723 . Therefore, closing. |
| 3 | 2026-04-26 14:00 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-04-26 14:00 | commented | kingkingHK | Maybe I misunderstood something, but isn't the current situation still wrong because of the "pencil-tip" mapping? I thought this note was meant to address that. |
| 5 | 2026-04-27 11:42 | closed | Kovoschiz | It's fine to follow the `lane_markings=yes` |
| 5267845 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-27 03:15 | opened | | 旺角中心 |
| 2 | 2026-04-27 08:50 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14707425/history/1
osm.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 g... |
| 5267124 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-26 14:02 | opened | kingkingHK | todo/issue: some parts of Heung Yip Road should be bridges |
| 5174639 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-20 13:47 | opened | awhchk | When I visited a few days ago, the one-way traffic around T5-10 seems to run anticlockwise now, judging from the painted arrows on the street.
I didn't get to check the whole street in detail though, so this could be wrong. Someone might want to verify if able. |
| 2 | 2026-02-21 11:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | Might be temporary measure. Aerial imagery shows some construction work at Shap Pat Heung Road - Kung Um Road. Might be related if perhaps the left turn no longer works while WIP. |
| 3 | 2026-04-09 13:02 | commented | kingkingHK | The estate appears to be `access=private`. This information might be unverifiable. |
| 4 | 2026-04-26 11:37 | commented | vectorial8192 | lol rofl; we be armchairing this, and then aerial imagery (MapBox) can clearly show the anticlockwise direction.
facepalm moment. |
| 5 | 2026-04-26 11:56 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181842154 with a facepalm; closing. |
| 5259315 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-21 09:47 | opened | vectorial8192 | issue:
KMB 36B:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13901595
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13901594
Validator warning: route scheme is unspecified; clarify "public_transport:version" |
| 2 | 2026-04-25 09:03 | commented | kingkingHK | Imo this doesn't need a note for tracking. Just do it. |
| 3 | 2026-04-25 13:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | Correct in principle, but I simply don't know what this v1/v2 thing means. You can do it if you know this. |
| 4 | 2026-04-25 14:14 | commented | kingkingHK | Basically, there are two schemas for mapping public transport routes, v1 and v2. The tag `public_transport:version=` is for specifying which one is used.
For these two specific relations, they are actually broken (missing/no stops), so (iirc) they fit neither of the schemas. So no `public_transport:version=`. The way to fix it is to map it properl... |
| 5 | 2026-04-25 14:44 | commented | vectorial8192 | ooof, then this can be classified as a large edit, and we will need to track this. |
| 5115217 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-03 06:19 | opened | vectorial8192 | special note:
note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/758446 is covered by other notes; this note is to help with note management. |
| 2 | 2026-01-03 07:59 | closed | NeisReview | No actionable information was provided for editing OpenStreetMap data. Please feel free to reopen this note with more details. #noeditinfo |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 08:07 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 08:08 | commented | vectorial8192 | Meta-Note: this note helps others to more conveniently notice/click other notes. |
| 5 | 2026-01-03 11:31 | closed | vectorial8192 | Referenced note is closed. Therefore, closing. |
| 6 | 2026-01-03 11:39 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 7 | 2026-01-03 11:39 | commented | kingkingHK | Reviving with parent note. |
| 8 | 2026-04-25 09:10 | commented | kingkingHK | No more overlapping notes; this note is now unnecessary. I propose closing. |
| 9 | 2026-04-25 14:08 | closed | vectorial8192 | Oh yeah, I forgor about this again. Notice I did close another note nearby some time ago. Thanks for the heads-up.
Mission accomplished; closing. |
| 5264444 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-24 19:54 | opened | | Edited node/11752363006
實惠 PRICERITE (Supermarket):
! Place was marked permanently closed.
Suggested location change:
22.2821916, 114.1273465
--------
Submitted from https://osmapp.org/node/11752363006 |
| 2 | 2026-04-25 09:14 | commented | kingkingHK | https://www.pricerite.com.hk/hk/en/storeInfo/ agrees |
| 5173374 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-19 13:04 | opened | vectorial8192 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13349030768 ; ????? |
| 2 | 2026-02-19 14:14 | commented | kingkingHK | 99.9% just a copy-and-paste error; don't know how that happened |
| 3 | 2026-03-14 14:51 | commented | vectorial8192 | Left a comment at OP; hopefully they will reply later and review this. |
| 4 | 2026-03-15 05:02 | commented | kingkingHK | That guy has history of ignoring changeset comments. I won't hope for anything. As you have been to Ma On Shan recently, do you have any data yourself about this? |
| 5 | 2026-03-16 09:58 | commented | vectorial8192 | I mean, multiple reasons why they would "ignore" OSM emails (e.g. they don't check every day, they somehow gave the notifications to spam, etc), so not too much of a problem. Besides, I can't realistically do high intensity OSM every day.
I will just try to give it back to them. Maybe eventually it's me who will do it later, but that's a future pr... |
| 6 | 2026-03-21 05:46 | commented | kingkingHK | hkbus-fandom says this bus stop doesn't have a pole, so I doubt it qualifies for `highway=bus_stop` in osm. |
| 7 | 2026-03-21 06:47 | commented | vectorial8192 | ... then how do you indicate in OSM that "buses can pick up/drop off passengers here"?
The OSM Wiki for highway=bus_stop says "[...] may be marked [...]". The definition/wording allows unmarked stops. |
| 8 | 2026-03-21 11:08 | commented | Kovoschiz | There's `pole=no` , `flag=no` |
| 9 | 2026-03-21 11:46 | commented | kingkingHK | The problem is that the exact location is unverifiable without a pole/marking. Not even the Schedule of Service gives the location: https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_4796/MOS/nr84.pdf |
| 10 | 2026-04-25 09:07 | commented | kingkingHK | One solution I can think of is to tag `hail_and_ride` along the section intended as a stop. |
| 5214067 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-21 15:50 | opened | | Fairy Pita |
| 2 | 2026-04-05 07:25 | commented | kingkingHK | Not too sure what this means. Does anyone know? |
| 3 | 2026-04-25 09:05 | closed | kingkingHK | Meaning is unclear; closing. |
| 5257163 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-19 15:13 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
Junction: physical separation (what a mess!) |
| 2 | 2026-04-25 08:15 | commented | vectorial8192 | Split with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181795558 |
| 3 | 2026-04-25 08:42 | commented | vectorial8192 | Relations cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181796322 |
| 4 | 2026-04-25 08:42 | closed | vectorial8192 | All done; closing. |
| 5263460 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-24 07:54 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
2x Exit 9C |
| 2 | 2026-04-24 11:07 | closed | kingkingHK | Good find; seems like an editing mistake from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122615664 (moving junction without moving the `highway=motorway_junction`)
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181759319 ; closing. |
| 5259823 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-21 15:24 | opened | | 终点：北潭凹 |
| 2 | 2026-04-22 02:10 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 3 | 2026-04-23 17:36 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-04-23 17:37 | closed | vectorial8192 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes
For example never create notes such as "I was here on Saturday" or "There was a crime at this location".
例如，千萬不要創建諸如“我星期六來過這裡”或“這裡發生過犯罪事件”之類的筆記。 |
| 5259827 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-21 15:26 | opened | | 起点：万宜东坝 |
| 2 | 2026-04-22 02:10 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 3 | 2026-04-23 17:35 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-04-23 17:36 | closed | vectorial8192 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes
For example never create notes such as "I was here on Saturday" or "There was a crime at this location".
例如，千萬不要創建諸如“我星期六來過這裡”或“這裡發生過犯罪事件”之類的筆記。 |
| 5034442 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:52 | opened | vectorial8192 | Should this be a Family Medicine Clinic? |
| 2 | 2025-11-02 14:53 | commented | vectorial8192 | Seems like it; the placement makes it very unobvious. |
| 3 | 2025-12-14 09:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | Interestingly, 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. |
| 4 | 2026-04-19 14:23 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a FMC here. |
| 5 | 2026-04-23 12:31 | closed | kingkingHK | Not uncommon to have two entrances, especially considering the hilly terrain of this area.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181716103 ; closing. |
| 5261435 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-22 16:24 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
Unexpected connection between railway and stream. |
| 2 | 2026-04-23 02:44 | closed | kingkingHK | Editing software should really warn about this kind of stuff.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181697331 ; closing. |
| 5259988 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-21 16:35 | opened | | 路不通行 |
| 2 | 2026-04-22 02:10 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 2598829 (iD) | 1 | 2021-03-29 08:10 | opened | Hang 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 |
| 2 | 2025-05-03 11:26 | commented | vectorial8192 | Website http://www.hangtone.com.hk/ agrees with this note |
| 3 | 2025-08-13 10:21 | commented | kingkingHK | Correct, feature exists IRL. |
| 4 | 2025-10-08 14:40 | commented | vectorial8192 | But 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. |
| 5 | 2026-01-22 13:55 | commented | kingkingHK | Yeah, I think it is here. No idea why it's so far from Ng Ka Tsuen. |
| 6 | 2026-04-21 09:58 | commented | vectorial8192 | In OSM we trust. Rural addressing can be really confusing to urbanites. |
| 7 | 2026-04-21 10:01 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181618934 ; closing. |
| 4306096 (iD) | 1 | 2024-06-24 13:55 | opened | | 此處並沒有廁所 |
| 2 | 2026-01-22 13:51 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed. |
| 3 | 2026-04-21 09:53 | closed | vectorial8192 | In OSM we trust.
I mean, the actions required should be trivial. Just do it.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181618500 ; closing. |
| 5043137 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-08 10:09 | opened | Lkwokon | 河背營地 |
| 2 | 2026-01-22 13:51 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed. |
| 3 | 2026-04-21 09:51 | closed | vectorial8192 | In OSM we trust.
This should be a polygon, but at least we can start with a node, which is done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181618439
Closing. |
| 5257115 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-19 14:40 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
Wo Yi Hop Road: physical separation |
| 2 | 2026-04-21 09:21 | commented | vectorial8192 | Split with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181617196 |
| 3 | 2026-04-21 09:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | Relations cleaned with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181617645 |
| 4 | 2026-04-21 09:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | The approach left behind inconsistent roads; fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181618054 |
| 5 | 2026-04-21 09:43 | commented | vectorial8192 | Mapping mistake with KMB 31M; fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181618135 |
| 6 | 2026-04-21 09:44 | closed | vectorial8192 | This is very messy. Used the wrong plans.
All done; closing. |
| 5254728 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-18 05:58 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
Exit E/F |
| 2 | 2026-04-20 11:18 | commented | kingkingHK | Uh, can you elaborate? |
| 3 | 2026-04-21 07:30 | closed | vectorial8192 | Basically, the data was too confusing and did not clearly explain the exit E/F situation.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181612941 . Feel free to make additional improvement changesets, but at least the E/F situation is clarified.
Closing. |
| 5239861 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-08 05:13 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
Where are the station exits? |
| 2 | 2026-04-20 14:43 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181586912 ; closing. |
| 5034358 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:19 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-01-29 08:57 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. |
| 3 | 2026-04-19 14:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | We do have a FMC here, with some other stuff. |
| 4 | 2026-04-19 15:01 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181542727 ; closing. |
| 5257117 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-19 14:41 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
Wo Yi Hop Road: physical separation |
| 5034359 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:19 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-01-29 08:57 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. |
| 3 | 2026-04-19 14:19 | commented | vectorial8192 | We do have a FMC here. |
| 4 | 2026-04-19 14:26 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181541202 ; closing. |
| 5215003 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-22 11:33 | opened | Angus Lee | "Shop A. Shop name is CHI Tachinomi."
OSM snapshot date: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z
POI has no name
POI types: amenity-bbq
#organicmaps ios 2026.03.11-12-ios |
| 2 | 2026-04-19 14:23 | commented | kingkingHK | Correct |
| 5128913 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:11 | opened | | 家寶洗衣
西環域多利道1-15 號百年大廈一座地舖 C |
| 2 | 2026-04-19 07:03 | commented | kingkingHK | Correct |
| 3 | 2026-04-19 14:22 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181540997 ; closing. |
| 5122127 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-08 15:20 | opened | user_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 ... |
| 2 | 2026-01-28 13:14 | commented | vectorial8192 | This 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 ). |
| 3 | 2026-03-01 05:58 | commented | kingkingHK | Online info says there's another two at 105 Jervois Street and 9 Kingston Street |
| 4 | 2026-03-05 12:24 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, indeed there's one at at 105 Jervois Street and none here; haven't checked Causeway Bay yet. |
| 5 | 2026-03-05 15:28 | commented | vectorial8192 | Opinion: open a new note for Causeway Bay, or sth. |
| 6 | 2026-03-08 05:15 | commented | kingkingHK | Good idea; I have considered it but thought it doesn't really matter as note management is not important when no one except us will check notes regularly anyway. But still, now that you are asking for it, I can do that.
Sheung Wan see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179518628 |
| 7 | 2026-03-08 05:30 | commented | kingkingHK | Wellington Street see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179518884 |
| 8 | 2026-03-08 05:34 | commented | kingkingHK | New note see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5195386
Now I suddenly remember that I forgot to survey the one at Tai Kwun... I guess I will just believe online info. |
| 9 | 2026-04-19 12:20 | closed | kingkingHK | Tai Kwun resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181535317 ; closing. |
| 5239628 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-07 20:46 | opened | | ooPharma LTD |
| 2 | 2026-04-19 09:02 | closed | kingkingHK | Note invalid (item does not exist irl); closing. |
| 5128915 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:12 | opened | | 晴天專業洗衣服務 堅尼地城厚和街49號Shop A2 |
| 2 | 2026-04-19 07:05 | commented | kingkingHK | Correct |
| 5128914 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:11 | opened | | Goodwins of London (Kennedy Town Shop) 乾洗店
堅尼地城卑路乍街183號 |
| 2 | 2026-04-19 06:51 | commented | kingkingHK | Correct |
| 5231208 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-03 09:09 | opened | kingkingHK | Has this part of Kam Tin Road been widened? |
| 2 | 2026-04-12 09:45 | commented | kingkingHK | Yes. |
| 3 | 2026-04-18 14:24 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181501054 ; closing. |
| 5254629 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-18 02:00 | opened | Hayden wong | 這條公路是收費公路
#CoMaps android 2026.04.07-8-Google |
| 2 | 2026-04-18 05:30 | closed | kingkingHK | No it is not. |
| 3 | 2026-04-18 06:11 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-04-18 06:12 | commented | vectorial8192 | Yes it is. If you are referring to the Bypass, it *is* a tolled road. |
| 5 | 2026-04-18 06:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | We can double check whether it is currently tolled or free. |
| 6 | 2026-04-18 06:30 | commented | kingkingHK | It is currently free though afaik. It is already tagged with `proposed:toll=yes`. |
| 7 | 2026-04-18 09:08 | closed | Kovoschiz | Come on, it "is" not now. We don't need to check. |
| 5156487 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-06 02:58 | opened | kingkingHK | I doubt https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97816026 is really `surface=fine_gravel`. |
| 2 | 2026-03-04 12:24 | commented | vectorial8192 | At this point I am suspecting software issues (e.g. StreetComplete or related apps giving wrong instructions), but I have no proof. |
| 3 | 2026-04-18 05:24 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved by someone else via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180232988 ; closing. |
| 5175577 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-21 12:19 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: new traffic signals? |
| 2 | 2026-04-14 10:30 | commented | vectorial8192 | Potentially close-able; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180391465 |
| 3 | 2026-04-14 11:03 | commented | kingkingHK | I still have some data myself; will make changeset soon. |
| 4 | 2026-04-15 14:23 | closed | kingkingHK | I apologise for my tendency to survey notes without resolving them. I will try to spend more time on resolving notes, but I feel like I am overcommitting myself.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181370105 ; closing. |
| 5249431 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-14 08:06 | opened | youyeetoo |
2619, 26/F, Delta House,
No.3 On Yiu Street, Shatin,
New Territories, Hong Kong |
| 2 | 2026-04-14 08:06 | closed | youyeetoo | |
| 5234931 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-05 06:21 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
possibly problematic bus lanes, etc. |
| 2 | 2026-04-13 14:52 | closed | vectorial8192 | The key is to remove the virtual channelization (ancient), which is done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181280034 .
Therefore, resolving. |
| 5115205 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-03 06:09 | opened | vectorial8192 | special note:
note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/939664 is covered by other notes; this note is to help with note management. |
| 2 | 2026-01-03 07:59 | closed | NeisReview | No actionable information was provided for editing OpenStreetMap data. Please feel free to reopen this note with more details. #noeditinfo |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 08:07 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 08:09 | commented | vectorial8192 | Meta-Note: this note helps others to more conveniently notice/click other notes. |
| 5 | 2026-04-13 12:29 | closed | vectorial8192 | Referenced note is closed. Propagating. |
| 5246298 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-12 04:23 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
Station building layering/scope |
| 2 | 2026-04-13 03:36 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181255690 ; closing. |
| 5034344 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:16 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-04-12 09:18 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181220299 ; closing. |
| 5185673 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-01 03:16 | opened | | perdestrian stair toward entrence
#OsmAnd |
| 2 | 2026-03-12 14:12 | commented | kingkingHK | We should be able to do this with old maps; unlikely the cemetery changed much. |
| 3 | 2026-04-12 06:40 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181215894 ; closing. |
| 5134778 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-19 05:34 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
station is too small |
| 2 | 2026-04-12 03:27 | closed | フーヴァー リー | Solved |
| 3 | 2026-04-12 04:00 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-04-12 04:00 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5128949 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:20 | opened | | Missing Location:
保美洗衣
灣仔盧押道11-13號修頓商業大廈 |
| 2 | 2026-03-01 09:10 | commented | kingkingHK | Correct |
| 3 | 2026-04-12 03:26 | closed | フーヴァー リー | |
| 4 | 2026-04-12 04:00 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 5 | 2026-04-12 04:00 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5128944 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:19 | opened | | 清深洗衣專門店
Oceanic Laundry Shop
灣仔晏頓街1號安定大廈 |
| 2 | 2026-03-01 09:10 | commented | kingkingHK | Correct |
| 3 | 2026-04-12 03:26 | closed | フーヴァー リー | |
| 4 | 2026-04-12 04:00 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 5 | 2026-04-12 04:00 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5128946 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:19 | opened | | Missing Location:
Sunshine Laundry Convenience Store
自助洗衣店
http://www.sunshinelaundry.com.hk/ |
| 2 | 2026-03-01 09:10 | commented | kingkingHK | Correct |
| 3 | 2026-04-12 03:26 | closed | フーヴァー リー | |
| 4 | 2026-04-12 03:59 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 5 | 2026-04-12 04:00 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5128947 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:20 | opened | | Missing Location:
天天洗衣 Daily Laundry
灣仔莊士敦道36-42號聯發大廈地下36A1舖 |
| 2 | 2026-03-01 09:10 | commented | kingkingHK | Correct |
| 3 | 2026-04-12 03:26 | closed | フーヴァー リー | |
| 4 | 2026-04-12 03:59 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 5 | 2026-04-12 03:59 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5128950 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:21 | opened | | Missing Location:
保仕 乾洗公司
地舖, Shun Pont Commercial Building, 9號 Thomson Rd, Wan Chai |
| 2 | 2026-03-01 09:10 | commented | kingkingHK | Correct |
| 3 | 2026-04-12 03:26 | closed | フーヴァー リー | |
| 4 | 2026-04-12 03:59 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 5 | 2026-04-12 03:59 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5128943 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:19 | opened | | Missing Location:
British Dry Cleaners 英商乾洗
灣仔月街7號
http://www.britishdrycleaners.com/ |
| 2 | 2026-03-01 09:10 | commented | kingkingHK | Correct |
| 3 | 2026-04-12 03:26 | closed | フーヴァー リー | |
| 4 | 2026-04-12 03:59 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 5 | 2026-04-12 03:59 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5177084 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-22 13:39 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
Improve data quality by aerial imagery, etc. |
| 2 | 2026-02-22 14:11 | commented | kingkingHK | This is a very general description. Can you elaborate on what improvements you expect? |
| 3 | 2026-02-22 14:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | e.g. alignment, features, etc. |
| 4 | 2026-03-26 15:06 | commented | vectorial8192 | One challenge is that multiple aerial imagery sources have distortions here, which makes cross-referencing difficult, or at least just very unsmooth. |
| 5 | 2026-04-10 18:09 | closed | vectorial8192 | Finally, this side also LGTM. Closing. |
| 939664 (iD) | 1 | 2017-03-25 10:02 | opened | Koala888 | (可能)日軍手掘洞 (OSM data version: 2017-03-06T16:48:02Z) #mapsme |
| 2 | 2026-01-03 06:01 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 06:44 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 5 | 2026-02-05 14:21 | commented | vectorial8192 | Perhaps this is referring to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11245354726 , which is not located here. |
| 6 | 2026-02-06 02:55 | commented | kingkingHK | Well, looking at nearby features, it seems like there are quite a lot of Japanese caves in this area. It is not unlikely to really have an unmapped one here. |
| 7 | 2026-02-06 04:40 | commented | vectorial8192 | It is extremely unnatural to have multiple notes in different time frames share the exact same coordinates.
One probable cause is the GPS collapsing everyone onto the same coordinates due to poor signals.
I don't trust the locations of these (3) notes. Apart from the water stream note which can be armchaired, this could easily become an area sear... |
| 8 | 2026-02-06 08:56 | commented | kingkingHK | My guess:
Notice that all three notes are made with maps.me, and one of them mentions "poi: landuse-forest". Using overpass to look at the osm data at the time, we see that the forest is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4508992 , and the location of the three notes is roughly at the centre of the forest. My guess is that when maps.me creates... |
| 9 | 2026-04-09 13:08 | commented | kingkingHK | By now, I/we have seen enough cases of maps.me placing notes at centroids of large polygons that this note can be safely assumed to be the same. A note without a (correct) location is practically unactionable; @vectorial8192 do you support closing this note? |
| 10 | 2026-04-09 16:22 | commented | vectorial8192 | Yeah, let's close this. Above mentioned, we can locate several features nearby (albeit kinda far away) which matches the description of this note. If future guys discover something new then they can add note (or even do OSM edit directly). |
| 11 | 2026-04-10 12:45 | closed | kingkingHK | Then, closing. |
| 5123432 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-09 16:54 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
this section of Route 2 probably should not have toll information. |
| 2 | 2026-01-10 03:14 | closed | kingkingHK | It should as it can only be accessed from EHC.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11180794 |
| 3 | 2026-01-10 04:29 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-01-10 04:31 | commented | vectorial8192 | However:
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. |
| 5 | 2026-01-10 05:04 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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... |
| 6 | 2026-01-10 09:18 | commented | vectorial8192 | tbh 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. |
| 7 | 2026-01-11 04:04 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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... |
| 8 | 2026-01-11 11:37 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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... |
| 9 | 2026-01-11 12:26 | commented | kingkingHK | Wouldn'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... |
| 10 | 2026-01-11 16:53 | commented | vectorial8192 | imo `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... |
| 11 | 2026-01-12 07:51 | commented | Kovoschiz | Hammer Hill Rd off-slip seems an editing omission. You shouldn't assume it must be perfect. |
| 12 | 2026-01-12 08:07 | commented | kingkingHK | Yeah, @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... |
| 13 | 2026-01-14 03:07 | commented | vectorial8192 | Socratic 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. |
| 14 | 2026-01-14 03:53 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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". |
| 15 | 2026-01-14 07:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | I will early-hint that my "exact area" is different from "continue until junction". |
| 16 | 2026-03-13 04:42 | closed | Josephfunny202603131237_ | |
| 17 | 2026-03-13 06:03 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 18 | 2026-03-13 06:03 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 19 | 2026-04-09 13:38 | commented | kingkingHK | @vectorial8192 reminder that this note exists and is awaiting your elaboration; it would be nice if you would find/recover/take a look at your drafts and give your point when you are ready. (No need to rush, but seeing you are recovering your Sau Mau Ping Road drafts I thought I should probably remind you to deal with this too) |
| 20 | 2026-04-09 16:19 | commented | vectorial8192 | Indeed. I often lose focus. My plan was to discuss this first, but it seems we can discuss SMP side first instead. |
| 2337702 (iD) | 1 | 2020-09-06 14:33 | opened | 厕所位 | "廁所"
POI name: 大欖郊野公園 Tai Lam Country Park
POI types: boundary-national_park
OSM data version: 2020-07-14T11:22:37Z
#mapsme |
| 2 | 2026-04-09 13:04 | closed | kingkingHK | Absolutely nothing on aerial imagery, this area is also so remote and hilly it does not make sense to build a toilet here. This is probably just yet another case of maps.me placing notes at the centroids of large polygons, so this is essentially a note without a location, thus unactionable. Closing |
| 5213189 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-21 03:22 | opened | | Speed limit missing report.
Suggested limit: Unknown km/h
Location: 22.375450388960736, 113.96111385596463
Reported via Speed Defense System app. |
| 2 | 2026-03-23 11:57 | commented | vectorial8192 | Country default speed limit. We already documented that.
However, what is "Speed Defense System app"? |
| 3 | 2026-04-05 07:27 | commented | kingkingHK | We can still add `maxspeed=50` for the weaker data consumers. We have talked about this on Discord before, although that discussion ended with seemingly no consensus. |
| 4 | 2026-04-07 13:11 | commented | vectorial8192 | Concern: logistics/maintenance and scope creep.
If we do it for this street, then why not this other street, and the street in the next district, etc, and then we will have to do it for the entire Hong Kong. That's not something humanly doable.
My personal rule is to only do it for numbered highways and roads with no/few traffic lights. Those are... |
| 5 | 2026-04-07 13:40 | commented | kingkingHK | Tbf the same argument ("while we are here, might as well also do it") can be used on any improvement as you said elsewhere; if we are not allowed to improve something while ignoring something else then we will never get anything done.
I think the other concerns are already addressed in Discord in December? (#hongkong/maxspeed) |
| 6 | 2026-04-08 03:24 | commented | vectorial8192 | Re "while we are here [...]", correct. Then, it doesn't need a note for tracking. Just do it.
Re Discord discussions, it's so long ago I forgot the conclusion.
I got several things going on, and this doesn't fit my personal style, so I will not do it. If kingking you are here, then I will just keep this note open but will unsubscribe. |
| 7 | 2026-04-08 10:12 | commented | kingkingHK | The conclusion of the Discord discussion is that adding `maxspeed=50` to roads without thinking is not a net detriment.
Re just do it, yes, we can just do it (I didn't open this note). You can choose to not do it if it does not fit your personal style, but it fits my style so I will do it, then close this note. You may unsubscribe. |
| 8 | 2026-04-08 11:56 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181045513 ; closing. |
| 5239843 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-08 04:16 | opened | Tommy Lo | "102A"
OSM snapshot date: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z
POI has no name
POI types: wheelchair-yes highway-elevator
#organicmaps android 2026.03.11-12-Google |
| 2 | 2026-04-08 06:52 | closed | kingkingHK | Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5239740 |
| 5238504 (iD) | 1 | 2026-04-07 07:09 | opened | Mateusz Konieczny | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1245463436/history has bus = private|yes|yes
Was it supposed to be bus:lanes ? And be per-lane tagging?
(though lanes=1 would make no sense then - is marking it as a separate carriageway, physically separate from main road correct?) |
| 2 | 2026-04-07 08:56 | closed | Kovoschiz | Seems editing mistake from upstream section. Fixed. |
| 5214761 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-22 07:25 | opened | vectorial8192 | concern:
2x Yuk Po Court (should be multipolygon relation?) |
| 2 | 2026-04-05 09:33 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180887294 ; closing. |
| 5227994 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-31 17:04 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
Station is too small / wrong place. |
| 2 | 2026-04-01 10:54 | commented | vectorial8192 | The shape is fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180715131
The next step is to review the irl usage of the Mong Kok siding and then clean up the relations. |
| 3 | 2026-04-02 08:06 | commented | vectorial8192 | Looking at the MTR website timetables, it can be inferred there is a (new) railway service from Mong Kok to Lok Ma Chau. This very likely replaces the (now discontinued) "Mong Kok to Lo Wu" service.
This is documented as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20401317 . |
| 4 | 2026-04-05 07:57 | closed | vectorial8192 | As we cleaned up the deprecated railway services and patched the East Rail mainline relations, it is done.
Therefore, resolving. |
| 4577980 (iD) | 1 | 2025-01-06 09:56 | opened | vectorial8192 | Abandoned 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. |
| 2 | 2025-01-08 08:08 | commented | Kovoschiz | This 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. |
| 3 | 2025-01-08 12:09 | commented | vectorial8192 | The 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. |
| 4 | 2025-10-06 02:14 | commented | HenryEK | the 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 |
| 5 | 2025-10-06 02:16 | commented | HenryEK | frankly 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 |
| 6 | 2025-10-06 04:05 | commented | HenryEK | i 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? |
| 7 | 2025-10-06 05:14 | commented | Kovoschiz | `railway=abandoned` has a different meaning from `building=` + `abandoned=yes` |
| 8 | 2025-10-06 05:47 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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. |
| 9 | 2025-10-06 06:19 | commented | HenryEK | but 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 |
| 10 | 2025-10-06 14:29 | commented | vectorial8192 | @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... |
| 11 | 2025-10-06 15:00 | commented | kingkingHK | @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 |
| 12 | 2025-10-09 04:30 | commented | Kovoschiz | Roads, paths, and embankments qualify. So both can be examined. |
| 13 | 2025-10-12 06:16 | commented | HenryEK | so its just gonna stay like this then? |
| 14 | 2026-02-09 14:09 | commented | kingkingHK | 1. You can actually see an embankment right east of Cheung Tai Road.
2. Government copyrighted maps say the cuttings west of the bridge still follow the curve of the railway (which is different from Yau King Lane); we can easily do a survey to verify this.
3. If you toggle on older imagery from before the CUHK stuff were built (which is not too lon... |
| 15 | 2026-02-23 09:54 | commented | kingkingHK | If no counter-argument in a few weeks I will be closing this note as "nothing to do here". I am also planning to delete Wo Hop Shek Branch as no traces remain, and change Sha Tau Kok Railway to `=abandoned` (but probably need to redraw it as it is glued to many still-existing features, which afaik is wrong). |
| 16 | 2026-02-24 12:55 | commented | Kovoschiz | I had planned to do Sha Tau Kok branch. Need to check what side of the road it's on. |
| 17 | 2026-02-24 13:17 | commented | Kovoschiz | Glued to roadway is wrong, as it's not on the road. But sidewalk is fine, if that's where it's really on. |
| 18 | 2026-02-24 14:14 | commented | kingkingHK | I had thought about sketching it from old maps/aerial imagery. But they are not clear enough to show which side of the road it is on. I also found this pic: https://i0.wp.com/www.wetoasthk.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/sha-tau-kok-railway-spur-line-branch-station-at-Fanling.jpg which seems to show it is on the south-east of the road. (Also knowing... |
| 19 | 2026-02-25 13:10 | commented | HenryEK | GSGS3868 shows the STK branch as being present on the right side of STK road until crossing over (possibly a level crossing) near Wong Hang Au (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4990468861)
Also seems to be the case for aerial photography around 1924 |
| 20 | 2026-02-25 13:40 | commented | kingkingHK | Yes, but it also shows the railway being parallel to the road beyond Shek Chung Au, which is not true according to 1924 aerials and still-existing embankments, leading me to question its trust-worthiness. |
| 21 | 2026-02-26 11:15 | commented | HenryEK | I would suggest you just map the very obvious part (past Wong Hang Au) and leave the other part blank for the time being then. From what I can see in the aerials theres a tiny mark on the road where it looks like the route crosses but it could also just be coincidental |
| 22 | 2026-03-04 08:11 | commented | kingkingHK | Wo Hop Shek Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179336974 |
| 23 | 2026-03-07 09:46 | commented | kingkingHK | Sha Tau Kok Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179482107 |
| 24 | 2026-04-05 07:29 | closed | kingkingHK | No disagreements for over a month, then nothing to do here; closing. |
| 5043056 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-08 08:19 | opened | Wright One | CLP substation |
| 2 | 2026-01-09 11:21 | commented | vectorial8192 | Do 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. |
| 3 | 2026-02-02 07:41 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a power substation here, seemingly built with the data centre. |
| 4 | 2026-02-15 12:05 | commented | vectorial8192 | Then, where is this new substation relative to this construction site? |
| 5 | 2026-02-15 12:21 | commented | kingkingHK | It looks integrated into the building enough that I can't tell where it starts/ends exactly, but it's mainly on the On Chuen Street side. |
| 6 | 2026-03-14 09:51 | commented | vectorial8192 | Earlier I have received some info from @kingkingHK regarding this. In this case, because it really is integrated, we can just place a node and tag it as a substation.
Side note: I just didn't know enough, but I was surprised to know some data centres are built with a dedicated transformer station. |
| 7 | 2026-04-02 15:13 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180773440 ; closing. |
| 5098788 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-20 13:48 | opened | kingkingHK | Are https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/515864719 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2404144136 duplicates? |
| 2 | 2026-01-25 07:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | More context:
This https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2406459615 points to this https://www.ylsyk.edu.hk/ , which seems embedded into the church. |
| 3 | 2026-03-29 15:30 | commented | vectorial8192 | By survey, seems like a multi-purpose premise. On holidays this is a church, and on other days this is a kindergarten. The position of the kindergarten node indicates the entrance to the kindergarten. |
| 4 | 2026-04-02 11:19 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180762485 ; hopefully I got it right.
Closing. |
| 5218722 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-25 02:04 | opened | vectorial8192 | They say this area will somehow be completed soon, but satellite imagery does not show anything obvious or useful. |
| 2 | 2026-03-27 08:50 | commented | kingkingHK | Highly doubt it will be completed soon; I went there a few months ago and there were no visible buildings in the phase 2 area besides the PTI. |
| 3 | 2026-03-27 16:15 | commented | vectorial8192 | That's the fun part. How come it is "nearly complete" when there is only a PTI in the middle of the construction yard? How would this PTI work (i.e. road entrance)? I really have no idea.
But they say something may happen in April so we may monitor the situation. This can potentially be checked together with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5208... |
| 4 | 2026-03-28 09:36 | commented | kingkingHK | Do you have any source to support that Phase 2 will be completed soon? |
| 5 | 2026-03-31 15:04 | commented | vectorial8192 | e.g. see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1493103292
I don't have the energy to monitor this, but I will continue to listen to this. I simply do not understand how it can be considered "complete" when it's obvious that the land is still an early WIP. OSM data must be missing something, which I will wait for others to elaborate/explain. |
| 6 | 2026-04-01 03:00 | commented | kingkingHK | Yes, the PTI building has been completed but the residential buildings aren't. This is not unbelievable; the PTI building should be quicker and easier to build, and should be open at the same time as Phase 1 so that the Phase 1 residents can use it. That's what aerial imagery and existing osm data shows. |
| 7 | 2026-04-01 04:50 | commented | vectorial8192 | I should clarify myself.
The key missing piece is the access roads towards this PTI building, because aerial imagery doesn't show this, and at first glance it's entirely plausible for the access to come from any of the four cardinal directions.
Can't have access inside a construction area; then, how come there is access to this? |
| 8 | 2026-04-01 14:15 | commented | kingkingHK | Coincidentally someone made a changeset very recently: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180695155
Does this resolve your concern about access roads? |
| 9 | 2026-04-02 09:33 | closed | vectorial8192 | Then that's good. At least now it's clear the access is at Long Tin Road.
There may be issues for the "implementation details" of the PTI but that would just be part of the usual OSM workflow.
Resolving. |
| 5209786 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-18 14:33 | opened | | There is a building here. |
| 2 | 2026-03-19 02:30 | commented | vectorial8192 | If you are referring to the square thing on satellite imagery, then it's probably just a roof. |
| 3 | 2026-04-02 08:40 | commented | vectorial8192 | Looking closer, it's really a building. |
| 4 | 2026-04-02 08:40 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180755773 ; closing. |
| 5227109 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-31 07:23 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/issue:
e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10978965209 ...?! |
| 2 | 2026-03-31 15:01 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180678612 ; closing. |
| 5224402 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-29 11:56 | opened | popmolly49 | s |
| 2 | 2026-03-30 07:05 | closed | Kovoschiz | osm.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 information not otherwise used... |
| 5034343 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:16 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-03-29 11:15 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180577823 ; closing. |
| 5178297 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-23 13:09 | opened | awhchk | Where does the name "Lo Wu Classification Yard" come from? I've only ever heard of it referred to as "Lo Wu Marshalling Yard" (after it was no longer a freight yard). |
| 2 | 2026-03-04 11:57 | commented | vectorial8192 | I think it's a mapping mistake.
Lo Wu "Classification" exists as a firing range https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187627328 . |
| 3 | 2026-03-04 17:57 | commented | Kovoschiz | @vectorial8192 You are misunderstanding the mistake, it's the terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard |
| 4 | 2026-03-05 04:51 | commented | vectorial8192 | Then, the existing name is a descriptive name, and is still somehow a mapping mistake. |
| 5 | 2026-03-28 17:11 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180551326 ; closing. |
| 5063775 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-22 14:30 | opened | vectorial8192 | Re note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5056582 , see whether this Saigon Street becomes "eastbound only" later. |
| 2 | 2025-11-30 12:48 | commented | kingkingHK | As 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. |
| 3 | 2026-01-02 22:00 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 5 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve!
|
| 6 | 2026-01-17 08:03 | commented | kingkingHK | Ok, it really is oneway eastbound now... |
| 7 | 2026-01-17 08:53 | commented | kingkingHK | Wait, I think I made a mistake. Need to recheck. |
| 8 | 2026-01-17 11:19 | closed | kingkingHK | Nevermind, it is still oneway westbound. Somehow, I messed up my sense of direction.
Nothing to do; closing. |
| 9 | 2026-01-18 15:02 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 10 | 2026-01-18 15:03 | commented | vectorial8192 | https://www.td.gov.hk/en/traffic_notices/index_id_83986.html
It seems it's lasting longer than expected. We can recheck this later. |
| 11 | 2026-03-11 15:49 | commented | vectorial8192 | It's time. |
| 12 | 2026-03-16 14:19 | commented | kingkingHK | It's delayed again until 22 March... |
| 13 | 2026-03-26 14:53 | commented | vectorial8192 | It seems the arrangement is over. |
| 14 | 2026-03-27 08:41 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180490726 ; closing. |
| 5034338 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:14 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-03-25 02:28 | commented | vectorial8192 | As it turns out, this is a single-purpose building.
Then, it's very easy. |
| 3 | 2026-03-25 02:36 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180383736 ; closing. |
| 5215002 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-22 11:32 | opened | Angus Lee | "Tachinomi"
OSM snapshot date: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z
POI has no name
POI types: amenity-bbq
#organicmaps ios 2026.03.11-12-ios |
| 2 | 2026-03-23 16:49 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5215003# |
| 5214998 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-22 11:30 | opened | Angus Lee | "Closed."
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: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z
POI has no name
POI types: amenity-restaurant
#organicmaps ios 2026.03.11-12-ios |
| 5214733 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-22 06:20 | opened | 7799388 | "пик Виктория"
OSM snapshot date: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z
POI has no name
POI types: building man_made-tower-communication
#organicmaps android 2026.03.11-12-Huawei |
| 2 | 2026-03-22 07:58 | closed | kingkingHK | Google translate: "Victoria Peak"
Then, note is not helpful, closing. |
| 5177854 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-23 06:47 | opened | vectorial8192 | Chi Tin Street
I vaguely remember this will become a public road as part of the Lam Yat House works? |
| 2 | 2026-03-22 05:34 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180233757 ; closing. |
| 5034332 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:12 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-02-02 07:54 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. |
| 3 | 2026-03-21 07:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | We do have a FMC here, plus some other stuff. |
| 4 | 2026-03-21 14:29 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180210490 ; closing. |
| 5203129 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-13 13:25 | opened | kingkingHK | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179758941 , check latest state of the bus stop |
| 2 | 2026-03-21 12:12 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180204953 ; closing. |
| 5198573 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-10 00:32 | opened | herbertkwong | "Building name changed to Telecom Digital Tower since 2023"
OSM snapshot date: 2026-02-16T20:35:12Z
POI name: 宏開工業大廈 Wider Industrial Building
POI types: landuse-industrial
#organicmaps android 2026.02.20-1-Google |
| 2 | 2026-03-13 04:40 | closed | Josephfunny202603131237_ | |
| 3 | 2026-03-13 06:02 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-03-13 06:02 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5 | 2026-03-21 11:59 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180204079 ; closing. |
| 5213340 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-21 07:23 | opened | Angus Lee | "Not inside. Outside tennis court."
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: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z
POI has no name
POI types: amenity-drinking_water
#organicmaps ios 2026.03.11-12-ios |
| 5213338 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-21 07:23 | opened | Angus Lee | "Closed."
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: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z
POI has no name
POI types: amenity-cafe
#organicmaps ios 2026.03.11-12-ios |
| 5213339 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-21 07:23 | opened | Angus Lee | "Nothing there. Just a white wall."
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: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z
POI has no name
POI types: tourism-artwork
#organicmaps ios 2026.03.11-12-ios |
| 5213337 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-21 07:23 | opened | Angus Lee | "Closed."
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: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z
POI name: Po's atelier
POI types: amenity-cafe
#organicmaps ios 2026.03.11-12-ios |
| 5213336 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-21 07:23 | opened | Angus Lee | "Closed."
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: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z
POI has no name
POI types: amenity-cafe
#organicmaps ios 2026.03.11-12-ios |
| 5210960 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-19 13:12 | opened | | 1
|
| 2 | 2026-03-20 02:43 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5210563 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-19 05:05 | opened | Alisonlui | 2
|
| 2 | 2026-03-19 07:35 | closed | Kovoschiz | osm.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 information not otherwise used... |
| 5210559 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-19 04:55 | opened | Alisonlui | 1 |
| 2 | 2026-03-19 05:06 | closed | kingkingHK | PLEASE don't use notes for personal uses unrelated to mapping. |
| 5209358 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-18 07:11 | opened | Alisonlui | starting point |
| 2 | 2026-03-18 07:23 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 3 | 2026-03-19 04:16 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-03-19 04:19 | closed | vectorial8192 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes
> It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap.
> Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap.
Do not create OSM notes for private usages. (Are you planning a hiking trip?) Do them outside of OSM... |
| 5190973 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-05 01:51 | opened | | Location of TMA |
| 2 | 2026-03-06 11:46 | commented | kingkingHK | ...does anyone know what "TMA" is? |
| 3 | 2026-03-19 02:44 | closed | kingkingHK | Meaning is unclear; closing. |
| 5208077 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-17 09:09 | opened | KAM7201 | TM-250249 |
| 2 | 2026-03-17 09:10 | commented | KAM7201 | TM-250249 |
| 3 | 2026-03-17 09:10 | closed | KAM7201 | |
| 4 | 2026-03-17 09:11 | reopened | KAM7201 | |
| 5 | 2026-03-19 02:44 | closed | kingkingHK | Meaning is unclear; closing. |
| 5177281 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-22 16:22 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
Consider Nullah Road -> Prince Edward Road East -> Tung Choi Street.
Is this allowed/disallowed? Check lane markings, consider traffic, etc. |
| 2 | 2026-02-23 02:27 | commented | kingkingHK | It's dashed line, so yes. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.324214499494&lng=114.16963786754&z=17&pKey=385996312604216&focus=photo&x=0.485
There's also a traffic signal upstream, so there should be times where the traffic flow is low enough to cut 4 lanes in ~75 meters. And then of course at night with little traffic this would not be a concer... |
| 3 | 2026-03-05 13:52 | commented | kingkingHK | I am 99.9999% sure it is allowed; if no comments in a few weeks I will just change the driveway to `=unclassified` and close this note, |
| 4 | 2026-03-05 15:21 | commented | vectorial8192 | I intend to fix this myself. I have a feeling I might have misjudged/misunderstood the related geometries. |
| 5 | 2026-03-18 14:50 | commented | vectorial8192 | By survey, while this is physically connected, there is a turn restriction which prevents direct crossing. Vehicles from the inner streets must use the previously-discussed "driveway" for through traffic.
I decided to do a curve here, both to avoid visual confusion (e.g. "should can go through this!"), and because it really should be curved to mat... |
| 6 | 2026-03-18 14:58 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180064102 ; closing. |
| 5178492 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-23 15:13 | opened | vectorial8192 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10777311726
node was ejected out; is this node still valid/exists? |
| 2 | 2026-02-24 02:10 | commented | kingkingHK | It seems like the entire `building:part=` was dragged. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153504633 |
| 3 | 2026-03-18 14:16 | commented | vectorial8192 | Can't find this irl in this hood. |
| 4 | 2026-03-18 14:19 | closed | vectorial8192 | An attempt was made to fix the building parts via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180062125 .
Resolving. |
| 5209369 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-18 07:16 | opened | Alisonlui | 黃泥墩水塘 |
| 2 | 2026-03-18 07:24 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5209367 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-18 07:14 | opened | Alisonlui | 千島湖 |
| 2 | 2026-03-18 07:23 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5209366 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-18 07:14 | opened | Alisonlui | 休息點 |
| 2 | 2026-03-18 07:23 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5209361 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-18 07:13 | opened | Alisonlui | 麥理浩徑第10段 |
| 2 | 2026-03-18 07:23 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5209359 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-18 07:12 | opened | Alisonlui | 掃管笏村路 |
| 2 | 2026-03-18 07:23 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5177073 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-22 13:31 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
Improve data quality from aerial imagery |
| 2 | 2026-02-22 14:11 | commented | kingkingHK | This is a very general description. Can you elaborate on what improvements you expect? |
| 3 | 2026-02-22 14:56 | commented | vectorial8192 | e.g. alignment, features, etc. |
| 4 | 2026-03-12 06:31 | commented | kingkingHK | @vectorial8192 I suppose you intend to fix this note yourself, given that you appears to have visited this place a while ago? |
| 5 | 2026-03-12 06:32 | commented | kingkingHK | *this note and https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5177084 |
| 6 | 2026-03-12 13:23 | commented | vectorial8192 | Correct, but you may notice my current focus is Ma On Shan. I will revisit this Soon™. |
| 7 | 2026-03-17 14:45 | closed | vectorial8192 | This side LGTM; closing. |
| 5206976 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-16 11:04 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
lanes vs junction sliproad vs physical separation |
| 2 | 2026-03-17 13:42 | closed | Kovoschiz | Must have forgotten about it somehow https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180008435 |
| 5199155 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-10 14:29 | opened | vectorial8192 | Consider https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1486486342
Should this be a pedestrian area (`highway=footway` with `area=yes`) or should this be a footway area (`area:highway=footway`) ? |
| 2 | 2026-03-11 17:26 | commented | Kovoschiz | Why are you starting a new discussion again https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179531317 |
| 3 | 2026-03-12 05:38 | commented | vectorial8192 | new note -> more awareness -> more opinion/perspectives. I see this is working very well. |
| 4 | 2026-03-12 07:22 | commented | Kovoschiz | I'm aware of that post. Was watching the discussion. |
| 5 | 2026-03-16 13:08 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179951258 ; closing. |
| 5159218 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-08 05:56 | opened | | private access, need modify road property
#OsmAnd |
| 2 | 2026-03-08 16:27 | commented | vectorial8192 | My vibes think this could be an XY problem.
The upper section https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/716701652 is already access=private so we already have this info somehow. This is the "X problem".
And yet, if Anon is asking for more access=private coverage, one likely reason is that someone is trying to go up Braemar Hill through here and realize i... |
| 3 | 2026-03-09 03:49 | commented | kingkingHK | I feel like you are over-complicating things. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6731958222 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7276640163 both have `access=private`, so the service roads between them are also logically `access=private`, but aren't tagged as such in OSM. This note is complaining about that. |
| 4 | 2026-03-13 07:53 | commented | vectorial8192 | That's a simpler interpretation that also works. Then, this note is easy to deal with. |
| 5 | 2026-03-13 13:30 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179811304 ; closing. |
| 5178576 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-23 16:39 | opened | Fent Thanakon | Hotel |
| 2 | 2026-03-13 07:44 | closed | vectorial8192 | There are multiple hotels / guest houses near here. Example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4082865125 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13479211301
Hopefully these are something you may be looking for. |
| 5123548 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-09 19:37 | opened | awhchk | * 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�... |
| 2 | 2026-01-20 14:57 | commented | vectorial8192 | This https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16555245 already has the name Cha Kwo Leng Promenade. |
| 3 | 2026-01-20 15:05 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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 |
| 4 | 2026-01-20 15:08 | commented | vectorial8192 | Shape 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. |
| 5 | 2026-01-22 08:46 | commented | Kovoschiz | `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 |
| 6 | 2026-03-13 04:42 | closed | Josephfunny202603131237_ | |
| 7 | 2026-03-13 06:03 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 8 | 2026-03-13 06:03 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5202078 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-12 16:58 | opened | TingHF | TWW |
| 2 | 2026-03-12 16:58 | closed | TingHF | |
| 4025846 (iD) | 1 | 2023-12-13 03:40 | opened | | 盛水式加水機 2部 [飲用水] 洗手間下一層 |
| 2 | 2026-01-03 06:01 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 06:04 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 5 | 2026-03-12 12:00 | commented | kingkingHK | Correct |
| 2046829 (iD) | 1 | 2020-01-05 08:03 | opened | Wright One | 此入口已封 |
| 2 | 2021-05-19 03:38 | closed | Sylvester77 | |
| 3 | 2021-05-19 03:39 | reopened | Sylvester77 | |
| 4 | 2025-08-21 18:23 | commented | vectorial8192 | Another path nearby was marked as inaccessible https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/154333345 ; related? |
| 5 | 2026-01-03 05:57 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 6 | 2026-01-03 06:04 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 7 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 8 | 2026-02-06 09:03 | commented | vectorial8192 | While reading feature history, another note was mentioned https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2046828 which has highly similar ID; both notes are likely created almost at the same time, and yet only one of them was resolved. |
| 9 | 2026-03-08 12:29 | commented | kingkingHK | By survey, both of them are `access=discouraged` with barriers, but one may still (easily) hop over the barrier, and many still do, as evidenced by the significant vegetation loss along the trail. I will make a changeset soon. |
| 10 | 2026-03-09 17:17 | commented | Kovoschiz | `=discouraged` , or `=no` ? |
| 11 | 2026-03-10 03:11 | commented | kingkingHK | There is a sign by the AFCD: "Protect the Vegeation; Please Stay on Trail; Do not Take Shortcut", which should not carry legal effects. Afaik there's no law prohibiting the creation or use of desire paths. |
| 12 | 2026-03-11 17:32 | commented | Kovoschiz | It's not prohibited explicitly. But technically it seems damaging plants is illegal. |
| 3304147 (iD) | 1 | 2022-08-07 17:05 | opened | ti-lo | Which parameters for museum and subject ?
"showcasing information about the Solar System, cosmology, and spaceflight" as of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Space_Museum
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=spaceflight#values
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=astronomy#values
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=aeros... |
| 2 | 2025-02-11 06:22 | closed | Cypp0847 | Amended to science. However "subject" should be sufficient to describe without the use of "faculty" |
| 3 | 2025-02-11 15:19 | reopened | ti-lo | |
| 4 | 2025-02-11 15:20 | commented | ti-lo | Seems to generic to me. The question was (also) whether several values could apply besides https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/museum=spaceflight |
| 5 | 2025-02-11 15:23 | commented | ti-lo | "faculty" only applies to universities but similar values are used, such as https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/faculty=astronomy | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/museum=astronomy |
| 6 | 2025-02-11 15:28 | commented | ti-lo | The correct value might be museum=spaceflight;astronomy, also see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Amuseum, should also cover "Solar System, cosmology" ? |
| 7 | 2025-02-11 17:38 | commented | Kovoschiz | There are only 3+1 `spaceflight` , and 4 `astronomy` . Neither seems dominant. I would suspect some `=aerospace` may be mainly space-related, and obviously many aviation ones don't have a spaceflight showcase. So it doesn't perfect fit either.
`=aerospace` has been mass added before https://taghistory.raifer.tech/?#***/museum/aerospace
I don't und... |
| 8 | 2025-02-11 17:40 | commented | Kovoschiz | `museum=science` could yet be fine if `museum=` is treated as a generic category. But it doesn't have enough work done on it.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:museum#Untitled_1
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tourism=museum#On_subtypes_and_topics_/_museum_subjects |
| 9 | 2025-02-11 17:43 | commented | Kovoschiz | Both https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/faculty#values and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/department#values aren't widely agreed on, and are being polluted by the faculty and department names. `department=` has further issue with `=store_section` for `=department_store` and `=supermarket` . There's no definite reason to match with `muse... |
| 10 | 2025-02-11 17:43 | commented | Kovoschiz | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:museum_type#Not_very_clear |
| 11 | 2025-02-11 21:39 | commented | ti-lo | Please try whether this description works for you : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:museum:type%3Dscience |
| 12 | 2025-02-12 17:59 | commented | Kovoschiz | No. `*type` never works. It's a meaningless suffix. |
| 13 | 2025-02-12 22:24 | commented | ti-lo | Seems to work in a bunch of cases https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:*:type |
| 14 | 2026-02-06 15:05 | commented | vectorial8192 | I am thinking perhaps `museum=science` with `subject=astronomy` or `museum:subject=astronomy`.
Cosmology is a subset of astronomy.
Astronomy should automatically imply "spaceflight"; can't have serious (space) observations without rocket-delivered satellites and telescopes. |
| 15 | 2026-03-11 09:53 | closed | ar_on_hk | |
| 16 | 2026-03-11 10:07 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 5195502 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-08 09:16 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
alignment |
| 2 | 2026-03-11 07:34 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179678431 ; closing. |
| 5197298 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-09 09:46 | opened | awhchk | Should "roads" inside the Road Safety Town be mapped? |
| 2 | 2026-03-09 17:18 | closed | Kovoschiz | You can always do that. Similar to driving course. |
| 2690777 (iD) | 1 | 2021-05-30 04:30 | opened | | 懸崖洞 |
| 2 | 2026-01-03 05:58 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 06:04 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 5 | 2026-02-05 14:37 | closed | vectorial8192 | There may be cliffs here, but I don't think there are any "holes" here that could satisfy the description of this note.
Meaning is unclear.
Therefore, closing. |
| 6 | 2026-02-06 02:34 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 7 | 2026-02-06 02:36 | commented | kingkingHK | I think "hole" is supposed to mean caves? c.f. nearby https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1668864566 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2140236934 |
| 8 | 2026-03-08 06:29 | commented | kingkingHK | While this information is believable, it will probably be difficult to survey this safely due to the cliffs and the lack of paths, according to government maps. |
| 9 | 2026-03-08 16:37 | commented | vectorial8192 | I mean...
If you really want, you can get a drone to do that for you, but you got a loicense for that maet? |
| 10 | 2026-03-09 04:15 | commented | kingkingHK | I would rather just map the cliff and be done with it.
Also, legally speaking, this area is located inside a drone no-fly zone, due to the low-air economy regulatory sandbox whatever. Practically speaking, no one would notice, but I am not buying a drone just for this one note. |
| 5155801 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-05 14:20 | opened | vectorial8192 | see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5115204 |
| 2 | 2026-03-08 16:39 | commented | vectorial8192 | The ultimate original note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1036042 complains of the following:
"The path from 'Lai Tak Tsuen' to 'viewpoint' is impassable and dangerous. Please remove it from the map" |
| 4137978 (iD) | 1 | 2024-03-03 15:44 | opened | Albert 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 |
| 2 | 2026-01-03 05:58 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 06:04 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 5 | 2026-02-05 14:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | From online sources, this seems to refer to an abandoned police (training) firing range. |
| 6 | 2026-03-08 12:31 | commented | kingkingHK | Absolutely nothing at the location of this note; this is probably yet another case of maps.me placing notes at centroids of large polygons.
It appears that the feature already exists: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7255499200
@vectorial8192 Please take a look and see if you agree that this note is referring to the quoted feature, and close th... |
| 7 | 2026-03-08 16:35 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSMCarto just doesn't render it. I also have no real idea where it could be located, so many thanks for spotting it out, both physically (by negation) and digitally.
I don't have any data on me about this location so I can't agree to it; *but* seeing its location matches online textual descriptions, I don't disagree to it.
In OSM we trust.
There... |
| 5194221 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-07 11:44 | opened | kingkingHK | Are https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/173722555 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1205445683 connected? |
| 5115204 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-03 06:08 | opened | vectorial8192 | special note:
note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1036042 is covered by another note; this note is to help with note management. |
| 2 | 2026-01-03 08:00 | closed | NeisReview | No actionable information was provided for editing OpenStreetMap data. Please feel free to reopen this note with more details. #noeditinfo |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 08:07 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 08:09 | commented | vectorial8192 | Meta-Note: this note helps others to more conveniently notice/click other notes. |
| 5 | 2026-03-07 06:33 | closed | kingkingHK | Adequately handled with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5155801 ; closing. |
| 1036042 (iD) | 1 | 2017-06-20 16:58 | opened | Richy_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 |
| 2 | 2026-01-03 06:02 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 06:44 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 5 | 2026-02-05 14:18 | commented | vectorial8192 | A view point exists near Lai Tak Tsuen as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1844899403 but this is extremely confusing and suspicious; I feel bad about closing it without survey. |
| 6 | 2026-02-06 03:14 | commented | kingkingHK | The only path that matches the description would be https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1104107657 . At least it is easier to survey there. |
| 7 | 2026-02-06 03:45 | commented | vectorial8192 | also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5155801 for convenience |
| 8 | 2026-03-06 10:21 | commented | kingkingHK | This note is already adequately handled with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5155801 with a better location; any objections to closing this note and https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5115204 ? |
| 9 | 2026-03-06 14:09 | commented | vectorial8192 | me no objections.
The other guy is probably here for the procedure and will likely not respond. |
| 10 | 2026-03-07 06:32 | closed | kingkingHK | Yeah, the DWG guy is probably comment for formalities only. I don't expect anyone else to see this note. Thus, closing. |
| 5037709 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-04 12:33 | opened | kingkingHK | Has 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. |
| 2 | 2026-01-03 06:10 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 06:46 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 5 | 2026-01-03 10:09 | commented | vectorial8192 | Alternatively, 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. |
| 6 | 2026-01-03 11:25 | commented | kingkingHK | Yes, that's why I made this note so that someone in the future can check the current state when they pass by. |
| 7 | 2026-03-06 10:43 | closed | dewbhudhew | 11 |
| 8 | 2026-03-06 11:44 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 9 | 2026-03-06 11:44 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5117986 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-05 03:15 | opened | kingkingHK | There is no way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1459714974 is actually 30 degrees steep. (Also, `incline=` should be in percentage, not degrees.) |
| 2 | 2026-01-08 06:28 | commented | vectorial8192 | Haven't been to this exact area before, but never say never. This "extreme" slope is half believable. |
| 3 | 2026-01-08 10:09 | commented | kingkingHK | Not believable imo; it's 30 degrees, not percent. That's 57.7%. Probably can't even stand if it is that steep. |
| 4 | 2026-01-19 05:36 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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". |
| 5 | 2026-01-19 06:12 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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? |
| 6 | 2026-01-27 04:39 | closed | Cypp0847 | Did a quick survey at the site. The incline should be around 10 degree only or at most 15 degree. |
| 7 | 2026-01-27 04:41 | reopened | Cypp0847 | |
| 8 | 2026-03-05 12:23 | commented | kingkingHK | It's actually 10 degrees. |
| 9 | 2026-03-05 12:35 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179394604 ; closing. |
| 5191006 (iD) | 1 | 2026-03-05 02:39 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4486222689 descriptive name; probably need to change to hail_and_ride role on route relations, which appears to be unmapped. |
| 5036097 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-03 12:44 | opened | kingkingHK | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2025-12-13 14:12 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a family medicine clinic here. |
| 3 | 2026-02-23 14:12 | commented | vectorial8192 | We do have a FMC here, with some other stuff. |
| 4 | 2026-03-03 14:53 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179306051 ; closing. |
| 5034364 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:21 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2025-11-02 14:24 | commented | vectorial8192 | It seems there might be two such clinics right here? |
| 3 | 2025-11-03 13:56 | commented | kingkingHK | Not sure why you think it seems there might be two clinics here, could you please elaborate? |
| 4 | 2025-11-14 14:59 | commented | vectorial8192 | Basically, 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. |
| 5 | 2025-11-16 07:23 | commented | kingkingHK | Just curious, what clinic list did you use? |
| 6 | 2025-11-16 10:31 | commented | vectorial8192 | This 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. |
| 7 | 2026-02-23 09:50 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a FMC here. |
| 8 | 2026-02-23 14:12 | commented | vectorial8192 | We do have a FMC here, with some other stuff. |
| 9 | 2026-03-03 14:33 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179305069 ; closing. |
| 5166282 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-13 17:02 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
bad railway curves
------
preliminary vibes indicate that the curves are just plain wrong. |
| 2 | 2026-02-14 07:14 | commented | kingkingHK | ...didn't you create these curves yourself? Honestly the current curves look good enough, and can't really be improved without e.g. intertial measurements |
| 3 | 2026-02-14 07:36 | commented | vectorial8192 | Yes, I did draw them.
However, sometime after drawing them, when I look at them, I have an indescribable feeling that the curves are just unnatural and therefore wrong.
I do have some numbers on my side and then I can crunch the numbers later to see if I am hallucinating or not. |
| 4 | 2026-02-26 04:15 | closed | vectorial8192 | Those are some really unexpected railway curves.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179066259 ; closing. |
| 5157078 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-06 12:33 | opened | kingkingHK | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1150866494 I think this has opened. |
| 2 | 2026-02-06 14:59 | commented | vectorial8192 | Can also see if the exit numbering has been updated as well; not sure if this belongs to the MTR or the government. |
| 3 | 2026-02-07 03:23 | commented | kingkingHK | I doubt it has been; don't know the why they would. |
| 4 | 2026-02-07 03:36 | commented | kingkingHK | Ok assuming you thought the new footbridge will affect the number of exits: afaik the existing footbridges belong to the MTR; the new footbridge merely connects between two exits so it should not change the exits, at most https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1150866495 might get a new exit number but I don't think it will be completed any time soon. |
| 5 | 2026-02-25 16:13 | closed | vectorial8192 | Turns out, no ref changes.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179044665 ; closing. |
| 5036099 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-03 12:45 | opened | kingkingHK | Now 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? |
| 2 | 2026-02-23 09:50 | closed | kingkingHK | Nope. Closing. |
| 5099408 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-21 05:54 | opened | kingkingHK | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1240353927 construction probably almost finished, according to aerial imagery. |
| 2 | 2025-12-25 13:01 | commented | vectorial8192 | still pretty raw imo |
| 3 | 2026-02-23 09:49 | commented | kingkingHK | Construction not yet finished, but can make a rough sketch first. |
| 2865034 (iD) | 1 | 2021-09-23 00:56 | opened | | This portion of route is blocked. |
| 2 | 2026-02-23 09:48 | commented | kingkingHK | It is covered in dense vegetation, but definitely not covered by anything. |
| 3 | 2026-02-23 09:49 | commented | kingkingHK | not blocked* sorry |
| 5161910 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-10 05:11 | opened | vectorial8192 | junction has fixme:
staggered crossing traffic island |
| 2 | 2026-02-23 02:31 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178923367 ; closing. |
| 5176553 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-22 01:01 | opened | okainov | everything mapped here as lvl3 should be lvl6! |
| 2 | 2026-02-22 16:11 | closed | Kovoschiz | No, above-ground counting is used for `level=` , and the actual numbering in `level:ref=` |
| 5176554 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-22 01:01 | opened | okainov | and everything mapped as lvl1 should be 4 accordingly |
| 2 | 2026-02-22 16:11 | closed | Kovoschiz | No, above-ground counting is used for `level=` , and the actual numbering in `level:ref=` |
| 5034337 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:14 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-02-22 14:09 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178900392 ; closing. |
| 5034352 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:17 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2025-12-13 14:10 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a family medicine clinic here. |
| 3 | 2026-02-22 13:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | We do have a FMC here with some other stuff. |
| 4 | 2026-02-22 13:59 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178899966 ; closing. |
| 5093778 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-16 13:31 | opened | vectorial8192 | I see Tuen Mun LRT is elevated. Then, how may passengers access these elevated platforms? |
| 2 | 2025-12-16 13:57 | commented | kingkingHK | 1. 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. |
| 3 | 2026-02-21 15:01 | commented | vectorial8192 | I now have info |
| 4 | 2026-02-21 15:52 | closed | vectorial8192 | It's complicated.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178865246 ; closing. |
| 5175205 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-21 02:27 | opened | fliicker | 关系：multipolygon |
| 2 | 2026-02-21 04:23 | closed | kingkingHK | Yes, there is a multipolygon here. Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5174782 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-20 15:57 | opened | fliicker | 关系 |
| 2 | 2026-02-21 02:29 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5034350 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:16 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2025-12-13 14:10 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a family medicine clinic here. |
| 3 | 2026-02-20 14:28 | commented | vectorial8192 | We do have a FMC here, plus some other stuff. |
| 4 | 2026-02-20 14:39 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178822153 ; closing. |
| 5173115 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-19 08:49 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: new footbridge? |
| 2 | 2026-02-20 09:05 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178809016 |
| 2218614 (iD) | 1 | 2020-06-05 07:45 | opened | kleeah | Public Transport Routing at Ping Tin to be added. |
| 2 | 2022-02-16 14:46 | commented | AWX4 | Pls help thx |
| 3 | 2022-04-20 22:19 | closed | MPatrick1013 | |
| 4 | 2022-04-20 22:19 | reopened | MPatrick1013 | |
| 5 | 2026-01-02 22:01 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 6 | 2026-01-03 02:41 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 7 | 2026-01-03 02:41 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve!
|
| 8 | 2026-02-19 12:35 | commented | kingkingHK | The following bus routes call at Ping Tin:
1. KMB 15 (Ping Tin → Hung Hom (Hung Luen Road))
2. KMB 15 (Hung Hom (Hung Luen Road) → Ping Tin)
3. KMB 15A (Ping Tin → Tsz Wan Shan (North))
4. KMB 15A (Tsz Wan Shan (North) → Ping Tin)
5. KMB 16 (Ping Tin → Mong Kok (Park Avenue))
6. KMB 38 (Ping Tin → Kwai Shing (East))
7. KMB 38 (Kwai Shi... |
| 5133340 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-18 04:45 | opened | kingkingHK | Todo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176212586 , see also discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177303927 |
| 2 | 2026-02-16 10:47 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178622903 ; closing. |
| 5156486 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-06 02:58 | opened | kingkingHK | I doubt https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105586327 is really `surface=fine_gravel`. |
| 2 | 2026-02-06 05:31 | commented | vectorial8192 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105586327/history/3
I will just armchair-change it to be concrete surface. Rough concrete do look like fine gravel. |
| 3 | 2026-02-12 16:00 | commented | vectorial8192 | On second thought, a more sensible plan is to armchair-change it to have no surface material so that we can return this to StreetComplete for further processing. |
| 4 | 2026-02-15 17:12 | closed | vectorial8192 | Give to StreetComplete.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178591700 ; closing. |
| 5161916 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-10 05:24 | opened | vectorial8192 | junction has fixme:
turn restrictions |
| 2 | 2026-02-11 03:11 | commented | kingkingHK | Looks like it has chevrons, which would mean the turn restrictions do exist. |
| 3 | 2026-02-13 16:50 | commented | vectorial8192 | At this location, there are two turn restrictions with this fixme.
The easier one is "Tai Tong Road cannot u-turn to (self) Tai Tong Road". This is trivially true.
The harder one is "Tai Tong Road (roundabout) cannot right-turn to Kiu Hing Road". Normally you cannot cross over double-lines (e.g. no overtaking). The shape is very unique here, but ... |
| 4 | 2026-02-14 02:56 | commented | kingkingHK | I went there recently and confirmed that it is chevrons, not double white lines, and afaik chevrons cannot be crossed even for turning right.
Interestingly, the chevrons start a bit after the kerb (you can kind of see this on aerial imagery). I can't tell if this is done deliberately to allow vehicles to turn right from Kiu Hing Road, or if the pa... |
| 5 | 2026-02-15 17:00 | closed | vectorial8192 | OK, trusting the chevron observation.
Then, resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178591191 ; closing. |
| 5165761 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-13 08:55 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
junction decoration
(note: this is intended to be separate from the nearby "split junction" issue) |
| 2 | 2026-02-15 10:22 | commented | vectorial8192 | Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178574929 .
Scope is quite large. Next up is to update the bus relations. |
| 3 | 2026-02-15 16:45 | closed | vectorial8192 | Relations cleaned up via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178590547 ; closing. |
| 5133338 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-18 04:43 | opened | kingkingHK | Todo: 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 |
| 2 | 2026-02-15 16:31 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178589878 ; closing. |
| 5161909 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-10 04:59 | opened | vectorial8192 | junction has fixme:
Tung Chau Street -> Chui Yu Road; can? |
| 2 | 2026-02-10 08:24 | commented | kingkingHK | Mapillary says can. |
| 3 | 2026-02-15 11:53 | commented | vectorial8192 | Armchair also thinks can. The way the roads were built, there is a small pocket under West Kowloon Corridor to hold Tung Chau Street -> Chui Yu Road vehicles for a 2-phase signal action.
And I did walk past this area before, which resulted in me discovering this pocket, though I forgot about the irl-walking. |
| 4 | 2026-02-15 12:00 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178578447 ; closing. |
| 5151410 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-02 04:45 | opened | vectorial8192 | needs discussion:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963900 |
| 2 | 2026-02-02 04:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | the 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. |
| 3 | 2026-02-02 06:46 | commented | Kovoschiz | I 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. |
| 4 | 2026-02-15 11:17 | commented | vectorial8192 | I quote the Wikipedia:
> The name distinguishes this style of construction from [...] terraced houses, with a shared wall on both sides.
Then, these are indeed semi-detached. |
| 5 | 2026-02-15 11:19 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178577044 ; closing. |
| 5043144 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-08 10:13 | opened | Lkwokon | 賀龍汽車維修中心 |
| 2 | 2026-02-02 07:53 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed. |
| 3 | 2026-02-15 10:44 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178575756 ; closing. |
| 5161922 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-10 05:34 | opened | vectorial8192 | cycle path has fixme:
probably ancient schema |
| 2 | 2026-02-10 08:16 | commented | kingkingHK | It seems like the footway wasn't mapped originally, hence `foot=designated` and `segregated=yes` was added to the cycleway to indicate this. Now that we have the footway mapped, I think we can simply remove the fixme. |
| 3 | 2026-02-15 10:33 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178575319 ; closing. |
| 5164226 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-12 05:33 | opened | vectorial8192 | ref |
| 2 | 2026-02-15 10:24 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178575006 ; closing. |
| 5165635 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-13 07:04 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
fix https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178483414 |
| 2 | 2026-02-15 09:55 | closed | vectorial8192 | This is really my mistake. Upon a random chance, I suddenly thought it would be good to waive the turn restrictions by "aerial imagery obviousness".
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178574052 ; closing. |
| 5165906 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-13 10:51 | opened | Daviddylan1 | WONG CHUK HANG RD |
| 2 | 2026-02-14 09:36 | closed | Kovoschiz |
osm.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 information not otherwise us... |
| 5165581 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-13 04:13 | opened | AlphaNovember | "Now closed."
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: Five Guys
POI types: cuisine-burger amenity-fast_food
#organicmaps android 2026.01.26-11-Google |
| 2 | 2026-02-13 12:00 | commented | vectorial8192 | https://restaurants.fiveguys.com.hk/ agrees |
| 5164947 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-12 14:39 | opened | | hong kong disneyland
|
| 2 | 2026-02-12 17:01 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/377094298 ?
osm.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 disc... |
| 5132180 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-17 05:41 | opened | kingkingHK | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/902497658 etc still under construction? |
| 2 | 2026-01-17 08:03 | commented | kingkingHK | Somehow, yes. |
| 3 | 2026-01-17 08:16 | commented | vectorial8192 | Seems 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". |
| 4 | 2026-02-11 13:44 | closed | vectorial8192 | Nothing to do here.
(For example, another such "unavailable completed" area is at Sun Po Kong Bus Terminus.)
Eventually, someone will notice that irl the features become unblocked, and then they can make a follow-up changeset.
Closing. |
| 5151351 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-02 01:31 | opened | AAFmapper | "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 ... |
| 2 | 2026-02-11 08:56 | closed | vectorial8192 | Clarified with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178395234 ; closing. |
| 5159342 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-08 09:23 | opened | | fdjskalfjalwk；fjas；fjaslk |
| 2 | 2026-02-09 06:34 | commented | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 3 | 2026-02-10 08:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | uh |
| 4 | 2026-02-10 12:39 | closed | kingkingHK | Oops |
| 5160781 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-09 06:28 | opened | | Regal HongKong Hotel |
| 2 | 2026-02-09 06:34 | closed | kingkingHK | Feature exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198589969 ; closing. |
| 5160778 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-09 06:22 | opened | | Mid-Levels Escalator |
| 2 | 2026-02-09 06:34 | closed | kingkingHK | Feature already exists; closing. |
| 5150715 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-01 14:12 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164259073 |
| 2 | 2026-02-01 14:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | um, lgtm? |
| 3 | 2026-02-02 04:00 | commented | kingkingHK | Broken:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6607035
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6607037 |
| 4 | 2026-02-02 11:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | Then, how did you check whether the relations are broken? |
| 5 | 2026-02-02 11:49 | commented | kingkingHK | ...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"? |
| 6 | 2026-02-02 12:44 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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... |
| 7 | 2026-02-03 06:35 | commented | Kovoschiz | This 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. |
| 8 | 2026-02-03 06:36 | commented | Kovoschiz | Short 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. |
| 9 | 2026-02-03 15:55 | commented | vectorial8192 | My 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 ... |
| 10 | 2026-02-05 15:44 | commented | vectorial8192 | Multiple tools report 6607035 (68E) is broken because there is a gap here. This makes sense and very likely my mistake.
However, none of them report any problems for 6607037 (68F). |
| 11 | 2026-02-06 02:44 | commented | kingkingHK | Ok, after rechecking, 68F is really not broken. I apologise for my mistake.
Anyway, re checking broken relations, I usually simply use JOSM's relation editor. Your quoted website (https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation) produces quite a lot of false negatives. |
| 12 | 2026-02-08 10:54 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178260481 ; closing. |
| 5156760 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-06 09:05 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/674605645 descriptive name; could have tried harder |
| 2 | 2026-02-06 11:45 | commented | kingkingHK | While we are at it, also fix https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/674605644 , added by the same user in the same changeset. |
| 3 | 2026-02-06 14:54 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178191616 .
I expect the guys from HKBusFandom to further review the minibus stop/terminus when they feel like it.
Closing. |
| 758446 (iD) | 1 | 2016-10-24 00:50 | opened | O Lee | small stream (OSM data version: 2016-09-19T14:38:03Z) #mapsme |
| 2 | 2022-01-21 17:24 | closed | kenny leung | |
| 3 | 2022-01-21 17:24 | reopened | kenny leung | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 11:31 | closed | vectorial8192 | A stream already exists nearby as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323624592 ; I presume this is already done.
Therefore, closing. |
| 5 | 2026-01-03 11:38 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 6 | 2026-01-03 11:39 | commented | kingkingHK | Out-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. |
| 7 | 2026-01-03 17:00 | commented | vectorial8192 | Unexpected, but can take a look at them; I think the latest free map is from 1975 as mentioned in Discord. |
| 8 | 2026-01-09 15:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | It turns out the old map mentioned in Discord does not have data for this area. @kingkingHK may you provide more info? |
| 9 | 2026-01-11 04:28 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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... |
| 10 | 2026-02-05 14:27 | commented | vectorial8192 | The online map renderer https://www.hkmaps.hk/viewer.html has a sidebar that can adjust image opacity for map cross-referencing.
Not knowing how to overlay this onto "editing software" (um, JOSM?) is imo a non-issue because afaik both iD and JOSM can specify the OSM Carto rendering itself as the "imagery", and then we can do some intense eyeballin... |
| 11 | 2026-02-05 14:30 | commented | vectorial8192 | I see there is indeed a stream in the old map. Hopefully the stream did not dry up while we were not looking, I ain't surveying this and will trust the old map. |
| 12 | 2026-02-06 02:54 | commented | kingkingHK | Eventually, with some guidance from Kovoschiz, I figured out how to overlay historical maps onto editing software.
But then, I felt like if I am mapping a single missing stream, I might as well map all missing streams in this area, which are there hundreds of, making the changeset too big to complete in a single sitting, hence why it took me so l... |
| 5101282 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-22 14:30 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
share_taxi cannot enter Nam Long Shan Road
reinterpret the roads to allow for accurate traffic island mapping (use oneway streets) |
| 2 | 2026-01-24 15:01 | commented | vectorial8192 | Scope is quite large.
Note intent basically done via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177649672
Next step is to adjust the bus relations, etc. |
| 3 | 2026-01-26 12:26 | commented | vectorial8192 | Work is further improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177677477 |
| 4 | 2026-02-05 14:51 | commented | vectorial8192 | Eventually, I forgot about this.
Followup changeset with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178144291 . |
| 5 | 2026-02-05 14:57 | closed | vectorial8192 | Now, this should be good and resolved.
Closing. |
| 5086249 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-10 15:34 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6143117229
descriptive name |
| 2 | 2026-01-03 05:57 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 06:05 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 5 | 2026-02-05 14:15 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178142750 ; closing. |
| 5065720 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-24 08:23 | opened | kingkingHK | Does this https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4349312890 actually exist? Which routes call here? |
| 2 | 2025-11-25 14:44 | commented | vectorial8192 | could just be green minibuses with some "hail on ride" value (not too familiar with that kind of tagging) |
| 3 | 2025-12-03 12:32 | commented | kingkingHK | See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5065723 |
| 4 | 2026-02-02 07:10 | commented | vectorial8192 | By survey, there's nothing here. |
| 5 | 2026-02-05 11:09 | closed | vectorial8192 | Pass-by minibus relations have already configured "hail_and_ride".
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178134772 ; closing. |
| 5116603 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-04 08:45 | opened | kingkingHK | Todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13076945683 descriptive name |
| 2 | 2026-01-15 14:23 | commented | kingkingHK | Also https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13076945680 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13076945681 |
| 3 | 2026-02-01 10:46 | commented | vectorial8192 | This note now mentions 3 items. |
| 4 | 2026-02-01 11:16 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177959180 ; closing. |
| 5 | 2026-02-04 14:45 | reopened | MC0207429 | |
| 6 | 2026-02-04 15:38 | closed | vectorial8192 | If nothing to add, then closing. |
| 5150707 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-01 14:10 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
cleanup bus relations |
| 2 | 2026-02-04 15:32 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via openstreetmap.org/changeset/178100219 ; closing. |
| 5150788 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-01 15:01 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
clean up bus relations |
| 2 | 2026-02-02 11:03 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178001499 ; closing. |
| 5143296 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-26 05:09 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
construction work review |
| 2 | 2026-02-02 08:04 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177994751 ; closing. |
| 5034363 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:20 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-02-02 07:21 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177993465 ; closing. |
| 5038052 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-04 16:26 | opened | vectorial8192 | individual buildings and streets, where name:en? |
| 2 | 2026-01-02 22:01 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 02:41 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 02:41 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve!
|
| 5 | 2026-01-25 14:01 | commented | kingkingHK | Not 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. |
| 6 | 2026-01-25 16:10 | commented | Skylark_H_C | I believe these names are real. Refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5L_oSHKvck (vlog of the experience in this hostel) |
| 7 | 2026-01-25 16:13 | commented | Skylark_H_C | but yes, some of these streets have no English name. (4:50 in the video) |
| 8 | 2026-01-26 02:25 | commented | kingkingHK | 1. copyright
2. If it cannot be verified without entering an `access=private` premise I believe it would cause problems verifiability. |
| 9 | 2026-01-26 05:00 | commented | vectorial8192 | Re "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... |
| 10 | 2026-01-26 14:25 | commented | kingkingHK | 1. 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. |
| 11 | 2026-01-26 17:43 | commented | Kovoschiz | 1.
"
(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 ... |
| 12 | 2026-02-02 04:57 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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. |
| 13 | 2026-02-02 05:02 | commented | vectorial8192 | YT 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... |
| 14 | 2026-02-02 05:23 | commented | kingkingHK | > 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. |
| 15 | 2026-02-02 06:59 | closed | vectorial8192 | well then |
| 5150565 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-01 12:33 | opened | 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... |
| 2 | 2026-02-01 12:41 | commented | kingkingHK | Probably should change the `building=` `name=` to `addr:housename=`, as per changeset discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172051373 |
| 3 | 2026-02-01 17:04 | closed | Kovoschiz | Already is. This is correct for single main building facility/site. |
| 5145374 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-28 03:37 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
by Government Notice 2025/8264, North Lantau Highway (eastbound) should have 80 kmh speed limit. |
| 2 | 2026-01-28 03:38 | commented | vectorial8192 | while we are at it, also write down the notice number for easier future reference. |
| 3 | 2026-01-29 12:35 | commented | vectorial8192 | This continues from https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5145054 |
| 4 | 2026-02-01 15:42 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177969541 ; closing. |
| 5150276 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-01 08:26 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
station is too small |
| 2 | 2026-02-01 15:20 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177968557 ; closing. |
| 3740751 (iD) | 1 | 2023-06-18 15:04 | opened | os-emmer | This 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? |
| 2 | 2025-01-06 02:19 | closed | Cypp0847 | Changed at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161042269 |
| 3 | 2026-02-01 11:53 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-02-01 11:54 | commented | kingkingHK | From 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`. |
| 5 | 2026-02-01 13:58 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177964925 ; closing. |
| 4559591 (iD) | 1 | 2024-12-21 21:31 | opened | Dimitar155 | The 3 sets of 2 buildings each might be semi-detached. |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 11:49 | closed | vectorial8192 | OSM does not provide an easy way to see "polygon shape" history, but currently these buildings are now semi-detached.
Therefore, closing. |
| 3 | 2025-03-29 14:06 | reopened | Dimitar155 | They 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... |
| 4 | 2025-03-30 12:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | Hi 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. |
| 5 | 2025-09-12 12:27 | commented | kingkingHK | @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. |
| 6 | 2025-09-12 12:37 | commented | vectorial8192 | It 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. |
| 7 | 2025-09-12 15:48 | commented | vectorial8192 | To 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. |
| 8 | 2025-09-12 15:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | Another blocker would be to really manually review the several dozen (or hundred?) of buildings. |
| 9 | 2026-02-01 11:48 | commented | vectorial8192 | By 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. |
| 10 | 2026-02-01 12:06 | commented | kingkingHK | Confusingly, 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? |
| 11 | 2026-02-01 12:22 | commented | vectorial8192 | Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177961308 by trying to identify the semi-detached houses. |
| 12 | 2026-02-01 12:27 | commented | kingkingHK | `building=terrace` + `house=semi-detached` improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177961520 |
| 13 | 2026-02-01 13:16 | commented | vectorial8192 | desync
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 . |
| 14 | 2026-02-01 13:21 | commented | vectorial8192 | house -> semidetached_house with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963622 |
| 15 | 2026-02-01 13:28 | commented | vectorial8192 | Fixed mistagged semidetached_house with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963756 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963900 |
| 16 | 2026-02-01 13:29 | commented | vectorial8192 | Identified semidetached_house with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963931 |
| 17 | 2026-02-01 13:44 | closed | vectorial8192 | Finally, lgtm; closing. |
| 2926575 (iD) | 1 | 2021-11-07 16:23 | opened | Wright One | 條路似乎塞左 |
| 2 | 2026-02-01 12:32 | closed | Wright One | 可以行，但較容易滑到 |
| 5150539 (iD) | 1 | 2026-02-01 12:12 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/?w=%22building%22%3D%22semi-detached%22+global&R |
| 2 | 2026-02-01 12:21 | closed | kingkingHK | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177961274 ; closing. |
| 4559590 (iD) | 1 | 2024-12-21 21:28 | opened | Dimitar155 | The 3 sets of 2 buildings each might be semi-detached. |
| 2 | 2025-10-06 02:01 | closed | HenryEK | fixed |
| 3 | 2026-02-01 11:49 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 4 | 2026-02-01 11:49 | commented | vectorial8192 | Related note see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4559591 ; we can further improve this. |
| 5 | 2026-02-01 12:00 | closed | vectorial8192 | Some houses nearby are also semi-detached.
Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177960588 ; closing again. |
| 5096262 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-18 14:41 | opened | vectorial8192 | It seems the Golf Court extends to this area. |
| 2 | 2026-02-01 11:41 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177959938 ; closing. |
| 1684719 (iD) | 1 | 2019-02-18 03:54 | opened | Li Ken | 隱藏路線，己變密林 17 FEB 2019 |
| 2 | 2025-01-17 14:10 | closed | vectorial8192 | 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 |
| 3 | 2026-02-01 07:01 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-02-01 07:02 | commented | kingkingHK | Reviving as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161456988 is insufficient to reflect latest state; see also discussion there. |
| 5 | 2026-02-01 10:45 | commented | vectorial8192 | Honourable, but this is extra rural. Might not be worth it. |
| 5148979 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-31 04:13 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
http://www.primavilla.net/ |
| 2 | 2026-02-01 10:02 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177956887 ; closing. |
| 5128925 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:15 | opened | | 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
|
| 2 | 2026-01-20 04:50 | commented | vectorial8192 | See https://sunshinelaundry.com.hk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/LoveLaundry_013_Final.pdf |
| 3 | 2026-01-28 15:05 | commented | vectorial8192 | Upon review, that PDF is from 2016. Not convincing. |
| 4 | 2026-01-29 05:58 | commented | kingkingHK | Can't find this feature IRL. However, note mentions Chui Yan Street, which is near Yu Chui Court. Misplace note? |
| 5 | 2026-01-29 07:02 | commented | vectorial8192 | Feels 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. |
| 6 | 2026-01-31 03:46 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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". |
| 7 | 2026-02-01 09:58 | closed | vectorial8192 | I was planning to close this note without survey by classifying this as an invalid note.
I see we can agree on this.
Therefore, closing. |
| 470359 (iD) | 1 | 2015-11-18 03:26 | opened | nevilcheung | 凱昇藝術中心 |
| 2 | 2015-11-18 03:26 | closed | nevilcheung | |
| 3 | 2015-11-18 03:26 | reopened | nevilcheung | |
| 4 | 2025-03-28 07:59 | commented | vectorial8192 | Correct |
| 5 | 2025-03-29 16:57 | commented | vectorial8192 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3841741635 , but it seems we don't have a tag for "arts school"...? |
| 6 | 2025-07-07 04:15 | closed | roylo5112 | |
| 7 | 2025-09-05 13:46 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 8 | 2025-09-05 13:46 | commented | kingkingHK | Perhaps `education=art_school`? |
| 9 | 2025-09-11 14:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | I am half split between "yes let's do it" and "but it also targets school kids". |
| 10 | 2025-09-11 14:15 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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. |
| 11 | 2025-09-17 04:25 | commented | kingkingHK | Then, perhaps `amenity=prep_school` + `school=art`? |
| 12 | 2025-09-17 08:01 | commented | Kovoschiz | `=prep_school` is preparing for exams. This is `=training` |
| 13 | 2025-09-17 10:22 | commented | vectorial8192 | Agree 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 |
| 14 | 2025-09-17 19:13 | commented | Kovoschiz | It's both `amenity=` + `education` |
| 15 | 2025-10-14 07:15 | commented | kingkingHK | So, `amenity=training` + `education=training` + `training=art`? |
| 16 | 2025-12-20 10:23 | commented | vectorial8192 | Technically, `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. |
| 17 | 2025-12-20 13:46 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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
|
| 18 | 2025-12-26 04:01 | commented | vectorial8192 | Good precedent; we can type this in later. |
| 19 | 2026-02-01 09:53 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177956622 ; closing. |
| 2414889 (iD) | 1 | 2020-11-08 13:33 | opened | CvgUser | 強記士多 |
| 2 | 2020-11-08 13:51 | closed | CvgUser | 強記士多 |
| 3 | 2021-01-10 20:38 | reopened | Kovoschiz | |
| 4 | 2024-09-20 07:50 | closed | Cypp0847 | Added, but seemingly closed, pls confirm |
| 5 | 2026-02-01 06:58 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 6 | 2026-02-01 06:59 | commented | kingkingHK | ...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) | 1 | 2026-02-01 06:51 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1002255941 etc descriptive name |
| 5149136 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-31 08:32 | opened | | Please 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 |
| 2 | 2026-01-31 18:27 | closed | Kovoschiz | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/170061955/history/4 |
| 5149137 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-31 08:33 | opened | | Please 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
|
| 2 | 2026-01-31 17:15 | closed | Kovoschiz | Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5149136 |
| 5141255 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-24 13:57 | opened | vectorial8192 | Unstable speed limits at this junction; ? |
| 2 | 2026-01-24 14:26 | commented | kingkingHK | What'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 |
| 3 | 2026-01-24 17:15 | commented | vectorial8192 | See 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. |
| 4 | 2026-01-25 03:11 | commented | kingkingHK | 1. 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. |
| 5 | 2026-01-29 18:06 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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". |
| 6 | 2026-01-30 02:50 | commented | kingkingHK | Please 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 |
| 7 | 2026-01-30 05:32 | commented | vectorial8192 | Images 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. |
| 8 | 2026-01-30 09:44 | commented | kingkingHK | Speed 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? |
| 9 | 2026-01-30 13:14 | commented | vectorial8192 | OK, 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. |
| 10 | 2026-01-30 14:59 | closed | vectorial8192 | Thanks for the help in finding out effective sources.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177893973 ; closing. |
| 4852037 (iD) | 1 | 2025-07-12 19:07 | opened | vectorial8192 | "Hung Shui Kiu" is only a tentative name, as per usual railway development practice. |
| 2 | 2025-12-14 12:16 | commented | kingkingHK | Excuse 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. |
| 3 | 2025-12-15 04:29 | commented | vectorial8192 | Basically, 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... |
| 4 | 2025-12-15 04:30 | commented | vectorial8192 | However, 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". |
| 5 | 2026-01-30 14:50 | closed | vectorial8192 | Discord 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. |
| 5128919 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:13 | opened | | 洗衣博士順新洗衣 No 34, G/F, Mei Lam Shopping Centre, Tai Wai, Shatin |
| 2 | 2026-01-20 04:50 | commented | vectorial8192 | See https://www.linkhk.com/tc/shop/21804 |
| 3 | 2026-01-29 06:06 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed, feature exists IRL. |
| 4 | 2026-01-29 14:08 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177849787 ; closing. |
| 5078240 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-04 05:21 | opened | vectorial8192 | Name of "house" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993221815 is very suspicious |
| 2 | 2026-01-29 12:54 | commented | vectorial8192 | From satellite imagery, very likely a descriptive name + tag misuse. Squatter area should be tagged as some residential area, not as a building. |
| 3 | 2026-01-29 12:56 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177846501 ; closing. |
| 5128923 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:14 | opened | | 哆啦洗衣 大圍積福街2-4號積福樓地下E號舖 |
| 2 | 2026-01-20 04:49 | commented | vectorial8192 | See 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 |
| 3 | 2026-01-28 15:08 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177809549 ; closing. |
| 5128924 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:15 | opened | | 清新洗衣大圍 大圍積富街富軒 |
| 2 | 2026-01-23 19:28 | commented | vectorial8192 | Might be this https://www.facebook.com/p/%E6%B8%85%E6%96%B0%E6%B4%97%E8%A1%A3-61573057642070/ but go walk it. |
| 3 | 2026-01-28 14:23 | closed | vectorial8192 | Indeed.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177807873 ; closing. |
| 5128538 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 03:30 | opened | kingkingHK | Are 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. |
| 2 | 2026-01-14 07:43 | commented | Kovoschiz | You can refer to the surroundings. Most if not all non-T2 `=construction` seems should be `proposed:highway=` actually. |
| 3 | 2026-01-28 13:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | All three roads are changed to be "highway=proposed" with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177805982 ; close? |
| 4 | 2026-01-28 14:15 | closed | kingkingHK | Yeah, was gonna do it myself but you did it first, thanks. Closing. |
| 5128926 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:15 | opened | | 金海洋洗衣店
大圍海福商場26號鋪 |
| 2 | 2026-01-28 14:07 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177807200 ; closing. |
| 5145054 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-27 17:51 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
North Lantau Highway (westbound) probably should have 110 kmh speed limit. |
| 2 | 2026-01-28 02:05 | closed | kingkingHK | It's a medium-term temporary reduction due to nearby construction works. See Government Notice 2025/8264. |
| 5144341 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-27 06:34 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2935577631
pretty sure should be gone. |
| 2 | 2026-01-27 18:04 | closed | vectorial8192 | TIL the HD is not the same as the HA.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177774359 ; closing. |
| 5141133 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-24 11:55 | opened | vectorial8192 | www.openstreetmap.org/way/446333287
First time in my life hearing about 60kmh speed limit; ? |
| 2 | 2026-01-24 12:07 | commented | kingkingHK | Probably simply typo? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104194774 |
| 3 | 2026-01-27 15:22 | commented | vectorial8192 | Anyway, survey does confirm "50kmh". |
| 4 | 2026-01-27 15:23 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177767921 ; closing. |
| 5141828 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-25 04:18 | opened | kingkingHK | https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19120076 I think this has been completed? https://www.legco.gov.hk/tc/open-legco/press/yr2025/pr20251002-1.html |
| 2 | 2026-01-27 09:47 | closed | Cypp0847 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177755230 |
| 5095569 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-18 02:55 | opened | kingkingHK | Has 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. |
| 2 | 2025-12-18 09:55 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed construction finished. |
| 3 | 2026-01-27 04:23 | closed | Cypp0847 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177746856 |
| 5141143 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-24 12:13 | opened | kingkingHK | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/947230526 I don't think this is really `maxspeed=60`. |
| 2 | 2026-01-26 11:29 | commented | vectorial8192 | Turns out it's still 50 kmh. |
| 3 | 2026-01-26 11:31 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177716084 ; closing. |
| 5140535 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-23 17:29 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo/question:
should this section of road get noname=yes or should they receive "Discovery Bay Tunnel" by scope extension? |
| 2 | 2026-01-25 12:19 | commented | vectorial8192 | See 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. |
| 3 | 2026-01-26 10:47 | commented | vectorial8192 | Upon 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". |
| 4 | 2026-01-26 10:59 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177715053 ; closing. |
| 5128920 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:14 | opened | | 潔麗乾洗有限公司 |
| 2 | 2026-01-20 04:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | We have https://www.kleaners.hk/ , but it doesn't say anything about possible outlets. |
| 3 | 2026-01-26 10:43 | closed | vectorial8192 | Upon survey, no such thing here.
Closing. |
| 5139637 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-23 02:57 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
review toll info |
| 2 | 2026-01-23 17:31 | commented | vectorial8192 | specifically, 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)? |
| 3 | 2026-01-25 03:28 | commented | kingkingHK | Imo 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. |
| 4 | 2026-01-25 03:29 | commented | kingkingHK | highly restrictive* sorry for the typo |
| 5 | 2026-01-25 13:36 | commented | vectorial8192 | This is a good point. Let's keep it toll=yes |
| 6 | 2026-01-26 10:42 | closed | vectorial8192 | Then, nothing to do here. Closing. |
| 5141260 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-24 14:01 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
junction review |
| 2 | 2026-01-25 09:04 | commented | vectorial8192 | Scope 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. |
| 3 | 2026-01-25 14:43 | commented | vectorial8192 | Bus relations cleaned up with openstreetmap.org/changeset/177684530 |
| 4 | 2026-01-25 15:32 | closed | vectorial8192 | Residue cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177686818
All done; closing. |
| 5034400 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:37 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2025-11-09 11:11 | closed | Zuborg2012 | |
| 3 | 2025-11-09 11:57 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-01-25 14:03 | commented | kingkingHK | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. |
| 5105251 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-26 07:14 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
use motorway_link for multi-exit end-of-line junctions (e.g. see Western Harbour Crossing). |
| 2 | 2025-12-27 10:59 | commented | vectorial8192 | It 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 ) |
| 3 | 2025-12-27 12:34 | commented | Kovoschiz | This 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 |
| 4 | 2025-12-27 12:38 | commented | Kovoschiz | (There's even Rt 3 end on both directions) |
| 5 | 2025-12-27 12:44 | commented | vectorial8192 | Counterpoint:
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". |
| 6 | 2025-12-27 12:45 | commented | Kovoschiz | Northern 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. |
| 7 | 2025-12-28 05:17 | commented | vectorial8192 | If we are willing to break the "one road physical cross-section -> one OSM way" rule, then the solution becomes trivial. |
| 8 | 2025-12-28 05:30 | commented | vectorial8192 | Another 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". |
| 9 | 2025-12-28 18:39 | commented | Kovoschiz | 1. That's unacceptable
2. I don't see what's the relevance here. There's no Rt 3 and 6 concurrency. |
| 10 | 2026-01-02 22:00 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 11 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 12 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 13 | 2026-01-25 10:19 | closed | vectorial8192 | I 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) | 1 | 2025-12-16 10:45 | opened | vectorial8192 | Various "dots" exist in this area with nothing but "name=Yau Ma Tei Interchange"; what for? |
| 2 | 2025-12-17 11:05 | commented | Kovoschiz | Seems 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... |
| 3 | 2025-12-21 12:09 | commented | vectorial8192 | What I mean is, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2861669105 this is just a named "dot". The meaning is unclear. |
| 4 | 2026-01-02 22:00 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 5 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 6 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 7 | 2026-01-25 10:10 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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. |
| 8 | 2026-01-25 10:12 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177674914 ; closing. |
| 5132153 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-17 03:13 | opened | kingkingHK | I vaguely remember https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341043773 does not exist anymore. |
| 2 | 2026-01-17 08:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | Old imagery (Bing Maps) and new imagery (ESRI World) both say "no crossings here". |
| 3 | 2026-01-17 09:33 | commented | kingkingHK | Iirc 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. |
| 4 | 2026-01-17 09:39 | commented | vectorial8192 | "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. |
| 5 | 2026-01-17 10:49 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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` + `... |
| 6 | 2026-01-17 12:15 | commented | Kovoschiz | No 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. |
| 7 | 2026-01-17 12:17 | commented | Kovoschiz | At least that's my understanding. You must detour via the upstream intersection, or go C-shaped around the intersection. |
| 8 | 2026-01-17 12:46 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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... |
| 9 | 2026-01-25 09:19 | commented | vectorial8192 | I 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... |
| 10 | 2026-01-25 09:26 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177673697 ; closing. |
| 5141115 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-24 11:38 | opened | vectorial8192 | This https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/394542126 does not seem like should be primary_link . |
| 2 | 2026-01-24 11:58 | commented | kingkingHK | Probably simply forgotten to change after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157459541 |
| 3 | 2026-01-25 07:36 | closed | vectorial8192 | Believable.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177671084 ; closing. |
| 5139696 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-23 06:36 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
Confucian religion landuse? We build a new temple here? What even is this? |
| 2 | 2026-01-24 19:18 | commented | vectorial8192 | Apparently, 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 |
| 3 | 2026-01-25 07:33 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177671030 ; closing. |
| 3654302 (iD) | 1 | 2023-04-22 12:36 | opened | | Number of storeys: 22
Units per floor: 10
Population: 589 |
| 2 | 2024-03-11 15:44 | commented | vectorial8192 | Number 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? |
| 3 | 2024-03-12 08:09 | commented | Kovoschiz | What 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. |
| 4 | 2025-01-16 18:26 | closed | hersonsl | |
| 5 | 2025-01-17 02:41 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 6 | 2025-09-24 09:47 | commented | kingkingHK | Will 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. |
| 7 | 2025-09-24 14:14 | commented | vectorial8192 | imo 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. |
| 8 | 2025-09-25 11:03 | commented | HenryEK | why is this note still active |
| 9 | 2026-01-25 04:03 | commented | kingkingHK | `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) | 1 | 2024-02-15 07:54 | opened | | Landslide |
| 2 | 2025-12-31 07:11 | commented | vectorial8192 | It 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. |
| 3 | 2025-12-31 07:53 | commented | kingkingHK | But 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. |
| 4 | 2025-12-31 11:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | Aerial 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. |
| 5 | 2025-12-31 11:35 | commented | vectorial8192 | It 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. |
| 6 | 2025-12-31 11:47 | commented | vectorial8192 | I am satisfied with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176668318 ; may close this. |
| 7 | 2025-12-31 11:54 | commented | kingkingHK | If 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... |
| 8 | 2026-01-01 04:00 | commented | vectorial8192 | It 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. |
| 9 | 2026-01-01 14:14 | commented | kingkingHK | Anyhow, `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`? |
| 10 | 2026-01-02 03:05 | commented | vectorial8192 | The 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. |
| 11 | 2026-01-02 12:59 | commented | kingkingHK | I 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... |
| 12 | 2026-01-03 07:23 | commented | vectorial8192 | How 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... |
| 13 | 2026-01-25 03:38 | commented | kingkingHK | Imo 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... |
| 5126001 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-12 05:31 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
now that reclamation is (probably) mostly complete/stabilized, review/partition into greenfields |
| 2 | 2026-01-12 07:48 | commented | Kovoschiz | There's nothing to be partitioned. Already done inside. TCE can be discussed as a `boundary=administrative` depending on definition. |
| 3 | 2026-01-12 15:25 | commented | vectorial8192 | TCE feels like some sort of "urban block", but afaik no such urban block specification for HK OSM. |
| 4 | 2026-01-13 06:57 | commented | Kovoschiz | Why 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. |
| 5 | 2026-01-16 14:53 | commented | vectorial8192 | Anyway, 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 |
| 6 | 2026-01-18 11:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | The 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. |
| 7 | 2026-01-24 16:33 | closed | vectorial8192 | Should be good now. Closing. |
| 5108020 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-28 10:24 | opened | vectorial8192 | todoL
I think MilMill is located here? |
| 2 | 2026-01-08 06:39 | commented | kingkingHK | Seems like it is; while there are no names signposted, there is a "39 Ng Chow South Road" sign, same with MilMill's website. |
| 3 | 2026-01-24 15:13 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177650137 ; closing. |
| 5133341 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-18 04:45 | opened | kingkingHK | Todo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177303927 |
| 2 | 2026-01-24 11:33 | commented | vectorial8192 | Bus relation cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177642107 |
| 3 | 2026-01-24 11:34 | closed | vectorial8192 | Residue stuff cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177642161
Therefore, resolved, and closing. |
| 5105750 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-26 14:28 | opened | kingkingHK | Most 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. |
| 2 | 2025-12-27 07:32 | commented | Kovoschiz | That 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 ... |
| 3 | 2026-01-24 08:43 | commented | vectorial8192 | So, ultimately, is this a "todo" note or is this a "it do be like this" note? |
| 4 | 2026-01-24 08:57 | commented | kingkingHK | Todo. My plan is to change all `building:part=` towers in Hong Kong to `building=`, then close this note. |
| 5140972 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-24 08:44 | opened | | 4 |
| 2 | 2026-01-24 08:56 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5140971 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-24 08:43 | opened | | 3 |
| 2 | 2026-01-24 08:56 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5034357 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:19 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-01-24 08:42 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177637595 ; closing. |
| 5036161 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-03 12:52 | opened | kingkingHK | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-01-24 08:08 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177636835 ; closing. |
| 5027512 (iD) | 1 | 2025-10-29 03:25 | opened | klorydryk | "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 |
| 2 | 2025-12-03 11:47 | commented | vectorial8192 | Does this mean, there is no perimeter foot path? |
| 3 | 2025-12-03 23:19 | commented | klorydryk | Yes if is what I mean |
| 4 | 2026-01-22 09:17 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177555528 ; closing. |
| 5 | 2026-01-23 17:08 | reopened | Kovoschiz | |
| 6 | 2026-01-23 17:09 | commented | Kovoschiz | This is unclear. It may be `trail_visibility=no` / `obstacle=vegetation` / `disused=yes` / `abandoned:highway=` |
| 7 | 2026-01-23 17:14 | commented | Kovoschiz | As in the connection https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1002239786/ |
| 5139307 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-22 18:51 | opened | | Hong Kong |
| 2 | 2026-01-23 06:57 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5036242 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-03 13:46 | opened | kingkingHK | Now 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? |
| 2 | 2025-11-03 15:11 | commented | vectorial8192 | It being KMB they probably won't even care about that. |
| 3 | 2025-11-03 15:19 | commented | vectorial8192 | Also, 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. |
| 4 | 2026-01-22 13:45 | closed | kingkingHK | No change; closing |
| 5115416 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-03 10:30 | opened | vectorial8192 | node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1704464465 ; see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5101540 |
| 2 | 2026-01-22 11:08 | closed | vectorial8192 | By survey, it's still closed.
Closing. |
| 5080639 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-06 08:06 | opened | vectorial8192 | What is the name of this park https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1346575800 ? |
| 2 | 2026-01-22 10:51 | closed | vectorial8192 | Turns out it has no name. Fun times.
Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177558946 ; closing. |
| 5034389 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:33 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-01-02 22:01 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 02:41 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 02:41 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve!
|
| 5 | 2026-01-22 10:47 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177558823 ; closing. |
| 5129818 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-15 05:17 | opened | kingkingHK | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2247720552 should probably be deleted |
| 2 | 2026-01-19 08:56 | commented | Cypp0847 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177413789 wikidata relocated |
| 3 | 2026-01-22 05:08 | commented | vectorial8192 | "Skylineblick" doesn't refer to any feature in Hong Kong, and is also a German descriptive name. Node can be deleted. |
| 4 | 2026-01-22 05:09 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177548991 ; closing. |
| 5137708 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-21 12:46 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: station is too small, and does not match track position. |
| 2 | 2026-01-21 15:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | The 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. |
| 3 | 2026-01-22 02:31 | commented | kingkingHK | However, 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) | 1 | 2026-01-21 09:26 | opened | | 4 |
| 2 | 2026-01-21 12:44 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5137453 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-21 09:15 | opened | | 2 |
| 2 | 2026-01-21 12:44 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5137443 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-21 08:57 | opened | | 1 |
| 2 | 2026-01-21 12:44 | closed | kingkingHK | Note is not helpful; closing. |
| 5134801 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-19 06:13 | opened | kingkingHK | todo: Yau Tong Road ugly curves |
| 2 | 2026-01-20 16:24 | commented | vectorial8192 | Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177483693 ; would that be OK? |
| 3 | 2026-01-21 12:44 | closed | kingkingHK | Looks good, thanks. Closing. |
| 5137464 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-21 09:24 | opened | | 3 |
| 2 | 2026-01-21 12:40 | closed | vectorial8192 | Yes, this is Route 3.
Closing. |
| 5087538 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-11 17:08 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
Some clinics have generic names, which may be improved. |
| 2 | 2026-01-02 22:00 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve! |
| 5 | 2026-01-21 12:13 | closed | KX675 | Just 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) | 1 | 2026-01-21 08:07 | opened | | Florist |
| 5034390 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:34 | opened | vectorial8192 | Is this a Family Medicine Clinic? |
| 2 | 2026-01-02 22:01 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 02:41 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 02:41 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve!
|
| 5 | 2026-01-20 15:10 | commented | vectorial8192 | This looks like an amalgamation of two facilities. |
| 6 | 2026-01-20 15:22 | commented | vectorial8192 | It turns out this is not a FMC, but more like an "outlet hospital". |
| 7 | 2026-01-20 15:30 | closed | vectorial8192 | Nonetheless, resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177481541 ; closing. |
| 5134731 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-19 04:09 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
review/calibrate this |
| 2 | 2026-01-20 11:37 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177471698 ; closing. |
| 5101540 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-22 16:51 | opened | vectorial8192 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6395436890
troll-tagging; is it a barrier or not? |
| 2 | 2025-12-22 16:52 | commented | vectorial8192 | While we are at it, also check https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1704464465 |
| 3 | 2026-01-20 05:03 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176295649 ; closing. |
| 5128922 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:14 | opened | | 白馬乾濕洗衣店 大圍村第一街1D地下 |
| 2 | 2026-01-20 04:48 | closed | vectorial8192 | Not here; closing. |
| 5099138 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-20 19:02 | opened | vectorial8192 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39550532 , etc., ? |
| 2 | 2026-01-02 22:01 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve!
|
| 5 | 2026-01-19 02:47 | commented | kingkingHK | It 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. |
| 6 | 2026-01-19 03:36 | commented | vectorial8192 | To 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. |
| 7 | 2026-01-19 19:45 | commented | Kovoschiz | Updated (had already marked what they are supposed to be) |
| 8 | 2026-01-19 19:46 | closed | Kovoschiz | |
| 5109879 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-29 15:09 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
now, what has happened to this school? |
| 2 | 2025-12-29 15:09 | commented | vectorial8192 | it would seem they have moved elsewhere, but where to? |
| 3 | 2025-12-30 02:32 | commented | kingkingHK | According to https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202512/20/P2025122000245.htm , here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/191713473 . |
| 4 | 2026-01-18 17:04 | commented | vectorial8192 | Part 1: set up the new place as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177382819 |
| 5 | 2026-01-19 15:28 | commented | vectorial8192 | Part 2: disuse the old place as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177434989 |
| 6 | 2026-01-19 15:31 | closed | vectorial8192 | All done; closing. |
| 5109341 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-29 08:31 | opened | kingkingHK | This section of Central Kowloon Route has been completed. Then, what is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/895849386 for? |
| 2 | 2025-12-29 15:32 | commented | vectorial8192 | Probably indeterminate/limbo; afaik later give to Metro Park.
Can defer as "haven't done that yet". |
| 3 | 2026-01-17 12:11 | commented | kingkingHK | It'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. |
| 4 | 2026-01-18 13:36 | commented | vectorial8192 | How to say it, afaik the government isn't fully sure whether there will be a Metro Park. The plans related to that kept changing. |
| 5 | 2026-01-18 13:46 | commented | kingkingHK | I think `landuse=brownfield` can be used for undetermined landuse? |
| 6 | 2026-01-18 14:37 | commented | vectorial8192 | Yes, we may do landuse=brownfield here. |
| 5080646 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-06 08:16 | opened | kingkingHK | Is Lantau Link Visitors Centre (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12271148) really a `highway=rest_area`? |
| 2 | 2025-12-10 10:50 | commented | vectorial8192 | Hong Kong does not have rest areas. At most this is a park. |
| 3 | 2025-12-13 14:15 | commented | kingkingHK | But 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? |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 06:00 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 5 | 2026-01-03 06:04 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 6 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 7 | 2026-01-18 13:13 | commented | vectorial8192 | Not 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... |
| 8 | 2026-01-18 13:39 | closed | kingkingHK | After 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) | 1 | 2026-01-18 11:22 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
Area 122 to be transferred to HKHS for construction |
| 2 | 2026-01-18 11:50 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177370060 ; closing. |
| 5125630 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-11 17:45 | opened | vectorial8192 | todo:
bad railway curves |
| 2 | 2026-01-12 07:01 | commented | kingkingHK | While 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). |
| 3 | 2026-01-12 08:41 | commented | vectorial8192 | Correct. We can beautify/smoothen the railway curves. |
| 4 | 2026-01-12 14:23 | commented | vectorial8192 | To clarify, I was surprised there could be an update to rail curves here. The previous version seem reasonable enough to not need refining. |
| 5 | 2026-01-17 09:17 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177327642 ; closing. |
| 5034387 (iD) | 1 | 2025-11-02 14:33 | opened | vectorial8192 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | 2026-01-02 22:01 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 3 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | reopened | kingkingHK | |
| 4 | 2026-01-03 02:40 | commented | kingkingHK | Not done yet; please don't resolve!
|
| 5 | 2026-01-06 11:15 | commented | vectorial8192 | /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. |
| 6 | 2026-01-17 08:41 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177326598 ; closing. |
| 5132152 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-17 03:11 | opened | kingkingHK | Todo: add residential entrances, more indoor footways, indoor details, etc.
(continuing from https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5104381) |
| 4958371 (iD) | 1 | 2025-09-12 11:02 | opened | vectorial8192 | Quarry Bay station, Exits B1, B2, and B3 are original research. |
| 2 | 2025-09-12 11:07 | commented | vectorial8192 | *also exit B4 |
| 3 | 2025-09-12 11:20 | commented | vectorial8192 | These 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 ... |
| 4 | 2025-09-12 12:04 | commented | vectorial8192 | Detected faulty changeset as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/16819169 . |
| 5 | 2025-09-24 12:14 | commented | kingkingHK | From Discord discussion, it seems like this note is a false positive? If so, perhaps we can close it. |
| 6 | 2025-09-24 13:53 | commented | vectorial8192 | The next step is to check/confirm the railway protection details, and I haven't done that yet. |
| 7 | 2025-09-30 12:58 | commented | vectorial8192 | So, 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? |
| 8 | 2025-09-30 13:42 | commented | kingkingHK | Imo 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. |
| 9 | 2025-11-26 06:36 | commented | kingkingHK | Also, `old_ref` can be considered if you really want to keep the B1-B4. |
| 10 | 2025-12-14 12:28 | commented | kingkingHK | Would there be any disagreements if I make all of them `ref=B`, change the `=B1` to `=B4` to `old_ref=`, and close this note? |
| 11 | 2025-12-15 04:25 | commented | vectorial8192 | I don't know the details, but it seems there can only be 1x `ref=B` as specified by the OSM schema. |
| 12 | 2025-12-15 09:55 | commented | Kovoschiz | It should be acceptable to have multiple `ref=B` |
| 13 | 2026-01-03 05:58 | closed | bpaz709394 | |
| 14 | 2026-01-03 06:04 | reopened | vectorial8192 | |
| 15 | 2026-01-03 09:33 | commented | kmpoppe | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. |
| 16 | 2026-01-16 15:48 | commented | vectorial8192 | Upon 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. |
| 17 | 2026-01-16 16:31 | closed | vectorial8192 | Finally resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177305619 ; closing.
Once again, I apologize for the false allegations stemming from confusion. |
| 5125024 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-11 08:18 | opened | awhchk | Please split the crossing on Ko Ling Road into two sides (separated by traffic island) |
| 2 | 2026-01-16 15:43 | closed | vectorial8192 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177303927 ; closing. |
| 5104381 (iD) | 1 | 2025-12-25 10:01 | opened | 1F616EMO | Entrance to Kwai Lam Court and the mall here at surface level |
| 2 | 2025-12-29 09:18 | commented | vectorial8192 | We don't usually do entrances into individual (residential) buildings, but we can do entrances to the mall. |
| 3 | 2025-12-29 13:57 | commented | kingkingHK | The 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. |
| 4 | 2025-12-29 15:49 | commented | vectorial8192 | While we are at it, some indoor paths in this area are mapped as "indoor corridors" so OSMCarto doesn't render them. |
| 5 | 2025-12-29 18:45 | commented | Kovoschiz | It's not "don't usually do", but "usually not done yet" |
| 6 | 2026-01-16 15:28 | closed | vectorial8192 | This 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. |
| 5128917 (iD) | 1 | 2026-01-14 12:12 | opened | | 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 |